At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society. All the moaning about how no solution is pure enough in some ivory tower way, is beside the point.
>At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society.
Everything isn't so black-and-white. I agree that "women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce". I also agree that we, as a society, are responsible for inciting positive change in this regard.
Regardless, I simply cannot endorse the implementation of sexually discriminatory business practices as a "solution" to the problem.
The root of the problem isn't with hiring managers. The root is that in the fields in which women are most absent, men make up the vast majority of APPLICANTS. Unless we can level the playing field in education, as well as in family structure, we won't see any change in these industries.
If 15% of men enroll in STEM fields in college, while <1% of women do, then the disparity being reflected in the STEM workforce is inevitable.
Woman aren't as interested in STEM as men are, and we need to determine if:
1) This is the result of sexism.
2a) If so, where can we incite change to boost the likelihood that women will pursue a career in STEM.
2b) If not, why do we see the disparity that we do, and is it actually ethical to try to "fix" it.
I have no problem with the ends here, just the means. If you want to fight against sexual discrimination, you cannot participate in or encourage it. How's that for black-and-white?
It means your hypothetical substitution situation is no different from mine, I just happen to have picked a substitution based on an existing situation that meets the criteria you chose. The fact that it disagrees with your worldview does not mean you can discount it outright.
Men and women deserve the same opportunities and treatment in all industries, but any situations where those opportunities skew one way or the other does not mean that the solution is more discrimination.
JoeAltmaier|10 years ago
At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society. All the moaning about how no solution is pure enough in some ivory tower way, is beside the point.
RIMR|10 years ago
Everything isn't so black-and-white. I agree that "women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce". I also agree that we, as a society, are responsible for inciting positive change in this regard.
Regardless, I simply cannot endorse the implementation of sexually discriminatory business practices as a "solution" to the problem.
The root of the problem isn't with hiring managers. The root is that in the fields in which women are most absent, men make up the vast majority of APPLICANTS. Unless we can level the playing field in education, as well as in family structure, we won't see any change in these industries.
If 15% of men enroll in STEM fields in college, while <1% of women do, then the disparity being reflected in the STEM workforce is inevitable.
Woman aren't as interested in STEM as men are, and we need to determine if:
1) This is the result of sexism.
2a) If so, where can we incite change to boost the likelihood that women will pursue a career in STEM.
2b) If not, why do we see the disparity that we do, and is it actually ethical to try to "fix" it.
I have no problem with the ends here, just the means. If you want to fight against sexual discrimination, you cannot participate in or encourage it. How's that for black-and-white?
new_corp_dev|10 years ago
Men and women deserve the same opportunities and treatment in all industries, but any situations where those opportunities skew one way or the other does not mean that the solution is more discrimination.