It’s not about fear, its about applying simple logic, something you are unwilling to address. You think you found a problem, you think you correctly diagnosed the problem and then you think you have the right solution.
My first question, which you refuse to answer is “does your solution violate the UN charter on human rights”?
Article 1
Discrimination between human beings on the ground of race, colour or ethnic
origin is an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as a violation of the human
rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations
and as a fact capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples.
Because if it does and it clearly looks like it does. People have a right to ask “is this the only solution? Are there other, better solutions” indeed given the massive upheaval that would follow it is fair to ask, did you properly diagnose the problem , indeed it is also fair to ask did you correctly identify the problem.
Given your solution involves contravening centuries old well established principles on human rights, people have a right to question your “wisdom” no?
It’s not that simple. It’s not necessary about ideological purity, but public/consumer/employee perception.
For example, my university boasts one of the highest ratios of female to male for a post grad finance problem and teaching staff. I’m not saying the female staff or students aren’t qualified to be there. But it became abundantly clear the school gets female Chinese students to fill the spot that barely speak English. I have seen only 3 western women in my finance program of over 100. And yet we have nearly a 50:50 ratio.
And you can say maybe these are indeed the best students. But then you ask yourself why the school and Financial Times have these stats and ranking or even posts them.
So it’s not necessary about set quotas or ideology, there is a push for some sort of “equality” in outcome even when it doesn’t match up with equality of opportunities.
Now to make sure I’m not putting words in your mouth, is it okay to summarize your position as no discrimination should ever be used in employment*, ever, for any reason, because to do so would be bigotry?
And which characteristics count as discrimination? Race, religion, ethnicity, gender… gender identity? Current nationality/ties? Membership in a particular family? Level of (formal) education? Current income/assets? And so on… It’s a serious question, because if you want to have a black-and-white ideology, you need to tell people which shades of gray are black and which ones white.
*Whether employment is used in the legal sense or not does make a difference, but for now let’s say it’s in the broad sense, i.e. including directors of corporations and other employee-like persons.
Actually that is not my position, I have welcomed safe spaces for woman parking in Taipei, back in the UK I was ok with a woman’s only afternoon for swimming, I think there can be exceptions.
But back to your “solution”, you accept it violates the UN charter on human rights and would be against the law in most countries as the law stands because you are not allowed to discriminate on a basis of sex, sexual orientation, religion or race.
Again you avoid the question. I’ll just stop asking it since you know the answer, it’s perfectly valid to point out your solution violates accepted UN human rights norms and would be against the law in most countries.
But let me demonstrate just how wonky your thinking is. Let’s look at a real example, female and male employment ratios in the kindergarten industry.
Here the ratio is 97% women to 3% of men. Am I correct using your logic the reason for massive discrepancies must be due to sexisim? Because I can think of another reason.
Would you then demand a 50-50 ratio of men and women to balance out the discrepancy, discriminating against far more qualified women candidates in order to attain your ratio and in doing so violate the UN charter on human rights and break known local laws on discrimination to do so?
If that sounds like insanity, how is that any different from what you are proposing?
If you don’t say what “my solution” is, I can’t answer your question. So what exactly is “my solution”? And to exactly which problem?
I already told you I don’t want a world full of quotas. Yet if I think one quota, somewhere, sometime, for some reason, might be okay, that means I’m a bigot, apparently, because I have suddenly failed your ideological purity test.
What if a bit of ideological impurity helps you to get stuff done, which you said would be your top priority?
I’m an engineer and am taught there are many right answers to a problem. When the solution being offered has a clear issue related to it, it is normal to examine the problem carefully, check the analysis and look for alternative solutions if indeed there is a problem and if indeed the analysis was correct.
I’m checking the math because it doesn’t seem to add up. The first point that get’s brought up is imbalances are due to sexisim, racism or whateverism.
I am pointing out that is not always true and gave employment in kindergarten industry as an example 97% women and 3% men.
I can think of why that is, women like babies more than men. The point here, is you have not come up with a universal rule that can be applied to all businesses and places of employment that would determine the “correct” level of ratios of men and woman, or people of a certain race.
Again because Im an engineer, rules are universal. Like in physics, they don’t apply sometimes or in certain circumstances. They are rules.
Like the UN rules on human rights, we may make exceptions when it seems wise and fair. But the “equity of outcome” is a complete fracturing of the rules. A complete departure.
Have you thought about how much division and discord and disharmony that occurs when we start judging how sexist a company is based on it’s ration of men to women, or how racist it is base on the % of each race relative to the population and so on and so on, not enough LGBT members, not enough Christians, too many Jewish employees.
Race, Sex, sexual orientation are things none of us have any control over which is why we try not to discriminate on this basis. What you are proposing (equity of outcome) is to discriminate on this basis all the time.
Would women even be happy if society pushed them towards a career as a mechanic? Probably not.
Imbalances of ratios occur all across society, the question is should they be viewed as problems that need to be fixed.
I would suggest generally speaking the answer is no, but in certain instances might reveal prejudice in hiring in a particular company in which case as has been done traditionally they are subject to being sued over their prejudice.
You need to have a valid reason for what you are doing.
Safe parking spaces for women for example in large dark basements. Something near the elevators and well lit.
Makes sense because unfortunately it is women who are more likely to be attacked and women who are more afraid so it makes sense to create a safer spot and one that will make our fellow citizens more comfortable and safe.
There are extenuating circumstances. One could use the same logic to say womens bathrooms should be larger than mens, because men can stand up and pee therefore our bathroom can have a whole bunch or urinals lined up in close proximity and woman cant. You can observe that by long lines for ladies toilets and not for mens and say, that is something that needs to be fixed.
But equity of outcome is introducing discrimination (on a massive scale) based on a faulty assumption that certain ratios must appear or else sexisim, racism must be the cause and therefore need to be “fixed”.
I don’t get this obsession of yours. It’s a concept I have never promoted. These are the only four posts in which I’ve even mentioned it:
And iirc there is also a post somewhere in which I try to explain that there’s no such thing anyway (like how there’s no such thing as true anarchy unless the population is less than 1), but according to the site’s search engine I didn’t use the exact term in that post (or it was in a now deleted Temp thread).
As for your washroom* and parking stuff, that’s still not employment. Do you recognize any situations in which discrimination in employment could be justified, or absolutely none?
*And btw in the future, people will note that some old buildings still have washrooms-with-urinals and washrooms-without-urinals side by side, because they were built before “desegregation”. The change has already started, but it’s going to be very gradual.
Germany to Jews: We’re sorry and we take responsibility and wish to pay reparations for the horrors inflicted on you by the Nazis.|
Japan to comfort women: Fuck you.
Don’t rake up the past, let bygones be bygones, let’s not 'ave any arguments over oo killed oo.
