Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Is gender parity a moral good?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Mifune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Mid Atlantic
    Posts
    1,995
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    54

    Is gender parity a moral good?

    In the wake of the ex-googler "manifesto" and his subsequent firing, I'm posing a question / series of questions.

    Is gender parity in software engineering a moral good?
    If so, is gender parity in grave-digging a moral good? In Fishing? In Logging? In Roofing? In Sewage Treatment? In Nursing? In Teaching? In Gender Studies?

    Is gender parity a higher moral good than the liberty to to decide your own course? That is, if we assume gender parity is a moral good, is it acceptable to force women (or men) into fields against their will to achieve parity?
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

  2. #2
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,200
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifune View Post
    In the wake of the ex-googler "manifesto" and his subsequent firing, I'm posing a question / series of questions.

    Is gender parity in software engineering a moral good?
    If so, is gender parity in grave-digging a moral good? In Fishing? In Logging? In Roofing? In Sewage Treatment? In Nursing? In Teaching? In Gender Studies?

    Is gender parity a higher moral good than the liberty to to decide your own course? That is, if we assume gender parity is a moral good, is it acceptable to force women (or men) into fields against their will to achieve parity?
    Nobody knows if parity, numerical or other, is or isn't a good, moral or otherwise, because it has never been discussed.
    We do know that some people say that a lack of parity is caused by discrimination, and requires measures to fix.

    What we can observe is that if men need to "equal up", it's always about "getting over themselves", "checking privilege", etc.
    If it's about women, though, things are different:

    It's not the women who need to change, it is the rest of the world.
    Women can't _do_ anything, can't influence or change anything, and don't need to change themselves; they're perfect.

    Women always have to get something for what they do.
    Women can only be promoted through special subsidies, grants, scholarships, prizes or other rewards.
    Which fits pretty neatly into any other gynocentric social program.

    M

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mifune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Mid Atlantic
    Posts
    1,995
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    54
    M,

    Well the problem in this particular instance (the google memo, hiring women in "tech") is that the hiring practice seems to presuppose that gender parity in the field a high moral value. That's why anyone who speaks out against gender-based quotas or even gender-weighted hiring is attacked as a monster. It's a moral outrage.

    It seems tough to justify trying to hire 50% women for a particular job when colleges are turning out 25% women and 75% men with the degrees relevant to that field. As a result applicants for any given job in that field will likely be roughly 25% female and 75% male. So advocating hiring 50% women is the same as advocating full employment for women and significant unemployment for men.

    So you're hiring for 100 positions. You have 200 applicants....50 women and 150 men. You hire 50 women and 50 men from the pool of 200 applicants. All 50 female applicants (100%) have been hired, and 50 of the 150 male applicants (33%) have been hired. If we assume a bell-curve in productivity and further assume that men and women are equally productive on average, you've just hired 12 women with below-average productivity. Assuming you've hired the 50 most productive men, you're left with 25 men of above average productivity that were not extended a job offer.
    Last edited by Mifune; 08-09-2017 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Meant 50 of 150 or 33% not 50% of male applicants.
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

  4. #4
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifune View Post
    M,

    Well the problem in this particular instance (the google memo, hiring women in "tech") is that the hiring practice seems to presuppose that gender parity in the field a high moral value. That's why anyone who speaks out against gender-based quotas or even gender-weighted hiring is attacked as a monster. It's a moral outrage.

    It seems tough to justify trying to hire 50% women for a particular job when colleges are turning out 25% women and 75% men with the degrees relevant to that field. As a result applicants for any given job in that field will likely be roughly 25% female and 75% male. So advocating hiring 50% women is the same as advocating full employment for women and significant unemployment for men.

    So you're hiring for 100 positions. You have 200 applicants....50 women and 150 men. You hire 50 women and 50 men from the pool of 200 applicants. All 50 female applicants have been hired, and 50% of the male applicants have been hired. If we assume a bell-curve in productivity and further assume that men and women are equally productive on average, you've just hired 12 women with below-average productivity. Assuming you've hired the 50 most productive men, you're left with 25 men of above average productivity that were not extended a job offer.
    Good point Mifune.

    I think the gender diversity pushers know that. In fact I think they are counting on it. You're pretty much saying men will get hired on merit : which will largely filter out ideologues - the females won't : female ideologues will get hired and put into senior positions.

    The areas targeted for this enforced gender balancing are not universal, they are strategic. There is no call for parity in nursing, or building skyscrapers, or valuable high paying professions like accountancy, procurement or human resources. There is massive demand in strategic areas esp communications and communications technology, saying women need role models... from the lower numbers of applicants, not hired to be professionals to sit at a computer and debug for days on end, but to direct that technology be in effect political activists. Don't take a genius to look at how the numbers play out.

    50 women apply, 50 get hired - all of the political activists get into positions that they want to control. Rinse repeat, been going on for ages. Feminists don't care about women, women are the vehicle for a power grab. Gender parity is a tactic, not a cause.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    oh give me a home where the hookers do roam, and the femsocialists aren't on tv all gay
    where seldom is heard a man demonizing word, and the skies aren't snowy all day
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,200
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifune View Post
    M,

    Well the problem in this particular instance (the google memo, hiring women in "tech") is that the hiring practice seems to presuppose that gender parity in the field a high moral value. That's why anyone who speaks out against gender-based quotas or even gender-weighted hiring is attacked as a monster. It's a moral outrage.
    Oh, absolutely.
    But you won't find many people who have any emotional attachment to parity in and of itself.
    Parity is a value because it is the operationalization of equality.
    Equality is a value because it is the oprationalization of justice and fairness, which _is_ a core value for almost all people.
    To women, parity = equality = justice, because of the doctrine that men = women. At _least_ '='. Plus the high heels, of course.

    It seems tough to justify trying to hire 50% women for a particular job when colleges are turning out 25% women and 75% men with the degrees relevant to that field. As a result applicants for any given job in that field will likely be roughly 25% female and 75% male. So advocating hiring 50% women is the same as advocating full employment for women and significant unemployment for men.

    So you're hiring for 100 positions. You have 200 applicants....50 women and 150 men. You hire 50 women and 50 men from the pool of 200 applicants. All 50 female applicants (100%) have been hired, and 50 of the 150 male applicants (33%) have been hired. If we assume a bell-curve in productivity and further assume that men and women are equally productive on average, you've just hired 12 women with below-average productivity. Assuming you've hired the 50 most productive men, you're left with 25 men of above average productivity that were not extended a job offer.
    I think the "diversity" factor is supposed to even out the lack of productivity ...
    And the women are, of course, women, and everybody knows women are fabulous. So that's OK.

    M

  6. #6
    Senior Member Mifune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Mid Atlantic
    Posts
    1,995
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    .... and everybody knows women are fabulous.
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    513
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifune View Post
    In the wake of the ex-googler "manifesto" and his subsequent firing, I'm posing a question / series of questions.

    Is gender parity in software engineering a moral good?
    If so, is gender parity in grave-digging a moral good? In Fishing? In Logging? In Roofing? In Sewage Treatment? In Nursing? In Teaching? In Gender Studies?

    Is gender parity a higher moral good than the liberty to to decide your own course? That is, if we assume gender parity is a moral good, is it acceptable to force women (or men) into fields against their will to achieve parity?
    1. In theory, yes.
    2. In practice, no.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,200
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifune View Post
    .... weird cat pic ...
    I'm more of a wolverine person. Or a dog, if there's a shortage.

    M

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •