i'll just leave this here...

[Biomega]

For decades we've had males being hired more despite not simply being more qualified than competing females.

Now we'll have females being hired more despite not simply being more qualified than competing males.

It's a stop-gap measure for normalizing a more equalized demographic, which then hopefully and eventually leads to normalization of gender-agnostic hiring. It'd be nice of course to jump straight to equality, but that's an unrealistic expectation.

And you can, of course, substitute race and similar categories for gender there.

Is it unfair to some people? Yes. Just like it was unfair to a ton of people on the other side of it for DECADES, and still is in many parts. Two wrongs don't make a right, but that's not how this works; it's an over-correction to overwrite a very long, very entrenched bias.

[Soon-TM]

That's not at all what I'm implying. The example I used just happened to be exactly that. I'm saying when you have quotas to meet that have nothing to do with skill and qualifications, you will drop your requirements for skill and qualifications to meet your quotas. You can also look at college admissions in the US and SAT scores. Certain demographics need either higher or lower scores than average for admittance, because they are trying to fill certain nonskill/qualification based quotas.

Not true. For example, MIT's roster has slightly more females than males, and I don't really thing that the skill or qualifications quotas have been "lowered", not in the slightest.

[sunhawk spy]

lol... what's not admirable is polluting the public space and even home spaces with annoying screaming kids that should be shoved in some dark hole until they're old enough to not pester others...

you have serious mental problems

your parents should not have polluted the public space with you

[Calfredd]

you have serious mental problems

your parents should not have polluted the public space with you

Not like you have room to talk either though...

[Therougetitan]

Can we talk more about how the OP went to a one year old comment to reply to and then took a picture of it to show us. Just wild to me.

[Whitedragon]

Are cases like these you mention as common as with women? If yes, then by all means start a grassroots campaign in order to have such a manifest injustice corrected asap.

Chances are yes actually, many males trying to enter into child care or grade school levels of teaching are treated very poorly and are often thought of as having insidious intent. My own most recent exposer to this kind of thing was a news tidbit where some poor guy had the police called on him twice by the same person, because he took a daily walk through the local park which contained a playground area. The accusing person in question was some mom who really thought the guy looked like a sex offender, and that their must have been some mistake when he wasn't locked away the first time...

[bledgor]

For decades we've had males being hired more despite not simply being more qualified than competing females.

Now we'll have females being hired more despite not simply being more qualified than competing males.

It's a stop-gap measure for normalizing a more equalized demographic, which then hopefully and eventually leads to normalization of gender-agnostic hiring. It'd be nice of course to jump straight to equality, but that's an unrealistic expectation.

And you can, of course, substitute race and similar categories for gender there.

Is it unfair to some people? Yes. Just like it was unfair to a ton of people on the other side of it for DECADES, and still is in many parts. Two wrongs don't make a right, but that's not how this works; it's an over-correction to overwrite a very long, very entrenched bias.

So are you okay with racism against white people?

That people who have done NO WRONG should suffer for the sins of their father (so to speak)? That is a pretty fucked up attitude that will not help in the long run, it will only create resentment in a new(?) group of people. If your plan is to pull down a group of people based on there sex/race YOU are in the wrong, and YOU are part of the problem.

[sunhawk spy]

Not like you have room to talk either though...

I'm not the one who hates humans.

She said she considers new humans being born a pollution of public space. Doesn't that then also mean that when her parents had her, they were polluting the public space? You can't have it both ways. If you consider human beings a blight on this planet, do the first step and remove yourself. Everybody wins.

[Palapop]

probably due to societal conditioning... including how we're raised even from an early age...

So, you'd rather work in coal mine? As a lumberjack? Car mechanic?

[Palapop]

above doing anything with kids? or taking care of the elderly? or working in healthcare? yep...

Well, go on and apply then. Show your strength! BE STRONK!

[sunhawk spy]

above doing anything with kids? or taking care of the elderly? or working in healthcare? yep...

how will you reflect on this once you are one of the elderly and need to be taken care of?

[BossManRoth]

Not true. For example, MIT's roster has slightly more females than males, and I don't really thing that the skill or qualifications quotas have been "lowered", not in the slightest.

https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvar...based-on-race/

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...rmative-action

Try again. Sex isn't the only demographic that discrimination can be based on. Even in that article, it shows women have a lower standard than men. All quotas based on nonskill or qualifications criteria inevitably lead to changing of standards to fill that quota.

[Biomega]

So are you okay with racism against white people?

That's an incredibly reductive statement to make vis-a-vis what I explained.

Would it be nice to just take race/gender/whatever out of the equation entirely? Absolutely. But until we have normalized society in a way that actually allows that to happen, we won't get there. And to achieve such normalization, we have to overcorrect in some aspects, where there's decades (if not centuries) of bias to overcome.

That people who have done NO WRONG should suffer

How do you think women/people of color/etc. felt all this time? It's cool if you just want to let bygones be bygones, but it's not that simple. This is a stop-gap measure that's employed pragmatically in order to work TOWARDS a more equitable society, for the simple reason that it's the most promising way we have right now to realistically and practically achieve such a goal.

That is a pretty fucked up attitude that will not help in the long run

The same goes for pretending we can just erase racism from one day to the next, and be fair and equitable to everyone with the snap of a finger. It doesn't work like that. It'd be nice if it did, and if this was realistic, of course everyone would prefer to do that. But it's not how things work.

Quota systems are not meant to be a permanent solution. They're a transition model to a point where they aren't needed anymore; but that's quite some time off in many areas. To pretend that we can just get there instantly by pretending biases - especially unconscious ones - simply cease to be a thing is either incredibly naïve, or willfully disingenuous.

People can clamor that we "should just hire based on merit", and that makes sense on principle; but practice has shown that this just doesn't do enough, and doesn't do it fast enough. And if you're cool with slow progress, chances are you're not in one of the groups that's currently getting the short end of the stick - it's easy to just go "well let's just be fair from now on, and in time it'll level off" if you're in a position where you're already comfortable. But if you're in a position where you're stuck in a pretty bad life, that's a tough thing to swallow; doubly so if it's coming from someone who doesn't actually experience the bad side of it.

It's a bit like saying "We don't need firefighters, let's all just practice fire safety and over time there will be much less fires. Why should I pay to put out someone else's fire?" - okay, cool idea, but you get why that might insult someone WHOSE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY ON FIRE.

[Soon-TM]

https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvar...based-on-race/

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...rmative-action

Try again. Sex isn't the only demographic that discrimination can be based on. Even in that article, it shows women have a lower standard than men. All quotas based on nonskill or qualifications criteria inevitably lead to changing of standards to fill that quota.

Moving goalposts, I see. We're discussing gender-based discrimination (or lack thereof), not racial-based. Please discuss that in another thread, and don't derail this one.

[Th3Scourge]

i and many of my friends must have missed the 101 on what makes a woman... because nurturing shit can fuck right off...

Yeah of course, if you don't do it then it must mean that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution were all for nothing

[FuxieDK]

There's a very simple answer, just have a lot of male employees declare themselves non-binary. Problem solved!

Why would anyone declare themselves as something non-existing to please an illigal initiative, when you can retain your dignity and sue for a ginormous sum in spread?

- - - Updated - - -

that's the thing though; they won't be. They're not replacing men with women or non binary people. These will be extra hires of qualified people who just so happen to identify as women or non binary.

It's still illegal (in most places) to supersede qualification in favor of gender.

Just like race, religion and sexuallity are not a qualifications, neither is gender.

[BossManRoth]

Moving goalposts, I see. We're discussing gender-based discrimination (or lack thereof), not racial-based. Please discuss that in another thread, and don't derail this one.

I'm not though. My contention has always been about skill and qualification and quotas. And that's the contention of the entire thread. You're the one trying to narrowly define the topic so that you seem correct. Stop being a smug prick.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

So they are going to be hired into an under paid, over worked, and into a work place in disarray job? Sounds like all the things women have been fighting against for years. Now they get the red carpet right on into it.

[bledgor]

That's an incredibly reductive statement to make vis-a-vis what I explained.

Would it be nice to just take race/gender/whatever out of the equation entirely? Absolutely. But until we have normalized society in a way that actually allows that to happen, we won't get there. And to achieve such normalization, we have to overcorrect in some aspects, where there's decades (if not centuries) of bias to overcome.

It is also reductivist to say hey we know these people in the past did bad, and while you didn't, we need to make it up so get shafted. You are basically condemning people who have committed no fault because of there race/sex. I strongly disagree we have to overcorrect, because I realize that overcorrecting will not help, it will only piss off people much like it pissed off the people of color/women of the past, and you will have people acting out. Why do you think Trump won? That was a reaction to people being treated like shit due to no fault of there own, and if it continues because of peoples need to overcorrect it will happen again, and possibly much worse. You have to aim to treat equally, and if you do overcorrect you can't swing like they are now, you have to do small scale or you will get an equal and opposite reaction, that is simple physics.

How do you think women/people of color/etc. felt all this time? It's cool if you just want to let bygones be bygones, but it's not that simple. This is a stop-gap measure that's employed pragmatically in order to work TOWARDS a more equitable society, for the simple reason that it's the most promising way we have right now to realistically and practically achieve such a goal.

So you are saying it was bad, it was terrible, lets do it to people again, just different people? It is simple, you condemning people who have committed no crime for the sins of their ancestors, and at least in the US we don't do that. I also disagree that it works towards a more equitable society, I think you get equitable society by idk treating people equally? Not proping people up/pushing people down, which only creates resentment and anger and hatred, what you propose will only lead to people (in this case white men) being pushed further and further till they snap. I think the most promising way is simple treating people like humans, no matter what is between their legs or color of there skin, doing otherwise is either racist or sexist, pure and simple.

The same goes for pretending we can just erase racism from one day to the next, and be fair and equitable to everyone with the snap of a finger. It doesn't work like that. It'd be nice if it did, and if this was realistic, of course everyone would prefer to do that. But it's not how things work.

Quota systems are not meant to be a permanent solution. They're a transition model to a point where they aren't needed anymore; but that's quite some time off in many areas. To pretend that we can just get there instantly by pretending biases - especially unconscious ones - simply cease to be a thing is either incredibly naïve, or willfully disingenuous.

People can clamor that we "should just hire based on merit", and that makes sense on principle; but practice has shown that this just doesn't do enough, and doesn't do it fast enough. And if you're cool with slow progress, chances are you're not in one of the groups that's currently getting the short end of the stick - it's easy to just go "well let's just be fair from now on, and in time it'll level off" if you're in a position where you're already comfortable. But if you're in a position where you're stuck in a pretty bad life, that's a tough thing to swallow; doubly so if it's coming from someone who doesn't actually experience the bad side of it.

It's a bit like saying "We don't need firefighters, let's all just practice fire safety and over time there will be much less fires. Why should I pay to put out someone else's fire?" - okay, cool idea, but you get why that might insult someone WHOSE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY ON FIRE.

No one is saying it is that easy, but just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it is wrong. Treating people equally is hard, being lets just call it reverse racist is easy, and that is why people are doing it. It gives quick positive results, but in the long run is going to end badly, it is going to end with anger and probably bloodshed if it doesn't stop.

You can say they aren't meant to be long term, but I have little faith they will go away. To pretend they will simply go away one day after we get to the magical equality point is naive (honestly believing they will get you there is naive in my opinion, you can't get equality through racism/sexism, you have to get there by treating people equally).

People SHOULD clamor we need to hire based on merit, because doing otherwise IS racist/sexist, and yes practice has shown that we aren't quite there, but in a lot of places it is there. Do you think that every single job and company and profession needs to have the perfect split of 50/50 62/17/13/whatever the full racial divide is? That is completely impractical, as people have different desires and wants. No one is raising protest that 99% of garbage/sewer workers are men, people only want favorable conditions for the things they want, and I don't like that when it causes people who are equally if not better qualified to get shafted for no other reason than sex/race/whatever characteristic.

Maybe it stems from my belief that better 10 guilty walk free than 1 innocent hang, but I don't believe in condemning people on past sins just to satisfy a quota/perfect division of sexes/races in a particular work place.

Also just because you are a white/male doesn't mean you magically are well off or have a comfortable life, there are a lot of white/males in very shitty places that could use help, could use assistance to get out of the situation that they might not even have gotten themselves into. I think we need to have more programs to help the less fortunate, namely assistance in ways where they can get themselves out (I tend to find people do better when they accomplished something rather than just being handed something, it makes them less likely to fail/fall back).

Also I feel like you are throwing shade a bit at me by saying I have had a comfortable life and haven't experienced the "bad side", and if so, you know nothing about me, don't do that.

What you said is a horrible analogy that has no connection what so ever to any points I have made. You don't think that your reverse racist/sexist programs wont have a backlash, that they wont have some huge negative consequences? Two wrongs don't make a right, that is the only thing I agree with you on.

[Lolites]

Spend more time learning and less time spouting nonsense.

sooooo much talking, soo little to thinking...

never said there arent people who prefer to hire men despite the qualification, and that IS a problme, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT solved by forcing people to hire women, blind interviews or things like that might help but quotas will only fuck up the busines...
remember the story about the orchestra with blind auditions done to hire more women and poc, ending up bein MORE WHITE ANE MALE? so it became "problem"... and this is the same, hire should be based on skill not gender or race or whatever...

if people like me, people who think best hire is whoever is MOST QUALIFIED are reason women dont get into the field then they are hypocrites, they shouldnt get job based only on gender WHICH WILL HAPPEN if company have quotas to fullfill, and, ironicaly, you yourself said the reason

I have a close relative who went into game design. There were only a handful of women (including herself) during her years there.

less women in the field - more likely the hire will be for nothing but quotas, even you should understand that...

as for teaching, dunno where you live in my country its more like 60-40, so its definitely not "female dominated" hence i didnt mention it, sure kindergardens skewer it, and sure there are low paying female dominated jobs, but honestly, most of them are cakewalk in comparison with male dominated jobs (firefighters, miner, garbage disposal workers, construction workers), basicaly all the disgusting, physicaly hard, and dangerous work fields are male dominated, and nobody care, only safe well paid office jobs are problem...