5 ms·

This quote within the article really drives the point home: "The goal of inclusion work is not "More black folk!" Or "More women!" The lack of black folk and w

This quote within the article really drives the point home: "The goal of inclusion work is not "More black folk!" Or "More women!" The lack of black folk and women is a symptom of the root cause: opportunity to succeed and thrive is not evenly distributed." I agree entirely with this statement, and I have seen it happen in both poor white and latino communities that I have lived in during the course of my life. There's a lot of intelligent and capable people out there who aren't going to get their foot in the door: they're never even going to know where the door is.

microcolonel 8y ago
Well, I'd argue that "the lack of ... women is a symptom of the root cause: opportunity to succeed ... is not evenly distributed" is jumping the gun. The author assumes that this outcome will change when "opportunity" is more "evenly distributed". If you look to cultures which are further along the trail of extending opportunities to women, but without the exact same types of ideological baggage, you'll generally find that there are fewer women in positions where the author would expect more. I figure the moral legwork is to be done only in terms of "opportunity", whereas the outcome should be trusted as long as the opportunity is equal; and it is clear that the outcome (in a univariate, or primitive multivariate analysis) is a bad indicator of the opportunity.
- DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
  Many of those who claim to want only equality of opportunity are also committed to a rather extreme “blank slate” theory of individual potential. For these people, the only acceptable proof of equality of opportunity is equality of outcome.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    From a statistical perspective, equality of outcome is a good indicator of inequality of opportunity.
- fromMars 8y ago
  I found this article to be an enlightening analysis of the "Gender Equality Paradox". https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir... In particular, “Broader economic factors appear to contribute to the higher participation of women in STEM in countries with low gender equality and the lower participation in gender-equal countries.” I agree that outcome as an indicator is not entirely reliable. Most likely many factors, including cultural, genetic, and economic, also play large roles in these outcomes. However, I think it is a reasonable policy to try and reduce differences in outcomes if a group has been historically denied opportunities, at least for some period of time.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > However, I think it is a reasonable policy to try and reduce differences in outcomes if a group has been historically denied opportunities, at least for some period of time. Honestly, at some point the corrupting effect of history (especially in sex discrimination, where the effect is not generational [everyone is the descendant of a woman]) is less severe than the corrupting effect of accepting discrimination today as some sort of "balance" to that perception of history. You could make a credible case that Gen Z (my generation, by a hair) North American girls have had considerably more encouragement and opportunity to enter TEM fields (the S is more evenly split) than the boys who grew up with them; so will we still discriminate in their favour when it comes to hiring? Well, to some companies it seems the answer is still no. That first company I worked at is still today pouring resources into a free training program only for women and girls.
    - fromMars 8y ago
      > Honestly, at some point the corrupting effect of history (especially in sex discrimination, where the effect is not generational [everyone is the descendant of a woman]) is less severe than the corrupting effect of accepting discrimination today as some sort of "balance" to that perception of history. Agree, which is why I stated that these policies should only last a limited time. The tough question is how long should these policies last. > You could make a credible case that Gen Z (my generation, by a hair) North American girls have had considerably more encouragement and opportunity to enter TEM fields (the S is more evenly split) than the boys who grew up with them; so will we still discriminate in their favour when it comes to hiring? I would not find such an argument credible. Clearly males are not being prevented from entering these fields as the ratios of males to females is still greatly skewed. So it would be far fetched to claim that the effect of these programs that encourage women to participate has denied a significant number of men to enter into these fields. I would be interested in some concrete facts on just how many of these programs even exist and the monetary expenditure of such programs. As someone from generation X, I know that no such programs existed at that time.

microcolonel 8y ago

Well, I'd argue that "the lack of ... women is a symptom of the root cause: opportunity to succeed ... is not evenly distributed" is jumping the gun. The author assumes that this outcome will change when "opportunity" is more "evenly distributed". If you look to cultures which are further along the trail of extending opportunities to women, but without the exact same types of ideological baggage, you'll generally find that there are fewer women in positions where the author would expect more. I figure the moral legwork is to be done only in terms of "opportunity", whereas the outcome should be trusted as long as the opportunity is equal; and it is clear that the outcome (in a univariate, or primitive multivariate analysis) is a bad indicator of the opportunity.

DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
Many of those who claim to want only equality of opportunity are also committed to a rather extreme “blank slate” theory of individual potential. For these people, the only acceptable proof of equality of opportunity is equality of outcome.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  From a statistical perspective, equality of outcome is a good indicator of inequality of opportunity.
fromMars 8y ago
I found this article to be an enlightening analysis of the "Gender Equality Paradox". https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/ https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir... In particular, “Broader economic factors appear to contribute to the higher participation of women in STEM in countries with low gender equality and the lower participation in gender-equal countries.” I agree that outcome as an indicator is not entirely reliable. Most likely many factors, including cultural, genetic, and economic, also play large roles in these outcomes. However, I think it is a reasonable policy to try and reduce differences in outcomes if a group has been historically denied opportunities, at least for some period of time.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > However, I think it is a reasonable policy to try and reduce differences in outcomes if a group has been historically denied opportunities, at least for some period of time. Honestly, at some point the corrupting effect of history (especially in sex discrimination, where the effect is not generational [everyone is the descendant of a woman]) is less severe than the corrupting effect of accepting discrimination today as some sort of "balance" to that perception of history. You could make a credible case that Gen Z (my generation, by a hair) North American girls have had considerably more encouragement and opportunity to enter TEM fields (the S is more evenly split) than the boys who grew up with them; so will we still discriminate in their favour when it comes to hiring? Well, to some companies it seems the answer is still no. That first company I worked at is still today pouring resources into a free training program only for women and girls.
  - fromMars 8y ago
    > Honestly, at some point the corrupting effect of history (especially in sex discrimination, where the effect is not generational [everyone is the descendant of a woman]) is less severe than the corrupting effect of accepting discrimination today as some sort of "balance" to that perception of history. Agree, which is why I stated that these policies should only last a limited time. The tough question is how long should these policies last. > You could make a credible case that Gen Z (my generation, by a hair) North American girls have had considerably more encouragement and opportunity to enter TEM fields (the S is more evenly split) than the boys who grew up with them; so will we still discriminate in their favour when it comes to hiring? I would not find such an argument credible. Clearly males are not being prevented from entering these fields as the ratios of males to females is still greatly skewed. So it would be far fetched to claim that the effect of these programs that encourage women to participate has denied a significant number of men to enter into these fields. I would be interested in some concrete facts on just how many of these programs even exist and the monetary expenditure of such programs. As someone from generation X, I know that no such programs existed at that time.