6 ms·

1. Physical harm is a crime and separate issue altogether - there is popular contention with labeling free expression as violence against certain groups, but I

1. Physical harm is a crime and separate issue altogether - there is popular contention with labeling free expression as violence against certain groups, but I certainly agree there are ways that one can escalate into another (ripe for debate) 2. 75% of teachers are women, 97% of coal miners are men - certain professional aspirations attract certain people. When people talk about equality of outcome, does it have to be 50-50 male-female, equally split amongst all demographics and income levels, and if so, what possible realistic path is there to achieve it? On the other hand, I am sure most people in the modern world (especially the young ones) support equal opportunity, so it seems like this is becoming less of an issue. I see what you're saying though - for example, is Kanye responsible for people committing anti-Semitic hate crimes while yelling "Kanye 2024"? There are also obviously many current event and historical examples of speech escalating to violence, but in a place of learning there should be freedom to consider all ideas and freedom to distinguish good from bad ones.

dagmx 4y ago
I recognize physical harm is separate but that’s why I used the word escalation. I also didn’t imply a direction for the physical harm. Escalation from speech to physical harm can come in many forms. Like you said, Kanye 2024+antisemitism is a form of stochastic terror, using one persons speech to convince others to cause physical harm. But it can also be emotional abuse that is often not seen by many people that can lead to self harm. Or most simply, it can just be escalation of emotions that leads to mutual physical aggression. With regards to equality, I don’t think it means that demographics should be evenly split. For one, that’s impossible given the large number of demographics and population variances. But I also think it’s more than equal opportunity. Equal opportunity only tracks the opportunity to get a job at a superficial level. There’s also the pushing out of non-majority demographics through compounded aggressions. This is quite trackable in many companies and colleges as you can see big differences in percentage shares between career milestones (each year in university, or promotions in companies), but very few companies post it. Netflix and Apple have fairly good reports here So to that end I’d posit: even if we’ve become better about equality, and agree we should have equal opportunity, are we actually setting up our systems to measure whether we’re being honest about it? Also to your percentages. I think that is heavily at risk of inverting cause and consequence
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > even if we’ve become better about equality, and agree we should have equal opportunity, are we actually setting up our systems to measure whether we’re being honest about it? We do have the tools: anonymize the application process. The way to find out if you're orchestra auditions are biased is to put a veil between the musician and the judging panel. In tech, the way to find out if your interviews are biased is to mask the gender of the applicants. Some companies are already doing this: https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technical-interviews https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technic...
  - dagmx 4y ago
    No, you missed the other part of it that I explicitly mentioned. It’s not just about the hiring of the job but the space between any two milestones in the job. It’s all well if we’re hiring tons of diverse juniors. But if we push them out unknowingly before they grow their careers ,we’re not really helping that much
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      If someone doesn't like playing the flute, and thus doesn't practice playing the flute, are they going to have the same chances at a blind flute audition as someone who's practiced their whole life? Is that evidence that the audition is biased? If someone grows up in poverty and has to work and thus has no time to play to flute we can recognize the disadvantage of poverty, but that doesn't make the blind audition biased either. The disadvantage stems from the lack of time to play the flute, not the audition process. If we're talking about the tech specifically, there's compelling evidence that poverty and lack of education attainment is a barrier for BIPOC people entering tech. But it's exceededingly hard to make that argument for women's underrepresented. Women are actually overrepresented in university. There's a strong argument to be made that women actually have more opportunity to enter tech than men. Rates of harassment in tech are actually lower than on plenty of female-dominated industries like education and administration [1]. Most of the common arguments to support the claim that women are being "pushed out" lacks substance. 1. https://www.workingnowandthen.com/blog/workplace-sexual-harassment-by-industry/ https://www.workingnowandthen.com/blog/workplace-sexual-hara...
komali2 4y ago
> 75% of teachers are women, 97% of coal miners are men - certain professional aspirations attract certain people Curious why you're implying your statistic implicitly and naturally leads to the truth of the statement "certain professional aspirations attract certain people (of specific gender)" Correct my addition of "specific gender" if that wasn't your intention, but it seems what you're implying - that the reason 97% of coal miners are men because men prefer to be coal miners and women don't. I disagree completely. I think there's probably far, far more reasons behind the statistic "97% of coal miners are men." Luckily for you, I think our society has trained us to nod our heads and think that your statistic makes "common sense," that's a distinct advantage, despite the fact that your proposition is really lacking in logical, deductive, contextual, or evidential rigor. Watch what happens when I make a similarly non-rigorous statement: Actually, 97% of coal miners are men because the people that hire for the job hold the mistaken, antiquated especially with modern technology, belief that men are more capable of the job because "men are stronger than women." If I had made my argument as such like you have, I bet I'd get a whole stream of comments demanding I demonstrate the hiring bias with evidence, sources, that would challenge my idea, even try to show that men on average are stronger than women (without of course then completing the other half of the argument, demonstrating that greater raw strength leads to greater outcomes in coal mining). You were replying to: > Similarly how do they stop majority dominance So, given that your answer is "common sense," and my argument is "yup, that's majority dominance, men hiring men," I repeat our OP's question: "How do you stop majority dominance when the conservative argument (yours) is so integrated into our social fabric that it goes unchallenged?" My follow-up is why is the reaction to people protesting the people that make these types of speeches (such as arguing that men are better at a given job than women) so much stronger than the reaction by the mainstream media and the university heads to the person actually making the speech? Especially when those protesting have the much stronger argument that the defense of the bigot is actively contributing to the continuance of unequal opportunity for people (solidifying the "common sense" idea that women don't make good coal miners).
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  [flagged]
8note 4y ago
For 2, the big thing is that things associated with women get devalued. When you're looking for equality, it's to value things women want to do equally to things men want to do. Without teachers, we cannot uphold our civilization, and clearly from the pandemic, teachers are absolutely considered essential workers to parents. However, society is still unwilling to pay for that because it's women doing the work
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  If it's 80% women, why shouldn't it be devalued for men, and vice-versa? If 80% of your farming community is mexican, why shouldn't their values be more highly reflected? This is completely natural, it's reality and the way of the world. It's like arguing that a dog shouldn't be a pack animal. Maybe, but they are.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    Actually you accidentally made the point against your own. Dogs aren’t pack animals. They’re social animals. The pack animal theory it outdated and based on incorrect science+observations. Here’s just one post on the matter https://www.lecaacademy.com/post/the-myth-of-pack-training-for-dogs https://www.lecaacademy.com/post/the-myth-of-pack-training-f... That a particular field has a high majority, may intuitively seem like it’s a better field for that majority if you’re just casually observing, but deeper studies often show that there are tons of systemic factors that go into it. Are most farm hands Mexican because they’re drawn to it culturally? That may be the repeated observation of the person looking at it without much to gain from being part of it. However once you start looking into it, you’d see the systemic issues that led to it like ethnic discrimination at higher level jobs and the network effect of hiring. Similarly for women trying to enter tech. There may be systemic issues keeping them out, but going by “90% of software engineers are men, so it must be because they’re more drawn to it” really doesn’t allow for women trying to enter the field to make changes to policies etc that disadvantage them unfairly. This is the danger of majority rule. It’s why it took so long for many rights to be won by disenfranchised minorities.
    - 4y ago
defrost 4y ago
2. Yeah, but that's in Central North America that barely moves any dirt at all - kiddy mining. When you look at, say, Canada or Western Australia things are different; here (W.Aus) we move in excess of 800 million tonnes per annum (that's iron ore alone) with a bit over 18% of women in the mining work force [1] - driving trucks, operating diggers and loaders, manageing, as geologists, etc. [1] https://www.miningnews.net/leadership/news/1400133/mining-still-australia%E2%80%99s-worst-sector-for-gender-diversity https://www.miningnews.net/leadership/news/1400133/mining-st...
- bitcharmer 4y ago
  No idea why you would make this comment as the GP's point still stands. Nursery teachers are another good example. It doesn't matter that in one country the profession is 97% women and in another it's only 92%. The point is that there are fields that naturally attract a specific gender and what (if anything) should be done about it.
  - defrost 4y ago
    * 82% not 92% * " fields that naturally attract a specific gender " or, more accurately, fields that until recently only hired a specific gender regardless of who was attracted to the field. Mining in Australia originally didn't hire outside of specific racial groups either, save for extremely manual jobs of an expecially back bracking nature, this changed in the 1970s to a degree and we slowly see advancement into more technical roles.

dagmx 4y ago

I recognize physical harm is separate but that’s why I used the word escalation. I also didn’t imply a direction for the physical harm. Escalation from speech to physical harm can come in many forms. Like you said, Kanye 2024+antisemitism is a form of stochastic terror, using one persons speech to convince others to cause physical harm. But it can also be emotional abuse that is often not seen by many people that can lead to self harm. Or most simply, it can just be escalation of emotions that leads to mutual physical aggression. With regards to equality, I don’t think it means that demographics should be evenly split. For one, that’s impossible given the large number of demographics and population variances. But I also think it’s more than equal opportunity. Equal opportunity only tracks the opportunity to get a job at a superficial level. There’s also the pushing out of non-majority demographics through compounded aggressions. This is quite trackable in many companies and colleges as you can see big differences in percentage shares between career milestones (each year in university, or promotions in companies), but very few companies post it. Netflix and Apple have fairly good reports here So to that end I’d posit: even if we’ve become better about equality, and agree we should have equal opportunity, are we actually setting up our systems to measure whether we’re being honest about it? Also to your percentages. I think that is heavily at risk of inverting cause and consequence

Manuel_D 4y ago
> even if we’ve become better about equality, and agree we should have equal opportunity, are we actually setting up our systems to measure whether we’re being honest about it? We do have the tools: anonymize the application process. The way to find out if you're orchestra auditions are biased is to put a veil between the musician and the judging panel. In tech, the way to find out if your interviews are biased is to mask the gender of the applicants. Some companies are already doing this: https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technical-interviews https://interviewing.io/blog/voice-modulation-gender-technic...
- dagmx 4y ago
  No, you missed the other part of it that I explicitly mentioned. It’s not just about the hiring of the job but the space between any two milestones in the job. It’s all well if we’re hiring tons of diverse juniors. But if we push them out unknowingly before they grow their careers ,we’re not really helping that much
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    If someone doesn't like playing the flute, and thus doesn't practice playing the flute, are they going to have the same chances at a blind flute audition as someone who's practiced their whole life? Is that evidence that the audition is biased? If someone grows up in poverty and has to work and thus has no time to play to flute we can recognize the disadvantage of poverty, but that doesn't make the blind audition biased either. The disadvantage stems from the lack of time to play the flute, not the audition process. If we're talking about the tech specifically, there's compelling evidence that poverty and lack of education attainment is a barrier for BIPOC people entering tech. But it's exceededingly hard to make that argument for women's underrepresented. Women are actually overrepresented in university. There's a strong argument to be made that women actually have more opportunity to enter tech than men. Rates of harassment in tech are actually lower than on plenty of female-dominated industries like education and administration [1]. Most of the common arguments to support the claim that women are being "pushed out" lacks substance. 1. https://www.workingnowandthen.com/blog/workplace-sexual-harassment-by-industry/ https://www.workingnowandthen.com/blog/workplace-sexual-hara...

komali2 4y ago

> 75% of teachers are women, 97% of coal miners are men - certain professional aspirations attract certain people Curious why you're implying your statistic implicitly and naturally leads to the truth of the statement "certain professional aspirations attract certain people (of specific gender)" Correct my addition of "specific gender" if that wasn't your intention, but it seems what you're implying - that the reason 97% of coal miners are men because men prefer to be coal miners and women don't. I disagree completely. I think there's probably far, far more reasons behind the statistic "97% of coal miners are men." Luckily for you, I think our society has trained us to nod our heads and think that your statistic makes "common sense," that's a distinct advantage, despite the fact that your proposition is really lacking in logical, deductive, contextual, or evidential rigor. Watch what happens when I make a similarly non-rigorous statement: Actually, 97% of coal miners are men because the people that hire for the job hold the mistaken, antiquated especially with modern technology, belief that men are more capable of the job because "men are stronger than women." If I had made my argument as such like you have, I bet I'd get a whole stream of comments demanding I demonstrate the hiring bias with evidence, sources, that would challenge my idea, even try to show that men on average are stronger than women (without of course then completing the other half of the argument, demonstrating that greater raw strength leads to greater outcomes in coal mining). You were replying to: > Similarly how do they stop majority dominance So, given that your answer is "common sense," and my argument is "yup, that's majority dominance, men hiring men," I repeat our OP's question: "How do you stop majority dominance when the conservative argument (yours) is so integrated into our social fabric that it goes unchallenged?" My follow-up is why is the reaction to people protesting the people that make these types of speeches (such as arguing that men are better at a given job than women) so much stronger than the reaction by the mainstream media and the university heads to the person actually making the speech? Especially when those protesting have the much stronger argument that the defense of the bigot is actively contributing to the continuance of unequal opportunity for people (solidifying the "common sense" idea that women don't make good coal miners).

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
[flagged]

8note 4y ago

For 2, the big thing is that things associated with women get devalued. When you're looking for equality, it's to value things women want to do equally to things men want to do. Without teachers, we cannot uphold our civilization, and clearly from the pandemic, teachers are absolutely considered essential workers to parents. However, society is still unwilling to pay for that because it's women doing the work

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
If it's 80% women, why shouldn't it be devalued for men, and vice-versa? If 80% of your farming community is mexican, why shouldn't their values be more highly reflected? This is completely natural, it's reality and the way of the world. It's like arguing that a dog shouldn't be a pack animal. Maybe, but they are.
- dagmx 4y ago
  Actually you accidentally made the point against your own. Dogs aren’t pack animals. They’re social animals. The pack animal theory it outdated and based on incorrect science+observations. Here’s just one post on the matter https://www.lecaacademy.com/post/the-myth-of-pack-training-for-dogs https://www.lecaacademy.com/post/the-myth-of-pack-training-f... That a particular field has a high majority, may intuitively seem like it’s a better field for that majority if you’re just casually observing, but deeper studies often show that there are tons of systemic factors that go into it. Are most farm hands Mexican because they’re drawn to it culturally? That may be the repeated observation of the person looking at it without much to gain from being part of it. However once you start looking into it, you’d see the systemic issues that led to it like ethnic discrimination at higher level jobs and the network effect of hiring. Similarly for women trying to enter tech. There may be systemic issues keeping them out, but going by “90% of software engineers are men, so it must be because they’re more drawn to it” really doesn’t allow for women trying to enter the field to make changes to policies etc that disadvantage them unfairly. This is the danger of majority rule. It’s why it took so long for many rights to be won by disenfranchised minorities.
  - 4y ago

defrost 4y ago

2. Yeah, but that's in Central North America that barely moves any dirt at all - kiddy mining. When you look at, say, Canada or Western Australia things are different; here (W.Aus) we move in excess of 800 million tonnes per annum (that's iron ore alone) with a bit over 18% of women in the mining work force [1] - driving trucks, operating diggers and loaders, manageing, as geologists, etc. [1] https://www.miningnews.net/leadership/news/1400133/mining-still-australia%E2%80%99s-worst-sector-for-gender-diversity https://www.miningnews.net/leadership/news/1400133/mining-st...

bitcharmer 4y ago
No idea why you would make this comment as the GP's point still stands. Nursery teachers are another good example. It doesn't matter that in one country the profession is 97% women and in another it's only 92%. The point is that there are fields that naturally attract a specific gender and what (if anything) should be done about it.
- defrost 4y ago
  * 82% not 92% * " fields that naturally attract a specific gender " or, more accurately, fields that until recently only hired a specific gender regardless of who was attracted to the field. Mining in Australia originally didn't hire outside of specific racial groups either, save for extremely manual jobs of an expecially back bracking nature, this changed in the 1970s to a degree and we slowly see advancement into more technical roles.