5 ms·

It should be illegal to have quotas for gender and ethnicity. Otherwise we make the opposite of "i don't care what you are, but who you are", every woman in a

by nix23 5y ago

It should be illegal to have quotas for gender and ethnicity. Otherwise we make the opposite of "i don't care what you are, but who you are", every woman in a high position would be looked at as the "quota-thing" etc. It would be terrible for those persons who really achieved that position by themself s (and not by quota).

eesmith 5y ago
The Catholic priesthood has a 100% quota for men. You want to make that illegal, right? There's no need to pinpoint women in high position now. Historically there was a strong bias to choose men instead of equally qualified women. You should look at (eg) every male doctor hired in the 1950s and 1960s as not really achieving that position through their own merit. Your ire extends, I presume, towards legacy preference at colleges. Those students should certainly be seen as a "quota-thing", not achieving that position by themselves. Jo Freeman's classic essay "The Tyranny of Stuctureless" points out that when there is no formal structure, informal structures arise, masking the power of elites. If there are informal quotas - eg, systemic cultural biases [1] - then a solution may be to switch to formal quotas. [1] The stereotype of a scientist is 'white males wearing lab coats, eyeglasses, with facial hair, and an eccentric appearance'. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2019/6324704/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2019/6324704/ Someone who fits the stereotype is more likely to be seen as and accepted as a scientist, and not have to deal with comments like "you can't be a scientist - you're too pretty!"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nix23 5y ago
  > The Catholic priesthood has a 100% quota for men. You want to make that illegal, right? If i think about an open society, the catholic church is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Also there is no Government who FORCES them to have just men. If you have a Man-Cave(Church) where "no woman's" have access, that's absolutely your right...crazy but your decision. NOT okay is, that the Government forces you to have a quota, and btw it's always one-sided, more Woman's in Management for example, but no Quota for Men's in...lets say gender study's. >>To my sibling: It's not Rome but the Vatican, the Vatican IS the Church, and please stop comparing a free and open society with that crazy construct called "Roman Catholic Church", where raping children's are called a "trade secret" and "a internal affair". >>>>To the other sibling: Now you see the problem when the state try's to implement artificial quotas for something that should not be regulated on the basis of gender or ethnicity. >The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving. Yes absolutely, since it's racist and bigoted, how should the quote for whites be for the "Royal Society Africa Prize"?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Also there is no Government who FORCES them to have just men. The entity that forces the various particular Churches in communion with Rome to have just men in the priesthood is also the paramount authority of a state, so in a very real sense there is a government that forces them to do that.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    What do you actually mean by "It should be illegal to have quotas for gender"? The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving. But you're okay letting an organization like the Catholic Church have a quota system? I can't figure out what your proposed law would be. > btw it's always one-sided No, it isn't. "Is it time for male quotas in the health sciences?" - https://kifinfo.no/en/2016/05/it-time-male-quotas-health-sciences https://kifinfo.no/en/2016/05/it-time-male-quotas-health-sci... "Despite quotas, gender stereotypes are still preventing men from becoming nurses" - https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/16/despite-quotas-gender-stereotypes-are-still-preventing-men-from-becoming-nurses https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/16/despite-quotas... "The percentage of male primary school teachers in Australia has decreased ... Education authorities have responded to this with recruitment-focused initiatives, such as scholarships and quota systems." - https://theconversation.com/primary-schools-are-losing-more-and-more-male-teachers-so-how-can-we-retain-them-82017 https://theconversation.com/primary-schools-are-losing-more-...
etripe 5y ago
Here in Belgium, quotas were introduced in politics in eighties IIRC. According to prominent women at the time and now, that was the reason we are closer to parity in politics nowadays. Their line of reasoning, obviously from a feminist perspective, is that the quotas ensured that not all women could be excluded and enough of them made it through to positions that mattered in a sexist apparatus. Survivor's bias will of course confirm that this is the reason they made it. After the fact, up and coming women could see examples/representation in the women that made it in, which I do believe helps. I have lived and worked in a foreign country. When I got my first job there, my new boss joked I'd gotten the job because of diversity quotas. I was horrified at the idea that my skills wouldn't matter but only my status of a being an non-native. So I can see where you're coming from with the "quota-thing". I am sceptical, like you. Quotas are inherently discriminatory, but I am open to the idea that if the entrenched elite is bigoted or biased too it might be the only way to break things open.
- avereveard 5y ago
  Well academy awards always had a female quota, and since inception not one female won overall best actor. Italy has had "Quote Rosa" since I can remember, and not one female prime minister. Conversely neither Tatcher nor Merkel were products of diversity quota.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >Tatcher nor Merkel were products of diversity quota. More like the product of massive competency in their field and absolutely no one can say otherwise (i am not talking if one likes them as politicians...that's something else) >> neither [...] were products Yes because of competency and not a quota, what's not to understand here?
    - avereveard 5y ago
      > neither [...] were products
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
OJFord 5y ago
The weird thing is that it sort of is, in countries (UK, US, EU) with a concept of 'protected characteristics' (however named) such as gender and ethnicity, which can't be discriminated on and used as the basis for hiring. So you can write up a report saying 'oh dear oh dear, only 20% women, 75% of new hires ought to be women so we start to even out' - but you can't actually effect that unless 75% of the ceteris paribus good hires happen to be women, you can't say (or think) 'oh good, a female interviewee, we need some more', you can't hire her in preference to a male peer (nor vice versa of course) on that basis or partially on that basis. Of course it happens, 'nobody gets fired for' making diversifying hires, but that's why I say it's weird. If you really follow the letter of the law I think there's nothing for it but to effect change at the beginning of the 'pipeline' (or wherever it's going wrong) - and have a strong (correct?) conviction that an equal outcome is the right/natural/desired-by-themselves outcome. Then if your diversity report differs (statistically significantly) from 50% anywhere, you know there's (illegal) discrimination going on in hiring. For now, you know that when it is 50%, or much different from the rate in the applicant pool, so it's really at odds with 'affirmative/positive action' IMO.

by nix23 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago

The Catholic priesthood has a 100% quota for men. You want to make that illegal, right? There's no need to pinpoint women in high position now. Historically there was a strong bias to choose men instead of equally qualified women. You should look at (eg) every male doctor hired in the 1950s and 1960s as not really achieving that position through their own merit. Your ire extends, I presume, towards legacy preference at colleges. Those students should certainly be seen as a "quota-thing", not achieving that position by themselves. Jo Freeman's classic essay "The Tyranny of Stuctureless" points out that when there is no formal structure, informal structures arise, masking the power of elites. If there are informal quotas - eg, systemic cultural biases [1] - then a solution may be to switch to formal quotas. [1] The stereotype of a scientist is 'white males wearing lab coats, eyeglasses, with facial hair, and an eccentric appearance'. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2019/6324704/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2019/6324704/ Someone who fits the stereotype is more likely to be seen as and accepted as a scientist, and not have to deal with comments like "you can't be a scientist - you're too pretty!"

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nix23 5y ago
> The Catholic priesthood has a 100% quota for men. You want to make that illegal, right? If i think about an open society, the catholic church is not the first thing that comes to my mind. Also there is no Government who FORCES them to have just men. If you have a Man-Cave(Church) where "no woman's" have access, that's absolutely your right...crazy but your decision. NOT okay is, that the Government forces you to have a quota, and btw it's always one-sided, more Woman's in Management for example, but no Quota for Men's in...lets say gender study's. >>To my sibling: It's not Rome but the Vatican, the Vatican IS the Church, and please stop comparing a free and open society with that crazy construct called "Roman Catholic Church", where raping children's are called a "trade secret" and "a internal affair". >>>>To the other sibling: Now you see the problem when the state try's to implement artificial quotas for something that should not be regulated on the basis of gender or ethnicity. >The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving. Yes absolutely, since it's racist and bigoted, how should the quote for whites be for the "Royal Society Africa Prize"?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Also there is no Government who FORCES them to have just men. The entity that forces the various particular Churches in communion with Rome to have just men in the priesthood is also the paramount authority of a state, so in a very real sense there is a government that forces them to do that.
- eesmith 5y ago
  What do you actually mean by "It should be illegal to have quotas for gender"? The Nobel Foundation is a private institution. Your comment sounded like you want it to be illegal for a private foundation to have quotas in prize giving. But you're okay letting an organization like the Catholic Church have a quota system? I can't figure out what your proposed law would be. > btw it's always one-sided No, it isn't. "Is it time for male quotas in the health sciences?" - https://kifinfo.no/en/2016/05/it-time-male-quotas-health-sciences https://kifinfo.no/en/2016/05/it-time-male-quotas-health-sci... "Despite quotas, gender stereotypes are still preventing men from becoming nurses" - https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/16/despite-quotas-gender-stereotypes-are-still-preventing-men-from-becoming-nurses https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/03/16/despite-quotas... "The percentage of male primary school teachers in Australia has decreased ... Education authorities have responded to this with recruitment-focused initiatives, such as scholarships and quota systems." - https://theconversation.com/primary-schools-are-losing-more-and-more-male-teachers-so-how-can-we-retain-them-82017 https://theconversation.com/primary-schools-are-losing-more-...

etripe 5y ago

Here in Belgium, quotas were introduced in politics in eighties IIRC. According to prominent women at the time and now, that was the reason we are closer to parity in politics nowadays. Their line of reasoning, obviously from a feminist perspective, is that the quotas ensured that not all women could be excluded and enough of them made it through to positions that mattered in a sexist apparatus. Survivor's bias will of course confirm that this is the reason they made it. After the fact, up and coming women could see examples/representation in the women that made it in, which I do believe helps. I have lived and worked in a foreign country. When I got my first job there, my new boss joked I'd gotten the job because of diversity quotas. I was horrified at the idea that my skills wouldn't matter but only my status of a being an non-native. So I can see where you're coming from with the "quota-thing". I am sceptical, like you. Quotas are inherently discriminatory, but I am open to the idea that if the entrenched elite is bigoted or biased too it might be the only way to break things open.

avereveard 5y ago
Well academy awards always had a female quota, and since inception not one female won overall best actor. Italy has had "Quote Rosa" since I can remember, and not one female prime minister. Conversely neither Tatcher nor Merkel were products of diversity quota.
- nix23 5y ago
  >Tatcher nor Merkel were products of diversity quota. More like the product of massive competency in their field and absolutely no one can say otherwise (i am not talking if one likes them as politicians...that's something else) >> neither [...] were products Yes because of competency and not a quota, what's not to understand here?
  - avereveard 5y ago
    > neither [...] were products
SiempreViernes 5y ago

OJFord 5y ago

The weird thing is that it sort of is, in countries (UK, US, EU) with a concept of 'protected characteristics' (however named) such as gender and ethnicity, which can't be discriminated on and used as the basis for hiring. So you can write up a report saying 'oh dear oh dear, only 20% women, 75% of new hires ought to be women so we start to even out' - but you can't actually effect that unless 75% of the ceteris paribus good hires happen to be women, you can't say (or think) 'oh good, a female interviewee, we need some more', you can't hire her in preference to a male peer (nor vice versa of course) on that basis or partially on that basis. Of course it happens, 'nobody gets fired for' making diversifying hires, but that's why I say it's weird. If you really follow the letter of the law I think there's nothing for it but to effect change at the beginning of the 'pipeline' (or wherever it's going wrong) - and have a strong (correct?) conviction that an equal outcome is the right/natural/desired-by-themselves outcome. Then if your diversity report differs (statistically significantly) from 50% anywhere, you know there's (illegal) discrimination going on in hiring. For now, you know that when it is 50%, or much different from the rate in the applicant pool, so it's really at odds with 'affirmative/positive action' IMO.