3 ms·

The way I see it, (1) is viewed through the lens of men and women as sexes. It aims to say that there's no meaningful difference if only the sex is different -

by orisho 5y ago

The way I see it, (1) is viewed through the lens of men and women as sexes. It aims to say that there's no meaningful difference if only the sex is different - a hypothetical man, every other trait remaining unchanged, who would have his sex changed to female, would not result in a meaningful difference in those characteristics. Therefore, sexism is unjustified. However, (2) seems to say that women, bring to the table a different set of experiences and knowledge than men. Their knowledge is significant since it represents, on some level, approximately half of society. Finally, because women are underrepresented in C level management, this set of experiences means that women have advice and knowledge that can meaningfully influence corporate decisions - that knowledge would be more difficult to come by for men. So they only appear contradictory when parsed at face value, but actually - at least to me - they seem to be referring to completely different subjects.

quacked 5y ago
You made them contradictory yourself- "... would not result in a meaningful difference. Therefore, sexism is unjustified." "... bring to the table a different set of experiences and knowledge than men". If women are indeed bringing differences to the table that could result in better corporate strategy (I have no reason to believe they're not), then there are meaningful differences between men and women, and predicting attitudes, knowledge, or experience based on sex (ie sexism) is justified. I don't believe mistreating or limiting women on the basis of sex; of the five most technically competent people I've worked with, three were women. The CEO of my very competitive company is a woman. What I chafe at is the continual, brazen advertisement of propaganda from people like the author of this article, who say in one breath there's no meaningful difference between the abilities of men and women and the history of treating men and women differently is stupid and unjustified, and then in the next that adding women gives a performance benefit to organizations because women can contribute more than the theoretical men they're replacing (who were unable to provide what the women would). It is self-inconsistent and I think dishonest.

by orisho 5y ago

quacked 5y ago

You made them contradictory yourself- "... would not result in a meaningful difference. Therefore, sexism is unjustified." "... bring to the table a different set of experiences and knowledge than men". If women are indeed bringing differences to the table that could result in better corporate strategy (I have no reason to believe they're not), then there are meaningful differences between men and women, and predicting attitudes, knowledge, or experience based on sex (ie sexism) is justified. I don't believe mistreating or limiting women on the basis of sex; of the five most technically competent people I've worked with, three were women. The CEO of my very competitive company is a woman. What I chafe at is the continual, brazen advertisement of propaganda from people like the author of this article, who say in one breath there's no meaningful difference between the abilities of men and women and the history of treating men and women differently is stupid and unjustified, and then in the next that adding women gives a performance benefit to organizations because women can contribute more than the theoretical men they're replacing (who were unable to provide what the women would). It is self-inconsistent and I think dishonest.