4 ms·
..but you don't find it strange that merit somehow only ended up in one gender over the last several hundreds of years? Especially given that there seem to have
by IcePic 1y ago
..but you don't find it strange that merit somehow only ended up in one gender over the last several hundreds of years? Especially given that there seem to have existed competent women in this time, but for some reason men chose to elect only men into high positions, to the point of preventing women from applying or getting such jobs. Then suddenly we all collectively decided that from now on, only merit is measured, but we pipe up when a woman gets elected to say that "did these people really check merit?"
It feels a bit too close to "lets only choose people like we did the last hundreds of years" when noone batted an eye if some man got chosen. If you didn't comment "but did they really check this mans credentials and merits" every time MI6 gets a new boss, then it feels a bit odd to do it only now, don't you think?
- slaw 1y agoNo
- superblas 1y agoExcellent rebuttal
- slaw 1y agoI don't find strange that top chess master is always male either.
- IcePic 1y agoNo, the Bell curve explains that quite simply. "So the scientists compared the ratings of the top hundred male and top hundred female players from Germany. And they found that the men indeed outperformed the women. However that difference can be almost entirely explained by statistics. Because the larger the population, the wider the range of measured scores—the bell curve has a longer tail. And because many more men play than women, the best male players are extreme outliers on that bell curve. As more women play, a few should also reach those extremes, right out there with the men. To which one might be tempted to say: Checkmate."
- slaw 1y agobullshit