Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I think LordBucket's claim is closer to saying that it's a moral panic.

Think back to the 1980's D&D and witchcraft moral panic. If you were to point out that the articles about the prevalence of witches were massively overblown, that's not the same as "not giving a crap about our children being abducted by satanists", because you're merely point out that those abductions never happened. You can care quite strongly about equality but think specific equality panics are massively overblown, the same way you can care strongly about children being abused, but still think the "satanic child abuse" scare was a lot of bullshit.

If someone says "I think this 'patriarchy conspiracy' thing is massively overstated" and then someone point out "that's because they got to you too! What are you hiding 'mr patriarchy'?", that's pretty much exactly how people in the midst of moral panics always respond to skeptics.

[Sheb]

That would make more sense - and could be a sentiment I'd get behind, at least regarding the situation in the West, but stuff like this:

Just picture the situation in some arabs countries for example), can quotas help? Are they better ways to fight discrimination? Do quotas helps fight peoples' prejudice in the long run, or do they reinforce them?

Why do you want to fight discrimination? Why do you want to fight prejudice?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to have the amount of pie that they want?

Make me think LordBucket's position is indeed that we shouldn't care about equality at all. I might have misunderstood him though.

[mainiac]

Also, I might be turning into mainiac.

Let the salt flow through you; Only your hatred can destroy him!

[Reelya]

That would make more sense - and could be a sentiment I'd get behind, at least regarding the situation in the West, but stuff like this:

Just picture the situation in some arabs countries for example), can quotas help? Are they better ways to fight discrimination? Do quotas helps fight peoples' prejudice in the long run, or do they reinforce them?

Why do you want to fight discrimination? Why do you want to fight prejudice?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to have the amount of pie that they want?

Make me think LordBucket's position is indeed that we shouldn't care about equality at all. I might have misunderstood him though.

But it fits with the MBA study I posted. That is relevant because MBAs are being groomed to be over-achievers. The female MBAs in the study were equally confident in how far they believe they can rise with "reasonable" effort. But they pinpointed a lower point on the power-scale as their "ideal" job. And in similar studies, working women listed different and more diverse life goals than men did. So those women want more things than men do, but to get more things they know they'll need to prioritize differently.

In LordBucket's terms, that would be like women agreeing that they can eat as much pie as the men do, but choosing a smaller slice because they're thinking ahead to the ice-cream they know is in the freezer for desert.

[Loud Whispers]

LET THEM EAT PIE

Also placeholder because I'm gonna start arguing in favour of quotas now and need some time to prepare a more coherent shitpost

[Loud Whispers]

In rough terms, modern women are bombarded with "you can have it all" rhetoric, whereas men are encouraged to "be the best of the best in this narrow field and fuck everything else".

STOP GENERALIZING ME D:<

I must say I was going to make an argument in favour of quotas but I failed
LB's pie is glorious though

Have Baroness Neville-Rolfe who I first found out about from progressive thread (RIPip)

While Neville-Rolfe says her professional rise was unobstructed by discrimination, she does acknowledge the challenge of maintaining momentum whilst having children. Having always championed gender diversity, she also understands the difficulties for businesses of employing working mothers.

“I started as a woman in the civil service and one of the reasons I entered the civil service was that it was very women-friendly and I wanted to keep working whilst I had my children – I had four children, four boys. Then I went into business and I never found I was discriminated against to be honest. But I am very positive and I tend to get on and work hard and move forward, and now I am a government minister. So in a sense I have been very lucky so far.

“I always try and help women. So wherever I work I tend to build up networks of women. I have tried to encourage them to have their babies, you know, one have a baby and then the next one have a baby. It’s about keeping people in the workforce in a way that suits them.”

And she is optimistic, too, about the role technology can play in supporting parents through their careers. “The big thing about technology and women was that I have found the internet the most amazing plus. Because you can go to work, you can get home punctually to feed your baby, or read it a story or give it a bath and then you can catch up. I think that flexibility helps women a lot, and we are very good at multitasking.

“Obviously you have got a historical issue, and my mother would have been an amazing executive but actually she was bringing up five children and half running a chicken farm. But in today’s world that would be different and we are getting much more opportunity at the bottom. But obviously there is more work to do, particularly on the pipeline.”

On how that can be achieved, the Conservative minister is very much in line with her party, preferring to encourage change rather than impose it through arbitrary targets, such as board quotas, which she is “not wild about”. “I’m more wild about getting stuff done,” she adds.       

This efficient attitude is obvious from her initial punctuality to the intuitive time-keeping that prompts her to end our meeting exactly 30 minutes after it began, as planned. Clearly a habit carried over from the private sector, she admits the pace of change within government can be frustrating.     

 “Sometimes I obviously feel a bit frustrated that things are a bit slow but as I say, you need to get them right and you have got to work with the system to get them right, whether you are in the House of Lords or whether you are in Brussels or whether you are in the BIS department or whether you are running a company. I ran a small company for a while, I was chairman of a garden centre company, and getting things done there wasn’t the easiest thing in the world I can tell you.”

yolo
We fixing what aint broke

Reminds me of when our labour Councillors were calling for a total revolution of our bomb disposal squad after they flawlessly removed a 400lb WWII blitz bomb from an old people's home with no detonations
They just want to look good for muh signalling

[SirQuiamus]

i bit off my tongue swallowed it coughed it up and swallowed it again

well played sir 10/10 would get trolled again

[Bortness]

snip... Those who spend the time and resources to create opportunities for females, however, have an incentive to do so as the system pays for itself; and even becomes an additional source of wealth in the long term on top of the value added by including a female perspective. Snip...

This is a blind assumption for which there is no evidence, no factual backup, and no logical reason.

[Cheesecake]

Honest question here:



Not necessarily about the gender quotas at hand, but about equality either way. Which would you consider equality? Giving the same amount to everyone? Or having everyone ending up the same standing, but give more focus to the less fortunate. (Because honestly, people aren't born equally. ie. People with disabilities or born to lower class families.)

[mainiac]

I would put all three of them in prison for trying to steal from an honest business.

[Orange Wizard]

Basically the latter IMO. You can argue that the former is technically fairer but I'm a great proponent of the whole to each according to his need thing.

[Eric Blank]

Rather than acquiring boxes, I would kick holes in the fence at appropriate height. Get what you want from what you have, ensuring what you have is always adequate, and very little can indeed be adequate if what one has is everything that is needed. The boxes can then be used as chairs to make things more comfortable at will, since they are not a necessity but leftovers once the need is fulfilled.

[LordBucket]

Honest question here:



Not necessarily about the gender quotas at hand, but about equality either way. Which would you consider equality? Giving the same amount to everyone? Or having everyone ending up the same standing, but give more focus to the less fortunate. (Because honestly, people aren't born equally. ie. People with disabilities or born to lower class families.)

You're asking the wrong question. Let me answer a different question than the one you're asking: "The scenario on the right is a better result than the scenario on the left."

But this has nothing to do with equality.

The scenario on the right is better because everybody gets what they want. All three of them get to watch the game. That's a desirable result. "Equality" is irrelevant. I don't care if their results are "equal." I don't care if they were "given equal measures of opportunity." Equality is irrelevant. Getting what they want is what matters.

For example, imagine the situation without any boxes. Only the guy in blue is tall enough to see the game. The other two can't see the game. So you slap a blindfold on the tall guy so he can't see the game anymore either. Congratulations, you've made them "equal!"

No, that's bad. Nobody being able to watch the game might be "equal" but it's not a desirable result. It's the opposite of a desirable result. You have made the situation worse by making it equal. Now, don't misunderstand: it's not always the case that equality is bad. In that image on the right, all three have equality of result, and that's fine, because the result they have is the result they want. Equality is not "bad." It's irrelevant. The desired result is for everybody to have what they want. Focusing on equality is completely missing the point.

Your elementary school teachers did you a grave disservice by taking gum away from the one guy who brought it. One guy out the whole classroom having what he wants is better than taking it away so that you can all be "equal" in your dissatisfaction.

quotas

In addition to equality not being a desirable goal, your boxes and ballgame visual metaphor is a poor analogy for the quotas discussion. Look at those images you linked. The tall guy you took the box away from, he can still see the game after his box has been taken away. That's not the case in a job quota scenario, because the people you take jobs away from to give to somebody else, no longer have those jobs.

In this case, you have created no value by this redistribution. You've simply rearranged it. It's hand waving. It's illusion. It's silly. Let's say you have 10 jobs and 20 people. 10 men, 10 women. If 6 men and 4 women get the ten jobs, you have ten unemployed people. If you fire one of the men and hire one of them woman you still have ten unemployed people. You haven't improved the situation. Oh, but you've made it "more equal." And if you've convinced yourself that "equality" is a desirable result, you might sometimes miss the fact that you're creating no value.


Equality is not a desirable goal. Arranging for people to have what they want is a desirable goal.

"Make more pie."

[Loud Whispers]

That was quite convincing LB

[Cheesecake]

I never meant for the picture to be an analogy for gender quotas. And why doesn't it have anything to do with equality? (I don't know if you were referring to the picture or to the gender quotas for that bit.)

The problem is that humanity is selfish. If someone has a good thing, they want it. If someone gets a good outcome, they want a good outcome too. I agree that equality shouldn't get in the way of people getting what they want and what they need, but the fact is that not everyone can get everything.

Can't make more pie when you only have enough to make one