4 ms·

I was trying to show by example that grandparent's definition of sexism is ridiculously expansive to the point of choking out all other dimensions of life. I c

I was trying to show by example that grandparent's definition of sexism is ridiculously expansive to the point of choking out all other dimensions of life. I chose them as two things that don't often get cited as evidence of sexism (though mechanic isn't so dirty a job, and isn't dangerous at all. I have more personal awareness if mechanics, so that's what I chose.)

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Male nurses not being as prevalent is definitely cited often as an example of sexism in my circles.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Unless they can back up those claims with evidence, like male nurse resumes receiving fewer callbacks than identical women's resumes, then there's no basis to their claims.
  - chowells 4y ago
    Nope. That's exactly my point. The fact that they aren't somewhere around 50% is sufficient to show it. Filtering does not happen solely at the interview. It happens at hundreds or thousands of steps along the way. It's a systemic problem. Go ahead, do your study. You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) So if hospitals, theoretically, have a slight preference for male nurses in hiring right now... Why are they so uncommon? Because there are fewer candidates. Hiring isn't "the problem". No one thing is "the problem". There's no bad guy to blame. No evil cabal. You don't need to get upset every time someone points out a systemic bias. You aren't being accused of anything. You aren't the bad guy. But it would be nice if you acknowledged things are a bit out of whack, and helped to reduce the skew in the next generation. You don't need to fix it. It's enough to occasionally point out things could be better.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      > You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) This is illegal hiring bias. It doesn't matter if a company thinks it'll perform better, it's against the law. If a company finds that male salespeople make more sales, are they justified in turning away women?
      - chowells 4y ago
        That's a non-sequitur.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        No? You write that hospitals are discriminating against women because they want to increase their representation of men. I respond saying this is illegal (because it is).
    - QuarterReptile 4y ago
      >Hiring isn't "the problem". No one thing is "the problem". There's no bad guy to blame. No evil cabal. You don't need to get upset every time someone points out a systemic bias. >You aren't being accused of anything. You aren't the bad guy. But it would be nice if you acknowledged things are a bit out of whack, and helped to reduce the skew in the next generation. You don't need to fix it. It's enough to occasionally point out things could be better. But who are you to say that the way a thing is done by everyone, everywhere, is out of whack? Perhaps you (and I) just don't have full knowledge of all motives and incentives? This whole discussion misappropriates the term 'sexism' to make it meaningless just like racism has become a meaningless term.
      - chowells 4y ago
        How is it anything other than out of whack if observed reality isn't statistically aligned with potential? Simple economics tells us that we get the best outcomes by aligning those. (And... motives and incentives are part of the systemic biases. As I said, you don't need to identify them to observe their results.) Also, did you know that language changes? It's not a set of rules set down in a book somewhere. (Even French, much to their dismay.) Sexism may have meant only individual men demeaning women once, but it turns out it's a good word to describe all forms of bias based on sex or gender. So use of the term expanded. This isn't misappropriation, this is how language works.
mr_toad 4y ago
> I was trying to show by example that grandparent's definition of sexism is ridiculously expansive to the point of choking out all other dimensions of life. What makes you think it isn’t?

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago

Male nurses not being as prevalent is definitely cited often as an example of sexism in my circles.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Unless they can back up those claims with evidence, like male nurse resumes receiving fewer callbacks than identical women's resumes, then there's no basis to their claims.
- chowells 4y ago
  Nope. That's exactly my point. The fact that they aren't somewhere around 50% is sufficient to show it. Filtering does not happen solely at the interview. It happens at hundreds or thousands of steps along the way. It's a systemic problem. Go ahead, do your study. You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) So if hospitals, theoretically, have a slight preference for male nurses in hiring right now... Why are they so uncommon? Because there are fewer candidates. Hiring isn't "the problem". No one thing is "the problem". There's no bad guy to blame. No evil cabal. You don't need to get upset every time someone points out a systemic bias. You aren't being accused of anything. You aren't the bad guy. But it would be nice if you acknowledged things are a bit out of whack, and helped to reduce the skew in the next generation. You don't need to fix it. It's enough to occasionally point out things could be better.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) This is illegal hiring bias. It doesn't matter if a company thinks it'll perform better, it's against the law. If a company finds that male salespeople make more sales, are they justified in turning away women?
    - chowells 4y ago
      That's a non-sequitur.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        No? You write that hospitals are discriminating against women because they want to increase their representation of men. I respond saying this is illegal (because it is).
  - QuarterReptile 4y ago
    >Hiring isn't "the problem". No one thing is "the problem". There's no bad guy to blame. No evil cabal. You don't need to get upset every time someone points out a systemic bias. >You aren't being accused of anything. You aren't the bad guy. But it would be nice if you acknowledged things are a bit out of whack, and helped to reduce the skew in the next generation. You don't need to fix it. It's enough to occasionally point out things could be better. But who are you to say that the way a thing is done by everyone, everywhere, is out of whack? Perhaps you (and I) just don't have full knowledge of all motives and incentives? This whole discussion misappropriates the term 'sexism' to make it meaningless just like racism has become a meaningless term.
    - chowells 4y ago
      How is it anything other than out of whack if observed reality isn't statistically aligned with potential? Simple economics tells us that we get the best outcomes by aligning those. (And... motives and incentives are part of the systemic biases. As I said, you don't need to identify them to observe their results.) Also, did you know that language changes? It's not a set of rules set down in a book somewhere. (Even French, much to their dismay.) Sexism may have meant only individual men demeaning women once, but it turns out it's a good word to describe all forms of bias based on sex or gender. So use of the term expanded. This isn't misappropriation, this is how language works.

mr_toad 4y ago

> I was trying to show by example that grandparent's definition of sexism is ridiculously expansive to the point of choking out all other dimensions of life. What makes you think it isn’t?