This week in feminism: Sex-neutral university fee changes decried as an 'attack on women'

[laughing dog]

You are against recognizing facts and reality?

Disparate impact is about pretending non-discriminatory things are discriminatory.

"yes" is clearer and a less embarrassing response.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are against recognizing facts and reality?

Disparate impact is about pretending non-discriminatory things are discriminatory.

"yes" is clearer and a less embarrassing response.

You're not addressing the issue.

While there used to be a problem with companies instituting rules that had nothing to do with the task but were useful to discriminate these days "disparate impact" is about finding a way to scream "discrimination" about something that has nothing to do with discrimination. For example, this change is about providing more support for the degrees that are more in demand so as to balance what the universities turn out with what will actually get you hired.

However, the fields more favored by women are less favored by the marketplace. Thus the SJWs demand more support for degrees that will get you an "and do you want fries with that?" job. It's about finding "discrimination" even at the cost of harming the very people they purport to help.

 

[laughing dog]

"yes" is clearer and a less embarrassing response.

You're not addressing the issue.

No, I addressed the relevant issue - your response is bs.

While there used to be a problem with companies instituting rules that had nothing to do with the task but were useful to discriminate these days "disparate impact" is about finding a way to scream "discrimination" about something that has nothing to do with discrimination. For example, this change is about providing more support for the degrees that are more in demand so as to balance what the universities turn out with what will actually get you hired...

Disparate impact is an indicator of potential discrimination. By itself, it does not prove any discrimination any more than your bigoted denials prove it is worthless. Your hand-waved dismissal of "it is about findind a way scream 'discrimination'" is an accurate depiction of your mindset, not reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I addressed the relevant issue - your response is bs.

While there used to be a problem with companies instituting rules that had nothing to do with the task but were useful to discriminate these days "disparate impact" is about finding a way to scream "discrimination" about something that has nothing to do with discrimination. For example, this change is about providing more support for the degrees that are more in demand so as to balance what the universities turn out with what will actually get you hired...

Disparate impact is an indicator of potential discrimination. By itself, it does not prove any discrimination any more than your bigoted denials prove it is worthless. Your hand-waved dismissal of "it is about findind a way scream 'discrimination'" is an accurate depiction of your mindset, not reality.

It's worth checking out, that's all. Simple check: this policy clearly acts to benefit society by providing the most funding for the most needed degrees. There's no reason to think it was intended as a hidden way to discriminate against women. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary there's on reason to scream "disparate impact" other than to make you look like a sexist.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I addressed the relevant issue - your response is bs.

While there used to be a problem with companies instituting rules that had nothing to do with the task but were useful to discriminate these days "disparate impact" is about finding a way to scream "discrimination" about something that has nothing to do with discrimination. For example, this change is about providing more support for the degrees that are more in demand so as to balance what the universities turn out with what will actually get you hired...

Disparate impact is an indicator of potential discrimination. By itself, it does not prove any discrimination any more than your bigoted denials prove it is worthless. Your hand-waved dismissal of "it is about findind a way scream 'discrimination'" is an accurate depiction of your mindset, not reality.

It's worth checking out, that's all. Simple check: this policy clearly acts to benefit society by providing the most funding for the most needed degrees. There's no reason to think it was intended as a hidden way to discriminate against women. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary there's on reason to scream "disparate impact" other than to make you look like a sexist.

First, whether or not some degrees are "most needed" is a subjective value. Second it is hilarious that you and other market-worshippers would tacitly argue that a non-market entity can be trusted to accurately discern what is "most needed".

Most importantly, disparate impact is only a description of an outcome. It is a value judgment whether that outcome is good or bad for society, regardless of intent. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

 

[Metaphor]

It's worth checking out, that's all. Simple check: this policy clearly acts to benefit society by providing the most funding for the most needed degrees. There's no reason to think it was intended as a hidden way to discriminate against women. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary there's on reason to scream "disparate impact" other than to make you look like a sexist.

First, whether or not some degrees are "most needed" is a subjective value. Second it is hilarious that you and other market-worshippers would tacitly argue that a non-market entity can be trusted to accurately discern what is "most needed".

Most importantly, disparate impact is only a description of an outcome. It is a value judgment whether that outcome is good or bad for society, regardless of intent. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

The tertiary education market in Australia is already "unfree", in that non-market forces (the federal government) already determines how much universities get per student enrolled by disciplines AND how much a student co-contribution will be.

For the student contribution, the non-free-market policy has been based on future earnings by discipline. Now, it's based partly on projected workforce needs.

It has never, and ought never, be based on "How can women pay the least possible for the degrees they choose. "

Disparate impact as a concern in this case is ludicrous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's worth checking out, that's all. Simple check: this policy clearly acts to benefit society by providing the most funding for the most needed degrees. There's no reason to think it was intended as a hidden way to discriminate against women. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary there's on reason to scream "disparate impact" other than to make you look like a sexist.

First, whether or not some degrees are "most needed" is a subjective value. Second it is hilarious that you and other market-worshippers would tacitly argue that a non-market entity can be trusted to accurately discern what is "most needed".

They're simply looking at what positions employers are looking to fill.

Most importantly, disparate impact is only a description of an outcome. It is a value judgment whether that outcome is good or bad for society, regardless of intent. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

I'm tired of this garbage from the SJWs. They routinely pretend that it's proof of discrimination, but then when called on that they claim it's only a description.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are against recognizing facts and reality?

Disparate impact is about pretending non-discriminatory things are discriminatory.

"yes" is clearer and a less embarrassing response.

Can you provide evidence that you recognize facts and reality?