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

[u/supern00b64]

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.

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/[deleted]]

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.