Author Topic: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism  (Read 7635 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
eh... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tech+should+hire+more+women

you really saying that there is not a huge push to take people's sex into account in hiring with more women and minorities being classified under 'good'?
Maybe there is an inference being made here causing people to talk past each other.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
I'm saying that there is no such thing as quotas. No one is saying "x% of your workforce must be women/black/transgender/Martian"  Not only are they not saying it but it is also illegal in the UK, and US, and most other Western countries. So I find the continued insistence by people that it is happening because of feminists somewhat strange.

That is a different issue from affirmative action which is a drive to try to avoid sexism and racism, etc by taking gender and race into account.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
ok, so when one says there should be more, that is saying it is below some threshold. which to me sounds remarkably similar to a quota.

just because something is illegal, doesn't mean people don't do it, or advocate for doing it. this doesn't prove the opposite, but you've used that argument twice now to prove no one is calling for quotas.

"try to avoid sexism and racism, etc by taking gender and race into account."
and it's not obvious why this scheme might be doomed to failure?

are women/minorities underrepresented in certain professions? if so should more be hired?
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
I am not entirely sure what is wrong with NPR's views that they seem to be consistently ignored, but I do think that a sudden drop of the participation of women in computer science compared to other STEM fields is a clear cut example of underrepresentation.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
because I was having a conversation about Kara about something else. I actually spent an hour or two looking into that, but I couldn't find any raw numbers, my suspicion is that the number of women in computer science never dropped but as CS went from being a theoretical pursuit to a major industry it attracted people who were very much interested in making money rather than satisfying academic pursuits and so it wasn't that women left but that men came.

or were you answering the first part of that final question I had directed at Kara? if that's the case could you answer the second part.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 03:46:07 pm by Bobboau »
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
More broadly, the entire feminism movement is derived from the word female and was originally about female rights. It just cannot effectively address the other side of the issue. Nor should it really try to address male issues, because this idea that male issues should be addressed through a female movement is quite insulting and demeaning. Male issues need a Mens rights movement, meninism, or whatever you want to call it. Of course, Id be the first to say that current MRM seem to have no less crazies than third wave feminism in its ranks..

There's no reason a man can't be a feminist. In fact it's quite shockingly sexist of you to imagine otherwise. :p

Ever notice how when it's women, they are feminists, but when it's mentioning men, it's just as "feminist allies" in half the feminist articles out there? There is a real (and cringe worthy) discussion among some feminists if you can apply the feminist label to men. Can you really blame 666maslo666 when a significant portion of the group he is addressing agrees with him on this point?
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Ever notice how when it's women, they are feminists, but when it's mentioning men, it's just as "feminist allies" in half the feminist articles out there? There is a real (and cringe worthy) discussion among some feminists if you can apply the feminist label to men. Can you really blame 666maslo666 when a significant portion of the group he is addressing agrees with him on this point?

Yes.

The fact he (and you) can't seem to sort those who are genuinely engaged in an attempt to sort the issues and solve them versus those who are on journeys of self-actualization without referent to reality, Hamas-esque quests to accomplish things they know are beyond them but pay well to sell the dream, and the generally disconnected is not a reason to accord his (or your) viewpoints weight. Quite the opposite.

The fact this specific phraseology is frequently a useful indicator for doing just that seems to have eluded you. It's fun indulging in the absurdity, I suppose; but an attempt to rationalize and normalize a relationship takes the active effort of both sides.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
ok, so when one says there should be more, that is saying it is below some threshold. which to me sounds remarkably similar to a quota.

Then you obviously don't understand what a quota is. A quota is when you say "X number of people from this gender / race need to have this job. Regardless of whether or not they are the most qualified." Not only are they illegal but they are a very stupid business practice. What kind of idiot boss would hire someone less qualified than another applicant just because of their race or sex?

The response I've seen so far is basically 'I don't like feminists so this must be happening." No. Prove it actually happens. Prove that it is a mainstay of feminism and not some crackpot fringe member or shut the **** up about it.



Quotas are not the same as saying "I have two candidates here who are basically the same level of qualifications so I'm going to hire the woman / black guy because they'll bring a viewpoint that is currently under-represented in my organisation." It is a very sensible attitude to hire people who have viewpoints your organisation currently lacks. And the reason you should think this way is because there is a bias to saying "I'll hire the white guy cause the rest of the team are also white guys and he'll fit in better."

Seriously how many times have you seen a disastrously bad advert or PR campaign and thought "Didn't they have a women in the company who could say "ummm. That's a really bad idea!"?" Monocultures can be very bad for your business. 
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Quotas are not the same as saying "I have two candidates here who are basically the same level of qualifications so I'm going to hire the woman / black guy

well then I guess we have a genuine disagreement.

First of all, I do not presume that there are viewpoints that are inherent to races or genders or anything like that. I have a feeling I could find black white supremacists. Now there could be, I'm not claiming their isn't either, but off the top of my head I can't imagine what a "black viewpoint" would be without starting to feel a little /pol/ish. Generally I try to judge individuals by what they bring before me and not presuming that they are a stereotype. If there is something that my team lacks, I will look for people with that something, not for people with a skin color or genital concavity that I for some reason associate with that something. Maybe there is some natural affinity between <identity> and <valueable_personality_charictoristic>, if so then I will naturally end up with more persons of <identity> by hiring people with <valueable_personality_charictoristic>. In the case of a PR firm, yeah I could see 'understanding of demographic X' as being a valuable personality characteristic, and I could see how person from demographic X might have a high degree of correlation with that characteristic. In the case of an engineering firm, designing a new bridge for instance, I don't see a characteristic like that as being nearly as valuable, nor can I think of any other characteristic that might be linked to any identity.

Second this is not a dichotomy where you have to choose to hire more people belonging to an underrepresented class, or hire a monoculture consisting entirely of white heterosexual cisgendered rich property owning protestant men. You could also just not take race or gender or whatever into account at all. Generally speaking I would expect <identity> people to be hired at their proportion of application for a job when normalized for qualifications. If my assumption is wrong and there does exist some correlation between <identity> and ability then I would expect that to show up in the qualification normalization phase.

A quota is when you have a number or percentage of something that you try to get. You can certainly reduce the pool you try to apply your quota to to being only people with roughly equivalent qualifications, but that doesn't make it stop being a quota.
Your justifications for it are irrelevant.

also, do not presume motivations in others.

hmmm...
Quote
Prove that it is a mainstay of feminism and not some crackpot fringe member
ok, so anything I find will be dismissed with "no true feminist".
In fact you've basically just partially defined 'feminist' as one who does not call for a quota.

The fact that anyone would explicitly try to hire more X is basically inescapably linked to 'there is a quota for X'. They need to hire more means they haven't hired enough, meaning there is a quota. I am correct in assuming you are not going to tell me feminists would not call for employers the explicitly try to hire more women, right?
Ok, Off the top of my head though, there are related movements like CS1950 that while not primarily feminist (in the age of intersectionality the lines get blurry), they do explicitly give a number(percentage) of black people that they demand being hired. It's not feminist but it has the same underlying issues.
ah, but they are a some crackpot fringe member. Before I take any more effort than picking the worst quota offender off the top of my head and find one that is overtly feminist specifically, let me see if this is a true scotsman or not.

So this now degenerates to an argument about semantics, but at least now you can know what is meant when you hear people complaining about quotas.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Yeah, I was right. You both have no idea what a quota is and you're now trying to rewrite what the word means to suit your definition of the word.


Sorry but a quota when it comes to affirmative action is an actually defined term. You can't just change the meaning. Yeah, if someone argues that red and green are the same thing that is also an argument about semantics. It doesn't however mean that one person isn't completely wrong.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
You know I type the word "quota" into google and it gives me a bunch of definitions that have nothing to do with ignoring ability (which seems to be the main difference between how you defined it and what everyone else was saying) and entirely about having a fixed/required/desired amount of things. Don't start accusing others of trying to rewrite what a word means just because others weren't using the very specific and relatively obscure legal definition you were thinking of.

You did say they were illegal, but you never said, "look when I say quota I mean this legal construct'. It doesn't mean people have no idea what they are talking about, it means you have no idea what others are saying. Or honestly it kinda looks like you did understand but were trying to force some contrived alt definition yourself.

but it's good that you're right.

So now that you know what was meant by "quota" and there is no more ambiguity, do you still stand by your assertion that quotas don't exist and are not called for by feminists and other similar groups?
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/world/europe/german-law-requires-more-women-on-corporate-boards.html?_r=0

Does not look like only a small minority of extremist feminists agree with gender quotas, when things like this actually get passed into a law and the only protest from the left was that the measure "did not go far enough".
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Bob, we're talking about affirmative action and I'm using the definition that applies to affirmative action. If you are not only ignorant of it but also choose to remain ignorant of it after having it explained to you, that's not on me.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Ever notice how when it's women, they are feminists, but when it's mentioning men, it's just as "feminist allies" in half the feminist articles out there? There is a real (and cringe worthy) discussion among some feminists if you can apply the feminist label to men. Can you really blame 666maslo666 when a significant portion of the group he is addressing agrees with him on this point?

Yes.

The fact he (and you) can't seem to sort those who are genuinely engaged in an attempt to sort the issues and solve them versus those who are on journeys of self-actualization without referent to reality, Hamas-esque quests to accomplish things they know are beyond them but pay well to sell the dream, and the generally disconnected is not a reason to accord his (or your) viewpoints weight. Quite the opposite.

The fact this specific phraseology is frequently a useful indicator for doing just that seems to have eluded you. It's fun indulging in the absurdity, I suppose; but an attempt to rationalize and normalize a relationship takes the active effort of both sides.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but for instance, is NOMAS on a journey of self-actualization?

Is Everyday Feminism? (although to their credit they go back and forth on the issue and land on the conclusion that men can be feminists... if you use their second definition of Feminism.)

Can the Guardian also not sort out those who are on this journey of self-actualization?

Or are you just gonna pull a no true scotman? Or is it really about ethics in feminist definitions?

EDIT:
Can it really be clearer than this?

Quote
Specifically, feminist allies are individuals who are not women who support women's rights and promote feminism.

It's beyond obvious the label of "feminist ally" is only applied to men.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 04:29:49 am by Ghostavo »
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Bob, we're talking about affirmative action and I'm using the definition that applies to affirmative action. If you are not only ignorant of it but also choose to remain ignorant of it after having it explained to you, that's not on me.
ok, well, we now know what everyone else is talking about.

and just for fun:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quota
"a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action"
sounds like the opposite of the distinction you are making.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 11:29:27 am by Bobboau »
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Sounds exactly like what I'm saying. Once again, not my fault if you choose to remain ignorant.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Bobbeau, I can only make the conclusion that you misread Karajorma's posts.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
it doesn't say anything about ignoring level of qualification.

OK, tell me what I'm saying, what you are saying, and how they differ.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 12:11:58 pm by Bobboau »
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
I think we in this discussion are paying far too much attention to statistics and too little to individual cases. When we say that only e.g. 10% of programmers are women, this may sound like a discrimination. But let's ask ourselves a question "why should it be 50%?"

Why shouldn't it be? On what basis have you formed the opinion that women don't want to be coders?

See the problem is that you're being fundamentally unscientific about this. You're looking at the state of affairs, making a hypothesis about why it is (women just don't want to be coders) and then not testing that in any way, shape, size or form. What I've said is that you need to separate out the cultural reasons until only the biological ones exist.

You are reverting the case. We have the current state - e.g. 10% female programmers. You claim it is wrong as it should be closer to 50% and I ask: why is it wrong and why should it be closer to 50%? That's the fundamental question to the issue. What makes you think we should intervene in the matter at all? 

There may be plenty of reasons why few women code. I don't claim for sure what they are because this should be a subject for a major research. I just don't think the government or whoever should intervene as long as they are not of legal nature (women are forbidden to enter a profession) or freedom to choose this job in not limited in other way.

Supporters of equalizing sex distribution in professions are using converse implication which is wrong be definition. If there is a discrimination of one sex or race in a profession (e.g. civil statesmen in apartheid), then there will be unequal distribution of this sex or race. But the fact distribution is unequal doesn't mean there is a discrimination (on other kind of injustice) and we should try to change the state of affairs.

Quote
You've confused discrimination with cultural issues here. I addressed both in my earlier post. What you're talking about here is actual discrimination. And although I disagree with you and suspect it does happen a lot more than you claim, I suspect the real reasons for women in IT being lower are cultural.
Perhaps they are, although it is rather when girls choose their education career, not when they are being employed.

But again, why should be change it?

Quote
Who said anything about enforcing it? Claims of quotas are exactly the same sort of bull**** argument people have tried to use against racial discrimination too. And they never existed there either. In the end, one of the best explanations of how affirmative action should work was from Chris Rock
Quote
Don't get me wrong with affirmative action.

I don't think I should get a job over a white person if I get a lower mark in a test.

I don't think I should get accepted into a school over a white person if I get a lower mark.

But if there's a tie, **** 'em.

****, you had a 400-year head start, mother****er.
Okay, I'm not sure I got you right, but how exactly should this 'equalizing' look like according to you?

Quote
Quote
I don't think there is much pressure on opening traditionally female jobs for men. If a man is really determined to become a nurse, he'll be a nurse.

I know there's no pressure. My point is that there should be. You said you were okay with encouraging women to take traditionally male roles, why shouldn't the reverse also happen?
It is okay as long as it remains voluntary, it does not affect job effectiveness and it is not funded by taxpayers. An NGO can organize an advertising  campaign encouraging males to become nurses or women to become engineers. I don't see the point, but it doesn't bother me if someone does that. It is not okay, however, if we set a goal "we want 30% of men in nursery/women in IT" and use some sort of state regulation to reach it.

because I was having a conversation about Kara about something else. I actually spent an hour or two looking into that, but I couldn't find any raw numbers, my suspicion is that the number of women in computer science never dropped but as CS went from being a theoretical pursuit to a major industry it attracted people who were very much interested in making money rather than satisfying academic pursuits and so it wasn't that women left but that men came.
Good point. We should not look at percentage only, but on total numbers as well.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Used to be about Integration, now about Feminism
Quote
It is okay as long as it remains voluntary, it does not affect job effectiveness and it is not funded by taxpayers. An NGO can organize an advertising  campaign encouraging males to become nurses or women to become engineers. I don't see the point, but it doesn't bother me if someone does that. It is not okay, however, if we set a goal "we want 30% of men in nursery/women in IT" and use some sort of state regulation to reach it.


I'll address this first.

In case you haven't noticed I've already pointed out in this thread that quotas are illegal in the UK and US and I've given no reason why that's a bad thing. I definitely think that it's not something the government should be interfering with. Unlike you though I do see a point.


You are reverting the case. We have the current state - e.g. 10% female programmers. You claim it is wrong as it should be closer to 50% and I ask: why is it wrong and why should it be closer to 50%? That's the fundamental question to the issue. What makes you think we should intervene in the matter at all?

There may be plenty of reasons why few women code. I don't claim for sure what they are because this should be a subject for a major research.

The number of women in the work age population is 50%. If the number of women doing a certain job is not 50% that indicates a deviation from the norm. Which means that there is a reason for it. You said "But let's ask ourselves a question "why should it be 50%?"" I've answered that by stating the far more important question, "Why shouldn't it be 50%? - i.e What factors are stopping it from being 50%" I didn't simply reverse your question, I put it in the terms it should originally have been stated. Because a deviation from the norm isn't something you should just accept without an explanation why it happens. But far too many people are willing to simply ignore the mystery and say "Well I guess women just don't like coding."

You say "freedom to choose this job in not limited in other way" and that is the real crux of the matter. Because there are limits that are cultural. Do you think that the reason why male nurses are such a small percentage of the profession is really because men don't have what it takes to be a nurse? Or do you think that the cultural view of male nurses is a limiting factor? When I go to the hospital, I want to be treated by the best nurse. I don't want to risk getting a female nurse who is below average because males who would have been better than her didn't apply.


Quote
But the fact distribution is unequal doesn't mean there is a discrimination (on other kind of injustice) and we should try to change the state of affairs.

But it similarly doesn't mean you should stick your head in the sand and assume that the distribution is natural.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]