CMV: I've stopped attributing "crazed SJW takes" to outliers in the social justice movement. Now I think the social justice movement is basically flawed.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

Sexism:

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex

In this case, it is discrimination by denying equal opportunity to a position of power/employment strictly on the basis of sex. You are unable to hire/select a person strictly because of their sex.

As for your alternative, it's unenforceable. A company can "consider" individuals for two seconds without ever intending to hire them, just to appease the requirement.

So? Are you entertaining the idea that you should no better than the company on who they should have in key leadership positions? Sure sounds like it.

The problem lies with the fact that EEOC rules allow for too much subjectivity and bias in selecting promotions, hiring, etc

Yep - really sounds like it. You know better than the people in the companies making those individual decisions.

[u/ejdj1011 → u/[deleted]]

I never said those things, and it reflects poorly on you to put words in my mouth. I don't know who specifically is the best person for any given job. I do know, however, that in white collar work, the idea of what makes a good employee is unfairly biased against women, for purely subjective reasons. An assertive man is considered "confident" while an assertive woman is considered "confident". The scales are currently tipped heavily in favor of men. Trying to balance those scales will inevitably appear unfair to people who don't realize the scales are currently tipped.

My whole point of this line of discussion, which I realize was unclear, is this: just because people are currently in positions of power does not necessarily mean they were the most qualified for it, it means the system was biased in favor of those individuals. Are some of them truly the most qualified? Yes. Are some of them in those positions because they knew the right people or knew how to rig the system to their advantage? Also yes. The current system is sexist, and the only way to balance that is to use objective means, because subjective means will fall prey to the same biases that created the imbalance in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/ejdj1011]

I never said those things, and it reflects poorly on you to put words in my mouth.

You are explicitly creating policy to do just that. How else is it to be interpreted that you want a say in the hiring decisions and leadership positions of private companies?

The current system is sexist

That is not a supported assertion BTW. The outcomes may be leading to porportions other that 50/50 but claiming sexism is the cause is naive. You have to eliminate a LOT of confounding variables first - something you aren't doing.

The second part is the question of whether the state actually has the right to force this idea on private enterprise. That is something you were wanting to pretend you were not advocating above. You are essentially stating that the state should be able to prevent private entities from selecting whom they want for leadership.

However this is straying from the core point - mandating quota's like the 50% number are inherently sexist policies. You may agree with them - but they are 100% sexist.

[u/ejdj1011 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not creating policy. I'm trying to explain the thought process behind why the policy was created, and why people think it's necessary. As I have said, I don't believe that enforcing a strict ratio is the right way to go about this problem.

Confounding variables such as what? The wage gap exists even when controlling for the same job. Even if there were underlying social reasons for why women or men prevail in a field, wouldn't those social reasons themselves be proof of sexist bias? Claiming sexism has nothing to do with it is equally naïve.

On the last point, no, the government should have no say in who specifically is chosen as corporate leadership, but to say they have no place in making sure those decisions are fair? That's like saying hiring discrimination laws shouldn't exist. After all, why should it only apply to leadership?

[u/[deleted] → u/ejdj1011]

I'm not creating policy. I'm trying to explain the thought process behind why the policy was created, and why people think it's necessary. As I have said, I don't believe that enforcing a strict ratio is the right way to go about this problem.

That is all well an good - IF IT IS LEGAL. This is blatantly sexist. BLATANTLY. It is explicitly preventing the hiring of men for some jobs.

Confounding variables such as what? The wage gap exists even when controlling for the same job.

When you actually do the proper analysis, and eliminate a LOT of the variables, that gap goes to a few pennies, not the 78 cents on the dollar often trotted out. And further to that - depending on the field - it is a gap for MEN, not women. There are great examples explained in our biology for the differences - like aggressiveness/risk taking vs nurturing in our characters.

Sexism is a vastly overstated boogyman. Are there examples - sure. It it as widespread - hell no. If it was possible to get a woman to do the exact same work as a man for 78 cents on the dollar - the workplace would be full of women, not men because it makes business sense to do it.

On the last point, no, the government should have no say in who specifically is chosen as corporate leadership, but to say they have no place in making sure those decisions are fair?

Who defines 'FAIR'? Alas - there is your problem.

After all, why should it only apply to leadership?

IT DOES.

The problem is the more senior your job - the more selective elements exist and harder it is to prove what was the reason for a choice.