In order for women to rise, men must fall.

[Metaphor]

You did misunderstand. Perhaps I should clarify:

To the (cis) men reading this thread: would you personally step down from a position you had obtained for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer to 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions?

To everyone else reading this thread: do you think enough men in positions of power will step down voluntarily for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions? Do you think you know any personally?

The first question does not apply to you but the second would. You're as qualified as anyone else to participate in the thread.

Do you actually believe that that false equivalence is relevant?

Building new roads costs millions of dollars per mile. Are you willing to personally pay $100,000 for a short stretch of road? Does that mean we shouldn't have roads?

What false equivalence? What is it you imagine I've falsely equated?

Did you read any part of my OP? Clementine Ford proposes that for gender parity to be achieved in positions of 'power', individual men will have to step down. I have not mischaracterised her position.

I'm asking people on this board, would you personally step down? Are there enough men in enough positions of power who will make this sacrifice? Note that this requires around 29% of men who are currently in positions of power (assuming 'positions of power' are occupied by men 70% of the time) to take the individual sacrifice of stepping down. Note that they cannot simply step down and occupy some other position of power, because the net gender ratio would remain unchanged.

 

[Toni]

I wasn't trying to be funny.

I'm not going to dissect every line of this; I've got a simple question. Are there any men on this board who would step down from their positions solely to allow somebody with a vagina to take his place, in the name of equality?

Again, my apologies. I must have misunderstood.

My personal female experience is that there is no end to the sacrifices men will gladly accept and even demand from women so that men can get what they want and feel better about themselves while doing it.

In light of full disclosure, the fact that I'm pissed at my husband has something to do with the above statement.

When I see someone make a statement (in bold) like this, I always wonder how they rationalize that with the sacrifices men made for women when the Titanic was sinking. And this was over 100 years ago, when supposedly men were pretty mean and awful towards women. Care to offer an explanation?:

http://www.titanicfacts.net/titanic-survivors.html

20% - the percentage of male passengers who survived.

75% - the percentage of female passengers who survived.

22% - the percentage of male crew members who survived.

87% - the percentage of female crew members who survived.

Honey, had I been on the Titanic, it would have been in steerage and I would have drowned, for sure. My husband had family--not on steerage--who all drowned, men and women alike.

but thumbs up and lololol.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I would not give up a position to anybody who wasnt more qualified and talented than myself. Having a vagina in and of itself is not superior talent or qualification.

The actual answer to equality is to encourage everybody equally (such as not discouraging girls from math and science) and treat them fairly. It takes honesty, scrutiny, and time. People are usually just too lazy and impatient. They want "equality" of outcome so they can pretend things are fair and obscure unfairness unstead of actually fixing it.

Yup. Attempting to bring about equality too quickly results in inferior candidates being selected and a backlash from those in the disfavored group that quite rightly see themselves as being discriminated against.

You really do not read what you post, do you?

So you're belief is that the injustice for people suffering from inequality should continue for however long it takes for the people benefitting from that injustice not to feel bad about losing their favored status.

When would that be Loren?

 

[Toni]

Again, my apologies. I must have misunderstood.

You did misunderstand. Perhaps I should clarify:

To the (cis) men reading this thread: would you personally step down from a position you had obtained for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer to 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions?

To everyone else reading this thread: do you think enough men in positions of power will step down voluntarily for the sole purpose of contributing to a closer 50:50 gender ratio in high-level positions? Do you think you know any personally?

The first question does not apply to you but the second would. You're as qualified as anyone else to participate in the thread.

That's more an expansion than it is a 'clarification.' Thanks for being officially included.

No. I don't think 'enough' men will voluntarily step down to achieve equity or parity. It's rare enough when they are willing to take a small step to the side to make room for anyone who is not white and male. As far as cis or not: gay men have always held positions of power and influence. Not always openly but they've always been in positions of power.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Feminists, progressives generally support the latter which is why they love Troudou's "gender parity" nonsense. Cabinet posts should be based on merit, not plumbing.

Actually not that big a difference, A more equal distribution of outcomes would be a result of a equality of opportunity.

 

[laughing dog]

None of that follows from what Derec said. He said Cabinet posts should be based on merit; he did not proffer an opinion about whether they are based on merit.

It follows from reality not some SJW's view of utopia.

Why ought we expect the gender distribution of Cabinet heads to be roughly similar to the gender distribution in the adult population?

That is based on the reasonable assumption that the proportion of qualified people (i.e. people with "merit") is the same for men and for women (i.e. if x% of the adult male population is qualified, then the same x% of women is qualified).

What basis do you have to assume merit is equally distributed in the population?

On the basis that merit is not based on the distribution of male (or female) genitalia.

Merit isn't 'equally distributed' on a million non-gender factors, why is the presumption that gender is exception? Do you think the age distribution of medical chiefs of staff in hospitals reflects (or ought to reflect) the age distribution of 'the population', or even the age distribution of medical staff in the same hospital? It would be ludicrous to imagine so.

We are talking about gender not age, so I fail to see the relevance of your example.

Why would you assume that "merit" would not be equally distributed between the genders?

 

[iolo]

Are white men lucky to have Clementine Ford or what?

But what does equality really look like, and how can male allies work towards it? Such a thing is possible, but unfortunately the methods prove extremely unpopular when laid out bare for everyone to see. The truth is that equality - real, substantial, tangible acts of equality and not just the kind of lip service we normally see directed towards it - involves loss. It involves loss of power, privilege and positions. The dominant group has to sacrifice the privilege and power they have in order to meet a level playing field. There is no other way around it.

A good example of this can be found in Canadian government. Not only has Prime Minister Justin Trudeau followed through on his commitment to establish a gender equal Cabinet, but it appears his move is being emulated in individual legislatures around the country. Last week, Ontario representative Ted McMeekin announced he would be stepping down from his position as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing so he could help achieve "gender parity in [Premier Kathleen Wynne's] next Cabinet." He followed up in a Facebook post, writing, "Like our Prime Minister, I've never been afraid to call myself a feminist. In fact, I've always been proud of being an honourary member of the Women's Caucus, and working for equality. But sometimes the best way for a man to advance the equality of women may be to step back and make room at the table."

Such a move will invariably be howled down as 'misandrist' by those determined to misunderstand what the reality of gender equality looks like. After all, how can it really be equality if men are forced to lose something? That sounds like discrimination!

But how else is it going to work? Talking about equality in government won't make it magically appear, especially not if the majority of leadership positions continue to not only be held by men but be fiercely defended by them. When 70% of visible positions in society (the lawmakers, the media creators, the voices and the faces of authority) are still held by men, no amount of claims to believing in equality can change the fact that it just doesn't exist. Gender parity under that structure inevitably means that 20% of those positions will need to transfer from men to women - that means that 20% of men currently holding positions of leadership will have to let go of them. That's the reality.

Commitment to real gender equality therefore becomes less a measure of how willing men are to call themselves feminists and more about how willing they are to actually leave their position at the table and transfer it to a woman. And I don't just mean white men letting go so that white women can take their place. I mean a radical restructure of power so that diversity, not homogeneity, is reflected. This means white people losing power so that people of colour can have their equal share, heterosexual voices staying quiet to listen to LGBTQI representatives, able bodied people being denied the right to determine the futures of people with disabilities.

Equality isn't a word that can just be waved around like a talisman against accusations. It has to actually mean something. And right now, in 2016, part of that definition needs to be recognising the necessary loss of power for the people who've always had it and who cannot conceive of what it might look like to start letting that go.

I'm not going to dissect every line of this; I've got a simple question. Are there any men on this board who would step down from their positions solely to allow somebody with a vagina to take his place, in the name of equality?

If you want a silly, competitive, exploitative society, you inevitably get such problems. Try civilization instead!

 

[Metaphor]

It follows from reality not some SJW's view of utopia.

Saying people ought to be selected on merit and acknowledging that currently they are not does not somehow make taking an action that cannot possibly be merit-related (selecting based on genitals) somehow desirable.

On the basis that merit is not based on the distribution of male (or female) genitalia.

Not on genitalia, no, but certainly the brains and experiences of those owning the genitalia are bound to be different.

We are talking about gender not age, so I fail to see the relevance of your example.

So you accept that it is indeed the case that the demographics of the people in positions of power are not necessarily going to reflect the demographics of the general population, at least with respect to age. Yet you assume, without any evidence, that men and women are equally distributed on any and every 'merit' variable related to positions of power.

Why would you assume that "merit" would not be equally distributed between the genders?

i) I'm not the one assuming it's not equally distributed, you're the one assuming it must be. You're the one assuming that there ought to be gender parity because merit must be equally distributed. I make no such assumption.

Lack of a belief in God does not mean I believe there are no Gods.

ii) We already know that men and women have group differences on tens of thousands (probably an infinite number) of variables. Why one would expect that none of those variables are variables that relate to merit is frankly mind boggling.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as cis or not: gay men have always held positions of power and influence. Not always openly but they've always been in positions of power.

I think you are confused about what the term 'cis' means.

 

[Toni]

Saying people ought to be selected on merit and acknowledging that currently they are not does not somehow make taking an action that cannot possibly be merit-related (selecting based on genitals) somehow desirable.

On the basis that merit is not based on the distribution of male (or female) genitalia.

Not on genitalia, no, but certainly the brains and experiences of those owning the genitalia are bound to be different.

We are talking about gender not age, so I fail to see the relevance of your example.

So you accept that it is indeed the case that the demographics of the people in positions of power are not necessarily going to reflect the demographics of the general population, at least with respect to age. Yet you assume, without any evidence, that men and women are equally distributed on any and every 'merit' variable related to positions of power.

Why would you assume that "merit" would not be equally distributed between the genders?

i) I'm not the one assuming it's not equally distributed, you're the one assuming it must be. You're the one assuming that there ought to be gender parity because merit must be equally distributed. I make no such assumption.

Lack of a belief in God does not mean I believe there are no Gods.

ii) We already know that men and women have group differences on tens of thousands (probably an infinite number) of variables. Why one would expect that none of those variables are variables that relate to merit is frankly mind boggling.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as cis or not: gay men have always held positions of power and influence. Not always openly but they've always been in positions of power.

I think you are confused about what the term 'cis' means.

Nah. Just sloppy/in a hurry.

 

[laughing dog]

Saying people ought to be selected on merit and acknowledging that currently they are not does not somehow make taking an action that cannot possibly be merit-related (selecting based on genitals) somehow desirable.

What "ought" to happen in utopia is an ideal. We live in the real world.

Not on genitalia, no, but certainly the brains and experiences of those owning the genitalia are bound to be different.

Now, why would that be?

So you accept that it is indeed the case that the demographics of the people in positions of power are not necessarily going to reflect the demographics of the general population, at least with respect to age.

Age connotes experience (or lack thereof), gender does not.

Yet you assume, without any evidence, that men and women are equally distributed on any and every 'merit' variable related to positions of power.

No I did not. Any position of leading an organization requires many different skills and abilities. I know from experience that when one is looking over candidates for positions that require many skills, that there are many different combinations of skills and abilities that make someone qualified or have "merit". I happen to think there is no reason to think that at that level (the relevant one, not at the individual skill/ability level), there is no reason to think that "merit" is unequally distributed by gender.

i) I'm not the one assuming it's not equally distributed, you're the one assuming it must be.

Which implicitly means you assume it is not.

You're the one assuming that there ought to be gender parity because merit must be equally distributed. I make no such assumption.

I conclude that if merit is equally distributed among the genders and if there is equality of opportunity, then I conclude there ought to be rough gender parity. Apparently, you disagree with that reasoning.

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem with Ford's thesis, and with most leftist politics around "equality" it the focus on equality at the aggregated group level rather than the individual level. Much like "rights", the principle of equality gets all its legitimacy and virtue as a principle that applies to individuals, not groups. Your dignity and liberty are not enhanced because someone else who happens to share some physical trait with you gets a job, a raise, or has free speech. If 50% of women are refused a job for having a vagina and 50% are given a job because they have a vagina, then their is zero aggregate group level inequality. Yet, not one person, man or women, was actually treated with dignity or fairness, or was considered equally regardless of their irrelevant physical traits. IOW, group level equality can be perfectly negatively correlated with actual equal consideration for each person under the law or any other less formal policy.

An existing group level inequality may or may not be due to unfair consideration at the individual level. That depends upon whether the distributions of varying merit and of interest and motive are exactly identical in their average levels and shape of variance around the mean for each group being compared. However, any direct effort to "correct" group level inequalities is inherently requiring unfair consideration at the individual level where group membership counts against individuals because other members of "their" group happen to be over-represented even if that does nothing to benefit the individual now being harmed. Also, this inherent unfair harm to individuals occurs regardless of whether the existing group level inequality was the result of unfairness at the individual level to begin with.

The only way that true equality under the rules (equality among all persons, not groups) is preserved is by efforts to protect and increase each individual equal consideration without regard to the group level membership. If any existing group inequalities are due to individual level unfairness, this approach will correct them over time (though more slowly than the brute force method of deliberately treating individuals unfairly if they in the over-represented group). Unlike the group level approach, it will not use unfair treatment of person's to falsely "correct" for group inequalities that were not due to unequal treatment in the first place, but rather due to natural sorting based on aptitudes and interests shaped by factors that precede the decision making process in question.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would not give up a position to anybody who wasnt more qualified and talented than myself. Having a vagina in and of itself is not superior talent or qualification.

The actual answer to equality is to encourage everybody equally (such as not discouraging girls from math and science) and treat them fairly. It takes honesty, scrutiny, and time. People are usually just too lazy and impatient. They want "equality" of outcome so they can pretend things are fair and obscure unfairness unstead of actually fixing it.

Yup. Attempting to bring about equality too quickly results in inferior candidates being selected and a backlash from those in the disfavored group that quite rightly see themselves as being discriminated against.

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)? Any fires that killed people because inferior blacks were hired instead of supreme whites?

 

[Jarhyn]

As I've said for a while now, the only way to prevent group differences from being considered in individual evaluations is creating a sufficient metric for the targeted qualities and then stripping out all other data and metadata. The only things that anyone making a decision should see are 'how did they score'. They should have no more access than that. If people score the same at the top, then coin flip.

 

[Metaphor]

Now, why would that be?

Why would men and women, on average, have different brains and experiences that might lead to differential merit? Any (and every) one of a million different reasons.

Age connotes experience (or lack thereof), gender does not.

Gender 'connotes' every single variable that is known to differ between the genders. For example, a greater percentage of men aged 18-65 are in the labour force.

No I did not. Any position of leading an organization requires many different skills and abilities. I know from experience that when one is looking over candidates for positions that require many skills, that there are many different combinations of skills and abilities that make someone qualified or have "merit". I happen to think there is no reason to think that at that level (the relevant one, not at the individual skill/ability level), there is no reason to think that "merit" is unequally distributed by gender.

You keep making the assertion that there's 'no reason' to think merit is unequally distributed but you're simply rephrasing your claim in negative language, as if by doing so you can escape the requirement that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Which implicitly means you assume it is not.

No. Lack of a belief in a God does not mean I am asserting there are no Gods. A 'not guilty' verdict means you failed to convince me of guilt, not that I am asserting someone is innocent.

I conclude that if merit is equally distributed among the genders and if there is equality of opportunity, then I conclude there ought to be rough gender parity. Apparently, you disagree with that reasoning.

No, I am asking you to explain or demonstrate why your premises are true.

 

[Metaphor]

Yup. Attempting to bring about equality too quickly results in inferior candidates being selected and a backlash from those in the disfavored group that quite rightly see themselves as being discriminated against.

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)? Any fires that killed people because inferior blacks were hired instead of supreme whites?

AA hurts individuals and society, including the groups that ostensibly benefit from it.

But couldn't anyone turn what you've said around, and ask "any evidence that power and privilege being extended overwhelmingly to the sons of wealthy white Protestant men only 'harmed' anyone (as in hurt or killed)?"

It's a bad idea to discriminate against people based on irrelevant and immutable 'membership' in groups.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)? Any fires that killed people because inferior blacks were hired instead of supreme whites?

AA hurts individuals and society, including the groups that ostensibly benefit from it.

Yes, I know. The history books will look back at our generation in great disdain because of AA. They'll shrug their shoulders in classrooms and wonder aloud "What were they thinking?"

But couldn't anyone turn what you've said around, and ask "any evidence that power and privilege being extended overwhelmingly to the sons of wealthy white Protestant men only 'harmed' anyone (as in hurt or killed)?"

It's a bad idea to discriminate against people based on irrelevant and immutable 'membership' in groups.

I asked a very specific question, and you made very little in the way of an attempt to actually address my question, where the insinuation has been with fire departments that inferior people would get the jobs and people in need would be put in danger. So I'm asking, has anyone been hurt or killed because of AA policies for Fire Departments.

 

[Toni]

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)? Any fires that killed people because inferior blacks were hired instead of supreme whites?

AA hurts individuals and society, including the groups that ostensibly benefit from it.

Source ? At least a link to data?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

AA hurts individuals and society, including the groups that ostensibly benefit from it.

Source ? At least a link to data?

It's true! The pride of holding down a job and being a provider for the family has been known to take families down, especially black ones. They (dem colored folk) are better off not having jobs that pay sustainable wages and offer health care, relying instead on government provided food, housing, medical assistance, and then being called leaches because they don't work hard at all.

Because in the end, if a white person is more qualified because of arbitrary tangible data, who are we to offer an opportunity to someone else to see if they can do the job just as well? Because we all know if someone got a job because of AA, they must suck at the job. Kind of like if you don't get into MIT, you must have sucked in High School and you are going no where in life.

 

[laughing dog]

Why would men and women, on average, have different brains and experiences that might lead to differential merit? Any (and every) one of a million different reasons.

I see, your assumptions are better than other people's. Hmmm.

You keep making the assertion that there's 'no reason' to think merit is unequally distributed but you're simply rephrasing your claim in negative language, as if by doing so you can escape the requirement that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I simply think it is a reasonable approximation. You have given no tangible reasons to disbelieve it. In my view, it is the null hypothesis, and you have yet to give reasons to discard the null hypothesis.

No, I am asking you to explain or demonstrate why your premises are true.

Without data that does not and cannot exist, that is not possible. And, of course, you cannot demonstrate why your implicit premises are valid.

 

[bigfield]

Source ? At least a link to data?

It's true! The pride of holding down a job and being a provider for the family has been known to take families down, especially black ones. They (dem colored folk) are better off not having jobs that pay sustainable wages and offer health care, relying instead on government provided food, housing, medical assistance, and then being called leaches because they don't work hard at all.

Because in the end, if a white person is more qualified because of arbitrary tangible data, who are we to offer an opportunity to someone else to see if they can do the job just as well? Because we all know if someone got a job because of AA, they must suck at the job. Kind of like if you don't get into MIT, you must have sucked in High School and you are going no where in life.

Who hires based on "arbitrary tangible data"?