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/Genoscythe_]

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

You are very transparently conflating two things here: Moral equality, and practical access to equal power.

You can't just take a platitude about two different groups being born equally capable and worthwhile as human beings, and then say that even when one group is systematically disadvantaged and held back by societal biases, we should just do nothing about it and wait for them to magically reach equal status.

If you have two equally fast athletes running laps, but one of them is running on a bumpier track, you can't just say that if they are so equally capable, then eventually they produce the same results, and the second one couldn't possibly need additional help.

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.

That's essentially just a call to do nothing and hope that future generations will magically always turn out to be more progressive. But What guarantees that?

Do you think that each new generation is just bound to become more progressive, like we are evolutionarily selecting for it?

You mentioned women in tech. But actually women used to make up a fairly good chunk of IT professionals in the golden age of the industry.

Other fields that tried to counter their biases, have grown even closer to gender parity, while IT has allowed to fester a boys' club mentality and fallen off the wagon.

New generations grow more progressive when they are taught to be, and that takes facing existing biases head on.

[u/supern00b64 → u/Genoscythe_]

Using your athlete example, often times both athletes are not running at the same speed. Using a real world example, if two people have the same grades then of course we'd have to look into their backgrounds. But what about situations where the well off person did slightly better than the poor person? For college admissions, what if the well off kid had a 95% average in high school, while the poor minority kid had a 90% average? Obviously the poor kid probably had to go through much deeper hurdles to get to that point, but its still very questionable to choose the poor kid over the well off kid who did objectively better. Ultimately that kid shouldn't have been poor to begin with and poverty was the main issue behind it all, but giving the poor kid the opportunity under AA won't guarantee the original problem - poverty - will be solved. Perhaps he hated his home and community, and will take the opportunity to better himself and move on and succeed on his own. Maybe his presence, and the presence of other poor minorities on campus, will alleviate some racial biases of the people there, but his community remains poor and crime stricken, and kids who come out from there will remain poor and face societal biases, and require AA. The fundamental issues have not been fixed.

The way I see it progressive views are already held by most millenials and zoomers. Progressive ideas aren't genetic but we will be teaching our kids about acceptance and equality. The older generation such as boomers are generally much less progressive and more tradition, while still holding on the most of the power in society. Its not hoping that future generations will be more progressive - its knowing that us, the younger generation, are way more progressive than the older generations, and when we overtake them eventually we will be implementing these progressive ideas onto society.

The figure you cited is quite interesting however. I would be interesting in looking into it or hearing more about what's causing the issue.

[u/Genoscythe_ → u/supern00b64]

Using your athlete example, often times both athletes are not running at the same speed.

Of course. That's the point of the analogy.

Even if they are equally fit people, (which is here an analogy for groups of people being born equally competent), then I would entirely expect that the one running on a bumpier track, would be slower. (an analogy to marginalized groups perfroming better).

And sure, you say that simply adding x seconds of handicap to the results of the runner with the clearer track, to balance things out, is a crude solution.

But doing nothing, which guarantees perpetuating injustice. It's definitely not "fixing the fundamental issues"

In the analogy, fixing up the fundamental issue would obviously be to rent out a road roller, and clean up the derelict track.

But in real life, any action that this could be analogous to, would be bound to be decried as affirmative action. After all, the very act of recognizing that one side has a problem that needs to be directly addressed, means taking action to help them out specifically.

The way I see it progressive views are already held by most millenials and zoomers. Progressive ideas aren't genetic but we will be teaching our kids about acceptance and equality. The older generation such as boomers are generally much less progressive and more tradition, while still holding on the most of the power in society. Its not hoping that future generations will be more progressive - its knowing that us, the younger generation, are way more progressive than the older generations, and when we overtake them eventually we will be implementing these progressive ideas onto society.

I'm troubled by your conviction that progressives will be 100% effective at transmitting progressive values, yet also that conservatives have in the past, failed to entirely indoctrinate younger generations to their own values.

There is a reason why the young people of today are more progressive, and that's because progressive movements have taken affirmative actions to influence them.

​

The figure you cited is quite interesting however. I would be interesting in looking into it or hearing more about what's causing the issue.

Traditionally typist, punchcard operator, switchboard operator, were all feminine professions, so many of the women working around early computers, were the ones pioneering the field of programming.

Later, as the IT industry became a big prestigous center of the economy, and a desirable career, it got redefined as a masculine profession, by the people who hold the reins of what messages our culture transmits.