3 ms·

I don't understand why you're getting down voted for this comment. Isn't the goal equal opportunity? Providing artificial silo'd environments seems at odds to

I don't understand why you're getting down voted for this comment. Isn't the goal equal opportunity? Providing artificial silo'd environments seems at odds to the goal of an unbiased, fair workplace. But I guess I'll just get down voted too.

manfredo 8y ago
In much of silicon valley, the goal is equal outcomes not equal opportunity. Often times explicitly unequal opportunity is necessary to achieve equal outcomes.
- grondilu 8y ago
  Equal opportunity? How often do men get free programming lessons IRL?
krapp 8y ago
The premise here is that opportunity wasn't equal to begin with. To accept this premise, you have to also accept the premise that societal restrictions on the roles permitted to women, culturally imposed limits on womens' ability to gain power and authority (the "glass ceiling") and persistent beliefs about women being intellectually inferior to men in regards to certain fields, would lead to a status quo not of meritocracy or equality but prejudice against women in an otherwise 'unbiased' system. And so, to further the goal of equal opportunity, one must balance an already unbalanced set of scales. Not to do so is merely to accept its bias as the status quo.
- TheAdamAndChe 8y ago
  > Not to do so is merely to accept its bias as the status quo. This is a biased interpretation itself that assumes there is preexisting bias. It is true that the premise requires acceptance of the ideas you put forth above, but the issue is that many people don't believe those are enough of a factor anymore to justify discrimination. Imbalance does not always equate to unfairness.
canthonytucci 8y ago
I think the gist of things like this is - at the risk of using a silly gaming analogy for something really serious - a "catch up mechanic" to bring about more equal representation sooner than just being genuinely fair and waiting for things to even out. There are philosophical cases to be made that the wrong must be righted asap, or that this approach is an instance of two wrongs not making a right. For me, assuming good intentions, I choose other things to be upset about than people being selectively nice or helpful to others who are dealing with a problem. I can understand the concern that leaning too hard in to this kind of thing can get out of hand, so as with everything, probably best to do our research and decide case by case.

manfredo 8y ago

In much of silicon valley, the goal is equal outcomes not equal opportunity. Often times explicitly unequal opportunity is necessary to achieve equal outcomes.

grondilu 8y ago
Equal opportunity? How often do men get free programming lessons IRL?

krapp 8y ago

The premise here is that opportunity wasn't equal to begin with. To accept this premise, you have to also accept the premise that societal restrictions on the roles permitted to women, culturally imposed limits on womens' ability to gain power and authority (the "glass ceiling") and persistent beliefs about women being intellectually inferior to men in regards to certain fields, would lead to a status quo not of meritocracy or equality but prejudice against women in an otherwise 'unbiased' system. And so, to further the goal of equal opportunity, one must balance an already unbalanced set of scales. Not to do so is merely to accept its bias as the status quo.

TheAdamAndChe 8y ago
> Not to do so is merely to accept its bias as the status quo. This is a biased interpretation itself that assumes there is preexisting bias. It is true that the premise requires acceptance of the ideas you put forth above, but the issue is that many people don't believe those are enough of a factor anymore to justify discrimination. Imbalance does not always equate to unfairness.

canthonytucci 8y ago

I think the gist of things like this is - at the risk of using a silly gaming analogy for something really serious - a "catch up mechanic" to bring about more equal representation sooner than just being genuinely fair and waiting for things to even out. There are philosophical cases to be made that the wrong must be righted asap, or that this approach is an instance of two wrongs not making a right. For me, assuming good intentions, I choose other things to be upset about than people being selectively nice or helpful to others who are dealing with a problem. I can understand the concern that leaning too hard in to this kind of thing can get out of hand, so as with everything, probably best to do our research and decide case by case.