Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Is gender parity a moral good?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Mifune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Mid Atlantic
    Posts
    2,153
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    63

    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
    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
    2,153
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    63
    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 04:05 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
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    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
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  5. #5
    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
    2,153
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    63
    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
    550
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    16
    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
    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

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Mifune View Post
    to presuppose that gender parity in the field a high moral value
    As a brief follow-up: Again, parity in itself has no moral value, but represents an operationalization of justice.
    One point of interest is that the unspoken assumption about parity is the notion of representation, that men can reprresent only men, and that therefore, if women are to have any representation, this must happen - and can _only_ happen - through women being 'up there' to represent.

    Of course, if women were to rule the world, this does not hold: it is taken for granted that if women ruled the world, the needs and interestes of all people, including men, woud be in the safest hands ever.

    But they do not seem to notice that the representation argument requires men to have parity everywhere, too.

    M

  10. #10
    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?
    There should be equal opportunities, that is, hiring the applicant who seems best suited to the role, irrespective of gender or any other criteria. But quotas don't achieve that, and even some feminists have realised there not good for women. In such a situation a women whose promoted on merit will find people saying 'she only got the job 'cos she's a woman'.

Posting Permissions

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