3 ms·

We're way, way, way past that. I used to think like you, until I started realizing just how institutionally misogynistic corporations and business is. At how lo

We're way, way, way past that. I used to think like you, until I started realizing just how institutionally misogynistic corporations and business is. At how low the numbers are. Corporations have had decades to reform and yet the number of women on boards or CEOs or leadership positions is still ridiculously low. The glass ceilings still exists. Generations have passed and the problem hasn't corrected itself. There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as men. It's nowhere near 50%. So, the only solution is positive discrimination. Your jaw may drop, but the companies of the world had their chance and all they've demonstrated is that the present system is quite obviously, without argument and without anything at all you can say to counter it, complete and utter misogynistic. What other conclusion can you draw? Occam's razor suggests the system is to blame. It it weren't, the numbers would reflect the male/female employment percentages, but they don't, they're still heavily skewed towards men. So either you choose the "qualified" candidates, who are "qualified" by an obviously misogynistic system. Or you positively discriminate. Does your jaw still drop? Or do you understand why it is necessary now?

scrollaway 11y ago
What if it's not the company's fault? What if the root cause is well before the person ever gets near the hiring process? What if it's, for example, education? The amount of men/women who get pushed into field X or Y? So we blame schools now. But, hold on, is it the schools' fault? Couldn't it be the parents'? They're pretty damn responsible for how a child will view the world, and if the person is pushed at a young age to look at the world a certain way, they will probably see themselves and their future a certain way as well. How many little girls have you heard say "when I grow up, I want to be a coal miner!"? ... is it the parents' fault though? Could it be the companies advertising lifestyle product targeted at men/women girls/boys, shaping social expectations around those? My point is we don't really know. Gender inequality in statistics is caused by the sum of lots of factors, few of them which can actually be directly affected. Forcing companies to hit a certain target simply causes people to be hired because of the color of their skin of the shape of their genitals. Massively counterproductive if you want equality...
chlodwig 11y ago
There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%...What other conclusion can you draw? No reason? No other possible conclusion? You should argue the opposite position and try to pass an ideological turing test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test Here are some sources to get you started on your research: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gend... http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebook/dp/B00NDDDI4G/ http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebo...
- mattmanser 11y ago
  Nope, no other reason. As I said, there's been decades, the process and culture so is obviously skewed in favour of men. Pretend otherwise all you like. One day you'll realise that deep down you honestly thought men were better than women at business. Which is utter bollocks, it's simply corporate culture is heavily biased and needs a good kick up the ass. That Scott Adams post is stupid by the way, he even starts talking about the gender bias at the end but frames it as 'societal'. If a woman takes a break from her career to have a kid and then cccomes back 2 years later, why has her career stalled? Societal norms, says Scott Adams, not gender bias at all! Do you get it yet? The whole of business is set up to favour men. Until the 'societal norms' change to be fairer to women so they can actually have a chance to become leaders and senior management while still being allowed to have a family, it won't be a fair society. We're seeing it happen in the UK parliament now women only short lists have vastly I creased the women MPs, the working life of an MP is changing to become women friendly because it's been forced on them. The same thing has to happen in business.
Dewie3 11y ago
> There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as men. It's nowhere near 50%. It's the year 2015 and Buddhist monks are still widely under-represented in the upper echelons of the job market. Is that likely to be about discrimination? That women are as capable as men isn't the only factor. That's very reductionist and simplistic. People also make choices, and many people don't want to invest time into becoming board members, musicians, or what have you. I'm NOT saying that this is only a matter of choice, and not about discrimination. I'm just saying that reducing it to one variable is too simplistic; just as simplistic as if I said that the gender ratios of the job market is purely about individual choices[1]. And your post only seems to be about representation argument, and makes no mention of any concrete, direct discrimination. [1] In the sense that people have reasonable freedom to compete and make choices based on their preferences. Not in the trivial sense that they just make the "choice" to give up on a system that is discriminatory.
hnnewguy 11y ago
>It it weren't, the numbers would reflect the male/female employment percentages So should this apply to every industry?
wsc981 11y ago
In Europe most woman don't make as many hours as men and I think this in part reduces their chances to entering the upper echelons of management.

scrollaway 11y ago

What if it's not the company's fault? What if the root cause is well before the person ever gets near the hiring process? What if it's, for example, education? The amount of men/women who get pushed into field X or Y? So we blame schools now. But, hold on, is it the schools' fault? Couldn't it be the parents'? They're pretty damn responsible for how a child will view the world, and if the person is pushed at a young age to look at the world a certain way, they will probably see themselves and their future a certain way as well. How many little girls have you heard say "when I grow up, I want to be a coal miner!"? ... is it the parents' fault though? Could it be the companies advertising lifestyle product targeted at men/women girls/boys, shaping social expectations around those? My point is we don't really know. Gender inequality in statistics is caused by the sum of lots of factors, few of them which can actually be directly affected. Forcing companies to hit a certain target simply causes people to be hired because of the color of their skin of the shape of their genitals. Massively counterproductive if you want equality...

chlodwig 11y ago

There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%...What other conclusion can you draw? No reason? No other possible conclusion? You should argue the opposite position and try to pass an ideological turing test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test Here are some sources to get you started on your research: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gend... http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebook/dp/B00NDDDI4G/ http://www.amazon.com/Why-Sex-Matters-Darwinian-Behavior-ebo...

mattmanser 11y ago
Nope, no other reason. As I said, there's been decades, the process and culture so is obviously skewed in favour of men. Pretend otherwise all you like. One day you'll realise that deep down you honestly thought men were better than women at business. Which is utter bollocks, it's simply corporate culture is heavily biased and needs a good kick up the ass. That Scott Adams post is stupid by the way, he even starts talking about the gender bias at the end but frames it as 'societal'. If a woman takes a break from her career to have a kid and then cccomes back 2 years later, why has her career stalled? Societal norms, says Scott Adams, not gender bias at all! Do you get it yet? The whole of business is set up to favour men. Until the 'societal norms' change to be fairer to women so they can actually have a chance to become leaders and senior management while still being allowed to have a family, it won't be a fair society. We're seeing it happen in the UK parliament now women only short lists have vastly I creased the women MPs, the working life of an MP is changing to become women friendly because it's been forced on them. The same thing has to happen in business.

Dewie3 11y ago

> There is no reason the number shouldn't be near 50%. Women are as capable as men. It's nowhere near 50%. It's the year 2015 and Buddhist monks are still widely under-represented in the upper echelons of the job market. Is that likely to be about discrimination? That women are as capable as men isn't the only factor. That's very reductionist and simplistic. People also make choices, and many people don't want to invest time into becoming board members, musicians, or what have you. I'm NOT saying that this is only a matter of choice, and not about discrimination. I'm just saying that reducing it to one variable is too simplistic; just as simplistic as if I said that the gender ratios of the job market is purely about individual choices[1]. And your post only seems to be about representation argument, and makes no mention of any concrete, direct discrimination. [1] In the sense that people have reasonable freedom to compete and make choices based on their preferences. Not in the trivial sense that they just make the "choice" to give up on a system that is discriminatory.

hnnewguy 11y ago

>It it weren't, the numbers would reflect the male/female employment percentages So should this apply to every industry?

wsc981 11y ago

In Europe most woman don't make as many hours as men and I think this in part reduces their chances to entering the upper echelons of management.