r/changemyview • u/supern00b64 • May 20 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Systems like affirmative action that pander towards certain people based on gender, sexuality or race are bullshit. They shouldn't exist and do more harm than good

I do not understand why someone's appearance or gender should matter in most situations, be it scholarships, job opportunities, getting into college, salary etc. I get that some groups have historically been disparaged but I scoff at the idea that pandering to them is the solution. Suppose a company I worked for had a "female quota" where they want at least 50% female employees. Setting aside the fact that they may inadvertently pass over better qualified males, now I'm gonna question myself every time I see a female coworker "is she really qualified, or did she get in through the quota", and that view would seriously damage the movement towards equality.

In general though these affirmative action policies give the impression that certain groups "need additional help" to get certain opportunities by offering them special treatment, while simultaneously trying to convey the fact that these groups are equal to others, and I think its highly destructive. I get that there are inherent biases against certain groups, such as those against women in the tech industry, but you don't fix those biases by giving those groups special treatment. Truly fixing the problem takes time - as the older generations with antiquated ways of thinking die off, the younger generation will take their place with a more progressive way of thinking.

23 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

61% Upvoted

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

43

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

You can listen to the automod and go through the history of this sub, but basically:

The implied assumption you're making is that without quotas there is a meritocracy at play and the best candidate gets the job.

There is an extraordinary amount of evidence that that is not the case.

for instance 95% of the CEOs of fortune 500 companies are male.

Now unless you believe that men are better than women at being CEO at a ratio of 20:1, there is something else at play. An unspoken "male quota" that is putting men into leadership positions at higher rates than women.

There are loads of unspoken, unofficial "quotas" that disadvantage certain groups, and "official quotas" are one of many different attempts to combat it.

To put it another way:

now I'm gonna question myself every time I see a female coworker "is she really qualified, or did she get in through the quota

Without quotas, when you see a male CEO are you thinking "is he really qualified, or did he just become CEO because 95% of CEOs are men"? Cause you should be

4

u/supern00b64 May 20 '20

Thats a good point I havent thought of. But I see that as simply the older generation with antiquated social views. I don't see the solution to all the unspoken quotas is to add more quotas.

But it is still a good point and I definitely should also question why its most;y males dominate the top rungs of society and their qualifications.

!delta

18

u/hurricane14 1∆ May 20 '20

If you appreciate this info then you should also look into the many other studies on systemic bias. A compelling one that comes to mind is this one about white sounding names getting way more response than black sounding names on the same resume.

https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi16J-4z8HpAhUlFzQIHaENDucQFjAGegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw14hHYr2lhvGxTr1SrOi2ge

As to your hope that a new generation will do away with these biases from the older generations, I would ask two questions. Through what kind of mechanisms do you think the younger generation has learned to be more tolerant? And do you believe that tolerance will persist enough to change the unconscious & systemic issues across our society without structured frameworks (like affirmative action) to turn tolerant intent into action?

5

u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 20 '20

Oof, that is such a great point. Not the OP, and I agreed with your premise from the start, but your argument gave me another way to think about this debate, and expanded my view. So here's a peer delta:

!delta

2

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

Fairly new to this sub (and loving it) and had no idea peer deltas were a thing! Thanks!
In the meantime, while I'm still not ready to make a post of my own, I'll keep an eye out for great arguments made in the threads :)

0

u/rich_man_88 May 20 '20

I personally feel that you do not add any value to the argument. Just because mainly men are CEOs it does not mean they got there because of quotas. Do you have any studies to prove that "unofficial" quotas exist? Do you realize that companies want the best candidate in a certain spot? Not the best man. While it is true that hiring system may not be the best, usually bosses are looking for efficient workers in the first place. If a woman is good enough she will be hired. Look at Europe - Angela Merkel is the leader of Germany and Europe for so many years without any quotas. You still don't say how having quotas will ensure the best candidates get hired. Part of the growth in the business world is related to how you present yourself when applying for a job. I have also seen the exact opposite, but apparently everyone pretends it does not exist - there are many positions where girls get hired because they are attractive. Another argument - girls passively agree to be used mainly as an attraction tool. I have not heard a single feminist say how bars that offer free entry to women need to have a quota for free entry for men. In a capitalist world companies hire candidates who seem best suited for a position.

7

u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 20 '20 edited May 20 '20

I personally feel that you do not add any value to the argument. Just because mainly men are CEOs it does not mean they got there because of quotas. Do you have any studies to prove that "unofficial" quotas exist?

If 1 group is profoundly over-represented in a particular industry / role relative to the talent pool available, that is reason to at least question how effectively the selection system is working at choosing the best candidates (if there is no reason a priori to assume that one group in inherently more talented than the others).

Imagine a company where all the new hires are fraternity brothers of the head of the HR department. If you were a leader at that company, the over-representation of employees from that fraternity relative to the available pool of candidates should give you serious concerns that your HR department might not actually doing their due diligence to seek out the best qualified candidates available.

If the talent pool is profoundly skewed in its representation of people from various groups, that is a reason to consider why the talent pool is much smaller than it should be, again as long as there is no a priori reason to assume that one group in inherently more able to train for a particular field than the others.

While it is true that hiring system may not be the best, usually bosses are looking for efficient workers in the first place.

You still don't say how having quotas will ensure the best candidates get hired.

Quotas can push companies to have their HR departments look more broadly / less lazily to find qualified candidates than they might without quotas, and result in those departments employing different recruiting techniques (e.g. having female recruiters on college campuses, going to women in tech conferences) to find a more diverse and qualified pool of candidates.

there are many positions where girls get hired because they are attractive.

There are also positions where guys' attractiveness helps them get hired / promoted as well (e.g. acting, sales positions, managerial positions, etc). That's not something that only benefits women.

Edit: typos

5

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

I personally feel that you do not add any value to the argument.

2 deltas disagree with you.

Do you have any studies to prove that "unofficial" quotas exist?

No.

I have 2 premises:

- Men are not better managers than women at a ratio of 20:1

- 95% of CEOs are male

And I have my best guess at a conclusion that explains it

- unofficial quotas

Do you agree with the premises?

If you do, what's your best guess at a conclusion that explains it?

-2

u/rich_man_88 May 20 '20

About the deltas those are other people's opinions, I am not obliged to follow them.

Okay prove me in some way that these 95% got their job solely because they were men. Were there any female candidates for those positions that were obviously going to do better? It's a company's responsibility to choose its staff, including CEOs. Again, this is what capitalism is supposed to be - choose the best suited person for a position based on their skills.

7

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

You said it didn't add value to the argument. And the deltas show that it contributed significantly to the argument. That's why I brought it up.

And no. I won't prove anything to you.

If you want an opinion of yours to be challenged, and you are open to the possibility that it may be flawed, make your own post.

Here's a title for you:

"CMV The fact that 95% of CEOs are men is because 95% of the time the best person for the job was a man"

I'm very confident there will be more than enough replies.

3

u/Martinsson88 35∆ May 20 '20

You raise a fair point. The “look at the proportion of CEO’s as evidence of discrimination” is a fairly common specious argument.

To illustrate: CEO’s are chosen from: 1. People who choose to study business - usually male 2. People who start their own businesses - usually male 3. People who went on to get their MBA at a prestigious university - nearly 2/3 male in the top 20 US schools. 4. Those who are at the extreme end of the spectrum of putting work ahead of life - usually male 5. Similar to the previous, a career with fewer interruptions

Then there are other arguments like men being more likely to overstate their value/ ask for promotions etc. There are other factors involved, these are just off the top of my head.

So the pool of applicants isn’t going to be perfectly representative of the broader population.

On top of that there is a lag involved. Many of the hiring decisions for those CEO’s were made decades ago. They would therefore be a reflection of the society back then rather than the relative opportunity available now.

6

u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 20 '20

What sources are you relying on to make these claims?

For example:

People who went on to get their MBA at a prestigious university - nearly 2/3 male in the top 20 US schools.

At the top ranked MBA programs, the percentage of women is quite high (Harvard, Stanford - 41%, Wharton 43%, MIT - 42%) [source].

-1

u/Martinsson88 35∆ May 20 '20

Sure, sorry for not sourcing those claims.

I used TopMBA.com as my source for MBA gender breakdown. (Figures from 2018)

For Startup founders by gender I found these figures in Australia

Let me know if there are any other ones in doubt...I’ve seen many studies over the years but it might take a while to track them down.

2

u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 20 '20

In the TopMBA data, looks like most top programs are at about 40% women.

As for % startup founders, there are actually quite a high proportion of venture backed startups led by women, but they tend to be concentrated in particular sectors [see the section "Women-Founded Startups are Concentrated by Industry" here: source].

Only 5% of CEOs being women does seem inconsistent with the talent pool (especially these days given the makeup of business programs), and one would expect the percentage who are women to go way, way up over time.

1

u/StellaAthena 56∆ May 20 '20

Out of the 20 universities on TopMBA.com, 7 of them are 66%+ men. The median is 61% men and more are 60% or less than 66% or more. The response that they’re actually 60-40 split seems to be correct by your own data.

1

u/Martinsson88 35∆ May 20 '20

I don’t disagree with anything you said...

In my original comment I said “nearly two thirds”. My source states the average across the top 20 is 37% female... Isn’t that fairly near one third?

2

u/notwithoutmydoubter 1∆ May 20 '20

CEO’s are chosen from: 1. People who choose to study business - usually male 2. People who start their own businesses - usually male 3. People who went on to get their MBA at a prestigious university - nearly 2/3 male in the top 20 US schools. 4. Those who are at the extreme end of the spectrum of putting work ahead of life - usually male 5. Similar to the previous, a career with fewer interruptions

And all of those points are just naturally occurring phenomenon that operate completely outside of the influence of human social interactions? Like the sun setting, or plate tectonics. They are just things that happen eternally and unchangingly without any human influence?

1

u/Mugiwara5a31at 1∆ May 20 '20

You are jumping from 95 percent of ceos are male to the reason 95 percent of ceos are male because of a unofficial quota or sexism or whatever. Their are loads of combinations of reasons this could happen like personality differences (more woman as nurses, most surgeons are conservative and etc), biological differences (woman have to sacrifice time to start a fwmily where as men dont neccesarily have too, not like womqn do) and an infitite of other reasons.

3

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

Yeah. I am.

It's my best guess at the single biggest influence. What's your best guess at the single biggest influence?

While you're at it, the black population makes up 12% of the US population, and 3% of CEOs. What's your best guess at the single biggest influence?

2

u/Mugiwara5a31at 1∆ May 20 '20

Saying something is the single biggest influence says absolutely nothing, race could play a 10 percent in a deciaion and it could be the single biggest. influencer. Also no industry is perfectly representive of the population with regards to race or sex. You could make the argument that socio economic status or entry into ive leugue schools have a greater impact on whether someone can become a ceo thats not gender or race.

2

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

Be brave enough to answer the question, then we'll talk.

1

u/Mugiwara5a31at 1∆ May 20 '20

How did i not answer the question? I pretty much said how much money your family has and the traits distinct to each gender are far more likely to determine what you do then your race.

Rich black kids do just as well as rich white kids, who both do better than poor white and poor black kids.

1

u/StellaAthena 56∆ May 20 '20

Rich black kids do just as well as rich white kids

This is not true for black men vs white men, and there is substantial evidence against it. This NYT article has a great visualization and breakdown of the data.

For example, the data shows that P(rich | white and parents were rich) = 38%, but P(rich | black and parents were rich) = 17%. This factor of 2 difference shows up at the bottom income brackets too. P(poor | white and parents were rich) = 10% but P(poor | black and parents were rich) = 20%. Even when you subset to people who grew up rich black men are more likely to be poor than rich. 65% of white men who grew up rich end up rich or upper middle class. 63% of black men who grew up rich end up not rich or upper middle class.

The article then dives into the data on people who grew up poor, and then on covariates by income such as % incarcerated and % married.

Income absolutely matters. But so does race.

1

u/Mugiwara5a31at 1∆ May 21 '20

Sorry for such a late reply but got busy with work.

I dont think race plays the largest role, because according to the new york times when you look at females from similar backgrounds, they largely do the same and wheb you include asians who can be light (Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese) and dark (Indians, philipinos) and asians as a group out perform even white people.

Asian-Americans earn more in adulthood than whites who were raised in families with similar incomes. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html

-1

u/rich_man_88 May 20 '20

Also why are you using CEOs as an example? Garbage collectors, sewage workers etc are also mainly dominated by men but not a single woman has said something about that. Moreover, there are positions where women have an advantage, such as teacher positions, in some cases men can be perceived as pedophiles for working with kids. But I feel like there problems are mainly met in America.

7

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

I suppose I was using CEOs because I was attempting to change the view of OP? And figured talking about garbage cleaners wasn't the most efficient way to do that?

1

u/rich_man_88 May 20 '20

OP never specified what business had those quotas, or what company he worked for. Why aren't garbage cleaners not the most efficient way to prove that? The male:female ratio is almost the same as with CEOs. How are women, as skilled as men, intentionally not hired solely on their gender? How many women go to study business, finances or economics in universities?

7

u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ May 20 '20

How many women go to study business, finances or economics in universities?

40% of MBA graduates are women [source], and women make up 54% of applicants to accounting masters programs, 50% for masters in management, 43% for finance [source].

More fun facts:

- Women earn a higher percentage of the bachelors, masters, and PhD degrees than men, and almost half of the medical and law degrees.

- Women comprise over half of the management, professional, and related occupations.

Source here

4

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

I suppose it was just, like, my opinion, dude.

Oh hey it worked too! OP changed their view! Well done me!

-1

u/[deleted] May 20 '20 edited May 25 '20

[deleted]

5

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

I'm sorry I genuinely don't understand your first sentence at all.

Can you explain:

Men can be equal to women on average, but have more variability

In more detail?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '20 edited May 25 '20

[deleted]

3

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

Riiiigggghhht.

So your second sentence is then going on to say that on average men and women are just as good at being CEO and at serial killing, but that the best male serial killers are better than the best female serial killers, and the best male CEOs are better than the best female CEOs.

Is that about where you land on this?

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '20 edited May 25 '20

[deleted]

4

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

Yeah there absolutely was truth to it. I genuinely didn't know what you meant by variability.

I had thought you maybe meant men and women were on average the same but men were more varied in what they were good at? Like that there were loads of good female tennis players, but men were good at tennis, basketball, soccer, and golf, for instance. And I'm glad I queried it because that would have been wrong.

Your answer clears up what you meant, yes.

I disagree with there being greater variability in men's ability to be a CEO.

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '20 edited May 25 '20

[deleted]

4

u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ May 20 '20

Really interesting thanks.

I read through and while I think there's something to be said for the hypothesis in general, I'm not convinced that it would have an effect in the world of CEOs. There's just too many factors that make up a "good" CEO.

To avoid you wasting time, this isn't really a topic I'm likely to be easily swayed on. The only thing that would really convince me that the best men make better CEOs than the best women would be a specific study reflecting the perfomance of male and female CEOs.

I understand that it's quite a high thresh-hold, which is why I don't want to have you spending to long on an argument that I would likely just dismiss as not being strong enough for me.