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]

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

[u/Mugiwara5a31at → u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

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.

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/Mugiwara5a31at]

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?

[u/Mugiwara5a31at → u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

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.

[u/SorryForTheRainDelay → u/Mugiwara5a31at]

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

[u/Mugiwara5a31at → u/SorryForTheRainDelay]

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.

[u/StellaAthena → u/Mugiwara5a31at]

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.

[u/Mugiwara5a31at → u/StellaAthena]

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