5 ms·

> Google, Ms. Emerson said, seemed to be advancing a “flawed and incomplete sense of equality” by making sure men and women receive the same salary This quote

> Google, Ms. Emerson said, seemed to be advancing a “flawed and incomplete sense of equality” by making sure men and women receive the same salary This quote would appear to sum up the entire debate, using the term generously. There is a large and vocal minority in society who abuse the word "equality" to mean "more money and power for women". They don't care about equality. They want inequality, but they know they can't say that, so they simply redefine equality to mean inequality in the Orwellian style and carry on as if the language hadn't just been horribly violated. Ms. Emerson should stop talking until she can say what she means, although given her job is 'diversity consulting' I'm going to guess she will never be able to say what she means.

joshuamorton 8y ago
The next line is very important: >That is not the same as addressing “equity,” she said, which would involve examining the structural hurdles that women face as engineers. Consider the following situation: Men get promoted faster than women for similar work. They're seen as more assertive or something. Managers, noting the systemic inequality, take individual action to compensate women fairly for their contributions, despite the failure of the larger system. The structural hurdle: that women find it more difficult to get promoted, is not addressed. And as a result, they end up paid less for similar work, despite attempts by ground level mangers to address the inequity. The HN guidelines suggest that you >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I think this should apply to articles posted as well.
- repolfx 8y ago
  But that's not what the word "equity" means either. Regardless, if she wants to define a word to mean "the structural hurdles that women face as engineers" specifically she should not criticise other people for using the word equality to mean equal treatment. She definitely has no right to claim those who disagree with her have a "flawed and incomplete" understanding of anything - she simply has no intellectual leg to stand on. Put differently, there is simply no plausible interpretation of what she's saying here that isn't a nasty attempt to manipulate the language.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    So you're saying that my clearly plausible interpretation of her words is a nasty attempt to manipulate language? What about "remember that there are structural issues that affect women" isn't fighting for equal treatment? I'd think that an argument to reduce the structural issues that unfairly impact women would be seen as a move towards equality, but apparently you disagree? And further think it's nasty?

joshuamorton 8y ago

The next line is very important: >That is not the same as addressing “equity,” she said, which would involve examining the structural hurdles that women face as engineers. Consider the following situation: Men get promoted faster than women for similar work. They're seen as more assertive or something. Managers, noting the systemic inequality, take individual action to compensate women fairly for their contributions, despite the failure of the larger system. The structural hurdle: that women find it more difficult to get promoted, is not addressed. And as a result, they end up paid less for similar work, despite attempts by ground level mangers to address the inequity. The HN guidelines suggest that you >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I think this should apply to articles posted as well.

repolfx 8y ago
But that's not what the word "equity" means either. Regardless, if she wants to define a word to mean "the structural hurdles that women face as engineers" specifically she should not criticise other people for using the word equality to mean equal treatment. She definitely has no right to claim those who disagree with her have a "flawed and incomplete" understanding of anything - she simply has no intellectual leg to stand on. Put differently, there is simply no plausible interpretation of what she's saying here that isn't a nasty attempt to manipulate the language.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  So you're saying that my clearly plausible interpretation of her words is a nasty attempt to manipulate language? What about "remember that there are structural issues that affect women" isn't fighting for equal treatment? I'd think that an argument to reduce the structural issues that unfairly impact women would be seen as a move towards equality, but apparently you disagree? And further think it's nasty?