5 ms·

> Given how women and people with disabilities are still largely absent from these discussions and who still face massive challenges in breaking into some indus

by Maxion 3y ago

> Given how women and people with disabilities are still largely absent from these discussions and who still face massive challenges in breaking into some industries - let alone leadership roles in those industries - I think AA still had a place. Throwing out a philosophical question, is the end goal that every industry, workplace, and residential are to have a completely equal proportion of every group label that can be created?

falcolas 3y ago
> is the end goal that every industry, workplace, and residential are Well, if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion. There is nothing that inherently causes a specific skin color or gender to have the ability to capitalize on an opportunity. But, not all things are equal, so IMO we need to give folks help in ensuring that the same opportunities are actually available to them. Provide help with ensuring that everyone has the same tools available to them to capitalize on those opportunities. Now then, WRT disabilities, this gap in opportunities and tools to capitalize on the opportunities is even greater. However, given that the one constant in life is that "you will become disabled, unless you die first", it makes no sense to leave those with disabilities behind.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  Additionally WRT disabilities we actually need disabled people (i.e. pregnancy) in order for society to continue!
- vxNsr 3y ago
  You’re saying you want to encourage 85 year olds with arthritis and glaucoma to keep working until they keel over? Why put them through that?
  - falcolas 3y ago
    No, I'm not saying that - and it's rather disingenuous to even infer that statement from my post. However, if an 85 year old with arthritis and glaucoma wants or needs to join the workforce, they should have the opportunity and the tools available to them. Many from the Baby Boomer generation are finding themselves in the "needs" category, for example.
- parineum 3y ago
  > it would be a natural conclusion The counterfactual to that claim is nursing. Nursing is a very good job that has a relatively low barrier of entry yet the field is 88% female. The reason for that might be cultural but the reason is certainly self-selection, not discrimination. However, the difference may, in fact, be genetic (hormonal, more likely). Nursing is the mirror image of programming. If the gender compositions were reversed, the campaigns for STEM would, instead, be for healthcare. It may not be useful to look at outcomes to determine if opportunities are equal. It may be harder, but looking at opportunities to determine if opportunities are equal is really the only option.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Ironically, when it comes to nursing, no small part of the gender difference is because of discrimination against male nurses by doctors, nurses, and patients. Until that's addressed, we can't even begin to assert that Nursing is inherently a field dominated by a single gender. Ditto teaching, writing, and so forth. "discrimination of men in nursing" returns some great resources for looking into this further.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      Likewise, there's discrimination against women doctors by doctors, nurses and patients. These are two sides of the same shitty coin.
  - balls187 3y ago
    Nursing may be 88% female, but outcomes in nursing show a disparity based solely on race. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799908/#:~:text=The%20average%20adjusted%20hourly%20wage,and%20Hispanic%20RNs%20(%2430.76) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799908/#:~:tex....
- prottog 3y ago
  > if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion It's a natural-sounding conclusion that has no evidentiary basis in reality. Different cultural and ethnic groups value and specialize in different things, which over generations make for significant differences in the average member of those groups. This is one of the biggest fallacies when it comes to policies that incorporate preferences based on racial, gender, or whatever other demographic basis you can think of: that absent biases (or "structures of oppression" or what have you), each and every subsection of society will reflect the composition of the whole more or less perfectly. Asians are 6.3% of the US population yet comprise only 0.1% of the NFL (literally a handful of players among 1500+ in the active roster). Is it because football racially discriminates against Asians? No, it's because Asians as a whole are not very interested in being professional football players. There's nothing that stops the odd individual of Asian descent from making it to the NFL. Women are roughly half of the population yet comprise only 13% of taxicab drivers. Is there a taxicab union that's preventing women from joining? No, on the whole women aren't very interested in being taxicab drivers. There's nothing that stops the odd woman from being one, though. So on and so forth for literally every slice of life you can think of; you will never find anything that reflects the demographics of the underlying society. Hell, even the demographics of the 50 states don't reflect the demographics of the country as a whole. Vermont is only 1.5% black, whereas Alabama is nearly 30% black. By that metric, Vermont would be 20x as discriminatory against black people, wouldn't it?
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > So on and so forth for literally every slice of life you can think of; you will never find anything that reflects the demographics of the underlying society. Aside from discrimination built into the slices of life, sure. To use your NFL example, a pull quote from a 2022 Yahoo article: "Those who did come faced virulent racism and discrimination". There's a number of articles on Google under the search "nfl discrimination against asians" which show the same thing. This can be repeated with similar results for all of the other examples you've brought up as well. And when there's discrimination happening in the workforce, it can't be used to say "this is the natural balance of [attribute] in the workforce".
- worrycue 3y ago
  > Well, if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion. There is nothing that inherently causes a specific skin color or gender to have the ability to capitalize on an opportunity. But why divide things along skin color? There are so many ways to group people, income of parents, whether they are from single parent homes, history of severe illness in family line, … etc. No one seems to care about equal outcomes when it comes to such groupings though.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > But why divide things along skin color? Because that is the basis on which people are being discriminated against? If people suddenly started beating up people with red hair, why wouldn't we try to help the group "people with red hair"? > There are so many ways to group people, income of parents, whether they are from single parent homes, history of severe illness in family line, … etc. No one seems to care about equal outcomes when it comes to such groupings though. The same people who care about race-based discrimination are also trying to create equal outcomes for those groupings. Why do you think they don't?
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Why do we only care about inequality due to racial discrimination?
      - Timon3 3y ago
        Who is only caring about inequality due to racial discrimination? I specifically replied to this point in the comment you replied to.
        worrycue 3y ago
        Affirmative action as we know it only works along race lines. There is no affirmative action based on other criteria. Whenever I hear about affirmative action it’s always about race, race, race, …
- athenaRising 3y ago
  "Well, if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion" - no, there's always endogenous interactions. Protected class identity isn't randomized. "There is nothing that inherently causes a specific skin color or gender to have the ability to capitalize on an opportunity." The word "inherently" is doing all the work here by making acknowledgement of endogeneity look bigoted. But whether any of the thousands of factors that produce an outcome are "inherent," whatever that means, is irrelevant. You should always expect endogenous interactions if you haven't used a methodology that prevents it, like randomized blind experiments, difference in difference, instrumental variables, etc.
kaitai 3y ago
Nah, I just want to have a fair chance in any industry I go into, rather than being measured on a different meter stick.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Fun, that's something that black people want, and yet are denied, simply for being black.
burkaman 3y ago
Not every workplace and residential area, those are often too small to expect perfect statistical representation. But for every industry, yes I think that's the goal. "every group label that can be created" is quite broad, this obviously only applies to labels like gender, ethnicity, etc. that have no impact on ability.
- nradov 3y ago
  Should professional sports have gender balance?
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Is there a reason they should not? Or at least have representation? With such a small subset of the population, statistically there wouldn't be an even mix. But IMO there should be at least some representation of every "protected" attribute. There's plenty of women with the physique and skills to fill roles in the NFL, for example. Not every player needs to be able to be a linebacker, after all.
    - goatlover 3y ago
      > There's plenty of women with the physique and skills to fill roles in the NFL, for example. Not every player needs to be able to be a linebacker, after all. Doubt it, outside of possibly kicker. Otherwise, you wouldn't see the biological differences in track and field performances between males and females, given how much football relies on physical attributes like size, strength and explosiveness. There could be a professional female league of course, like the WNBA for basketball. But if even tennis has to keep men and women separate to be fair, then there's little chance a physical sport like the NFL would be competitive for women alongside men.
      - falcolas 3y ago
        > Otherwise, you wouldn't see the biological differences in track and field performances between males and females, given how much football relies on physical attributes like size, strength and explosiveness. I will grant you this. A top-level woman can not out-physical a top-level man. But, there's more to professional sports than just physicality. You brought up Tennis - but as proven in the various exhibition matches, women have not been cleanly swept as one might expect, and many have won over the years. This leads me to say that there's room even in the physically intensive sports for both genders, not to mention in the less physically intensive sports.
balls187 3y ago
Equal proportion? No. Equal opportunity to participate, yes. It starts with a basic belief—do you agree that US Society is disadvantageous for certain racial demographics?

by Maxion 3y ago

falcolas 3y ago

> is the end goal that every industry, workplace, and residential are Well, if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion. There is nothing that inherently causes a specific skin color or gender to have the ability to capitalize on an opportunity. But, not all things are equal, so IMO we need to give folks help in ensuring that the same opportunities are actually available to them. Provide help with ensuring that everyone has the same tools available to them to capitalize on those opportunities. Now then, WRT disabilities, this gap in opportunities and tools to capitalize on the opportunities is even greater. However, given that the one constant in life is that "you will become disabled, unless you die first", it makes no sense to leave those with disabilities behind.

EatingWithForks 3y ago
Additionally WRT disabilities we actually need disabled people (i.e. pregnancy) in order for society to continue!
vxNsr 3y ago
You’re saying you want to encourage 85 year olds with arthritis and glaucoma to keep working until they keel over? Why put them through that?
- falcolas 3y ago
  No, I'm not saying that - and it's rather disingenuous to even infer that statement from my post. However, if an 85 year old with arthritis and glaucoma wants or needs to join the workforce, they should have the opportunity and the tools available to them. Many from the Baby Boomer generation are finding themselves in the "needs" category, for example.
parineum 3y ago
> it would be a natural conclusion The counterfactual to that claim is nursing. Nursing is a very good job that has a relatively low barrier of entry yet the field is 88% female. The reason for that might be cultural but the reason is certainly self-selection, not discrimination. However, the difference may, in fact, be genetic (hormonal, more likely). Nursing is the mirror image of programming. If the gender compositions were reversed, the campaigns for STEM would, instead, be for healthcare. It may not be useful to look at outcomes to determine if opportunities are equal. It may be harder, but looking at opportunities to determine if opportunities are equal is really the only option.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Ironically, when it comes to nursing, no small part of the gender difference is because of discrimination against male nurses by doctors, nurses, and patients. Until that's addressed, we can't even begin to assert that Nursing is inherently a field dominated by a single gender. Ditto teaching, writing, and so forth. "discrimination of men in nursing" returns some great resources for looking into this further.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Likewise, there's discrimination against women doctors by doctors, nurses and patients. These are two sides of the same shitty coin.
- balls187 3y ago
  Nursing may be 88% female, but outcomes in nursing show a disparity based solely on race. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799908/#:~:text=The%20average%20adjusted%20hourly%20wage,and%20Hispanic%20RNs%20(%2430.76) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4799908/#:~:tex....
prottog 3y ago
> if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion It's a natural-sounding conclusion that has no evidentiary basis in reality. Different cultural and ethnic groups value and specialize in different things, which over generations make for significant differences in the average member of those groups. This is one of the biggest fallacies when it comes to policies that incorporate preferences based on racial, gender, or whatever other demographic basis you can think of: that absent biases (or "structures of oppression" or what have you), each and every subsection of society will reflect the composition of the whole more or less perfectly. Asians are 6.3% of the US population yet comprise only 0.1% of the NFL (literally a handful of players among 1500+ in the active roster). Is it because football racially discriminates against Asians? No, it's because Asians as a whole are not very interested in being professional football players. There's nothing that stops the odd individual of Asian descent from making it to the NFL. Women are roughly half of the population yet comprise only 13% of taxicab drivers. Is there a taxicab union that's preventing women from joining? No, on the whole women aren't very interested in being taxicab drivers. There's nothing that stops the odd woman from being one, though. So on and so forth for literally every slice of life you can think of; you will never find anything that reflects the demographics of the underlying society. Hell, even the demographics of the 50 states don't reflect the demographics of the country as a whole. Vermont is only 1.5% black, whereas Alabama is nearly 30% black. By that metric, Vermont would be 20x as discriminatory against black people, wouldn't it?
- falcolas 3y ago
  > So on and so forth for literally every slice of life you can think of; you will never find anything that reflects the demographics of the underlying society. Aside from discrimination built into the slices of life, sure. To use your NFL example, a pull quote from a 2022 Yahoo article: "Those who did come faced virulent racism and discrimination". There's a number of articles on Google under the search "nfl discrimination against asians" which show the same thing. This can be repeated with similar results for all of the other examples you've brought up as well. And when there's discrimination happening in the workforce, it can't be used to say "this is the natural balance of [attribute] in the workforce".
worrycue 3y ago
> Well, if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion. There is nothing that inherently causes a specific skin color or gender to have the ability to capitalize on an opportunity. But why divide things along skin color? There are so many ways to group people, income of parents, whether they are from single parent homes, history of severe illness in family line, … etc. No one seems to care about equal outcomes when it comes to such groupings though.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > But why divide things along skin color? Because that is the basis on which people are being discriminated against? If people suddenly started beating up people with red hair, why wouldn't we try to help the group "people with red hair"? > There are so many ways to group people, income of parents, whether they are from single parent homes, history of severe illness in family line, … etc. No one seems to care about equal outcomes when it comes to such groupings though. The same people who care about race-based discrimination are also trying to create equal outcomes for those groupings. Why do you think they don't?
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Why do we only care about inequality due to racial discrimination?
    - Timon3 3y ago
      Who is only caring about inequality due to racial discrimination? I specifically replied to this point in the comment you replied to.
      - worrycue 3y ago
        Affirmative action as we know it only works along race lines. There is no affirmative action based on other criteria. Whenever I hear about affirmative action it’s always about race, race, race, …
athenaRising 3y ago
"Well, if we follow the meritocratic ideology that everyone has the same opportunities available to them, it would be a natural conclusion" - no, there's always endogenous interactions. Protected class identity isn't randomized. "There is nothing that inherently causes a specific skin color or gender to have the ability to capitalize on an opportunity." The word "inherently" is doing all the work here by making acknowledgement of endogeneity look bigoted. But whether any of the thousands of factors that produce an outcome are "inherent," whatever that means, is irrelevant. You should always expect endogenous interactions if you haven't used a methodology that prevents it, like randomized blind experiments, difference in difference, instrumental variables, etc.

kaitai 3y ago

Nah, I just want to have a fair chance in any industry I go into, rather than being measured on a different meter stick.

mrguyorama 3y ago
Fun, that's something that black people want, and yet are denied, simply for being black.

burkaman 3y ago

Not every workplace and residential area, those are often too small to expect perfect statistical representation. But for every industry, yes I think that's the goal. "every group label that can be created" is quite broad, this obviously only applies to labels like gender, ethnicity, etc. that have no impact on ability.

nradov 3y ago
Should professional sports have gender balance?
- falcolas 3y ago
  Is there a reason they should not? Or at least have representation? With such a small subset of the population, statistically there wouldn't be an even mix. But IMO there should be at least some representation of every "protected" attribute. There's plenty of women with the physique and skills to fill roles in the NFL, for example. Not every player needs to be able to be a linebacker, after all.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    > There's plenty of women with the physique and skills to fill roles in the NFL, for example. Not every player needs to be able to be a linebacker, after all. Doubt it, outside of possibly kicker. Otherwise, you wouldn't see the biological differences in track and field performances between males and females, given how much football relies on physical attributes like size, strength and explosiveness. There could be a professional female league of course, like the WNBA for basketball. But if even tennis has to keep men and women separate to be fair, then there's little chance a physical sport like the NFL would be competitive for women alongside men.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      > Otherwise, you wouldn't see the biological differences in track and field performances between males and females, given how much football relies on physical attributes like size, strength and explosiveness. I will grant you this. A top-level woman can not out-physical a top-level man. But, there's more to professional sports than just physicality. You brought up Tennis - but as proven in the various exhibition matches, women have not been cleanly swept as one might expect, and many have won over the years. This leads me to say that there's room even in the physically intensive sports for both genders, not to mention in the less physically intensive sports.

balls187 3y ago

Equal proportion? No. Equal opportunity to participate, yes. It starts with a basic belief—do you agree that US Society is disadvantageous for certain racial demographics?