3 ms·
Seems like a pretty straightforward reason under equal protection. Unless someone successfully changes the definition of equal protection to only apply to some
by prepend 4y ago
Seems like a pretty straightforward reason under equal protection.
Unless someone successfully changes the definition of equal protection to only apply to some groups (ie forcing non-male) then it’s going to be stuck here for a while, I think.
So I think there will need to be some sort of push for a constitutional amendment. But I can’t imagine proponents actually arguing and convincing enough states to agree.
- DamnYuppie 4y ago
- vmception 4y agobasically at its core its about paths of upwards mobility, so people have agreed that women should be exploiting themselves for corporations as well. specifically now the more influential and lucrative roles in those corporations. this is why other trades with heavy sex imbalances are ignored. solve the core of additional paths to upwards mobility and all of these contrived abstractions dissipate. since of course, many men don't want to be exploiting themselves for corporations either but nobody will subsidize their life as there's no market of people willing to do that (well, the market of anyone willing to do that is men). if there was, the sex representation remaining within corporations would probably equalize itself - since the men would drop out - the distribution of choices that people are willing to take probably are close to evenly distributed across all sexes. one sex just lacks a choice therefore corralling them into the corporate sphere at all levels, while the other sex has mass dilution of representation in the corporate sphere due to their variety of choices (not suggesting any of those choices are structured perfectly, but there is dilution).
- hemreldop 4y ago