• @Doomsider
    link
    22 days ago

    “It was wrong for them to hire and promote based on whiteness in the past and now it’s wrong for them to promote or hire based on non-whiteness. Both versions are wrong. Plain and simple.”

    Except one of things is the norm and the other is not and never has been.

    In 2022, 88.1% of CEOs were men, and 88.8% were Caucasian.

    For management in general 70% is made up of men and the other 30% consists of women. It has traditionally been seen as a male-dominated profession – and frequent studies show that even with the inclusion of more women, it’s still more masculine-orientated.

    You entire rant boils down to one bad experience. Guess fucking what? They hired a white kid at my past job who had no clue how to be a manager and we all had to train his incompetent ass. This is a very common story in management and it does not require a minority to make it happen.

    I would seriously start reflecting on your racists attitudes. You are literally one Fox News segment away from being a full on bigot.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate
      link
      -12 days ago

      In 2022, 88.1% of CEOs were men, and 88.8% were Caucasian.

      And what percentage of women want/try to be CEOs, compared to men?

      That’s an important piece of the puzzle that gets ignored far too often. If, for example, one half of the population is 10x more likely to desire/pursue a particular job than the other, a 10 to 1 difference among those who end up in that job is not only not evidence of any sort of bias, but it’s exactly the outcome one should expect in the absence of such bias.

      Librarians are ~83% women, but it’s not because those who are hiring librarians are massively sexist against men.

      • @Doomsider
        link
        12 days ago

        I guess we will never know because we live in a extremely sexist society who views a woman in a business suit as a bitch but a man as a leader.

        https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-different-words-we-use-to-describe-male-and-female-leaders

        This is the real puzzle not the belief that women simply don’t want high paying leadership positions.

        How many men are supportive of male librarians or male grade school educators. This cuts both ways preventing good men from being part of professions they could add a lot to.

        We can’t fix this by ignoring it.

        • ObjectivityIncarnate
          link
          -2
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          How many men are supportive of male librarians or male grade school educators.

          99% of them don’t give a shit, at all, either way. Same for women, as well.

          It was found that in areas of the world that have made much more progress than the US in the are of overall sex equality, that the skews in professional positions are HIGHER, not lower (e.g. engineers are even more male-skewed, nurses are even more female-skewed, etc.). Men and women, when given the free choice to pursue whatever they want professionally, do not make the same choices in aggregate. That is the fact of the matter.

          It’s literally called the “gender equality paradox” because so many people naively assumed that men and women are exactly the same, blank slates that only differ in any way because of societal pressures, and that only sexism (e.g. society telling men to do job X and women job Y) could be the reason that it’s not an exact 50/50 sex split across all jobs/careers. The research that discovered the exact opposite was true flabbergasted them, but the facts are what they are, like it or not.

          The fact that those skews become MORE pronounced in societies with MORE equality completely obliterates that assumption.

          • @Doomsider
            link
            0
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Everything you said was pretty much nonsense. Societies that have tackled gender inequality see much better representation of women in leadership roles as well as jobs that have traditionally been seen as male dominated.

            “In dismantling historically male domains in the state and military, Norway ranks among the world’s trendsetters. Women have served as the head of state for more than 40 percent of the years since 1981”

            “In Norway the national average for women working in the construction industry is 35%”

            “According to recently released data from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 11.5% of payroll employees in the construction industry are women”

            You have no facts to speak of and it is clear you think sexism is status quo. Ignoring the problem is not a solution and is directly responsible for the attacks on woman’s rights in the US.

            There is a reason women make less in comparable private sector jobs, have their bodily autonomy violated, and don’t have basic necessities taken care of like maternal leave.

            • ObjectivityIncarnate
              link
              01 day ago

              Everything you said was pretty much nonsense.

              I quoted “gender equality paradox” for a reason. It is a real thing, not some concept I conceived of–It has a Wikipedia entry, for fuck’s sake. I’ll quote the first paragraph, but please stop being so intellectually lazy and actually look up the whole thing yourself, instead of wallowing in your haughty condescension:

              The gender-equality paradox is the finding that various gender differences in personality and occupational choice are larger in more gender equal countries. Larger differences are found in Big Five personality traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, depression, personal values, occupational and educational choices. This phenomenon is seemingly paradoxical because one would expect the differences to be reduced as countries become more gender egalitarian.[1] Such a paradox has been discussed by numerous studies ranging from science, mathematics, reading, personality traits, basic human values and vocational interests.

              You have no facts to speak of

              No facts you’re willing to admit exist, despite being both present and easily-accessible, you mean. You can’t will them out of existence, no matter how much you wish you could.

              and it is clear you think sexism is status quo

              No, what’s clear is that you assume any sex disparity is caused by sexism, the sociological version of the creationist’s ‘god of the gaps’ argument, where God is similarly conveniently spackled into any crevice not already filled.

              • @Doomsider
                link
                0
                edit-2
                18 hours ago

                Listen, citing a theory on Wikipedia which was disproven by the statistics I shared is not proof of anything. Your thought pattern is eerily similar to the justifications used against suffrage and women’s right to vote.

                The paradox is not a paradox at all. Cultural indoctrination explains why this happens. It is clear that you are using this theory to justify sexism in your mind. This is the only lazy thinking that is happening here.

                I will reiterate you have no facts only an easily disproven theory. A theory that cites pseudo-science like personality types. While entertaining it is no different than other asinine postulations like astrology.

                I won’t even entertain how stupid you get with the gods of gap nonsense. You have no foundation in understanding sexism which is painfully obvious. I would highly suggest reading up on sexism so you can have a real discussion about this in the future.

                https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/toolkits-guides/sexism-at-work-handbook/part-1-understand/where-does-sexism-come?language_content_entity=en

                https://www.bu.edu/antiracism-center/files/2022/06/Sexism.pdf

                https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-oppression/

                • ObjectivityIncarnate
                  link
                  0
                  edit-2
                  10 hours ago

                  citing a theory

                  It’s not a “theory”, it was what the research found. It just doesn’t confirm your biases, so you strain your wrist with how hard you desperately try to handwave it out of existence. Ironically another similarity to the young earth creationist playbook: “evolution is just a theory”, lol.

                  pseudo-science like personality types no different than other asinine postulations like astrology

                  LMAO, better let Nature know you know better what real science is. What a hack journal, right?

                  Incredible.

                  Facts:

                  • Scandinavia is more egalitarian than the US re sex. In other words, less sexism overall.
                  • To mention just two examples, the skew of men over women in engineering, and the skew of women over men in nursing, are both STEEPER in Scandinavia than in the US.

                  Explain how, if sexism is the reason for the skew in the first place, it can be that less sexism widens the gap. Be specific.

                  • @Doomsider
                    link
                    0
                    edit-2
                    8 hours ago

                    You don’t even know it is a theory… I am dumbfounded.

                    “The construction industry continues to be predominately male with structures and norms that impede women from pursuing careers within the industry. As mentioned above, the SCB (2019) report showed that the construction industry in Sweden consists of only 11 per cent women.”

                    You are so full of shit it is not even funny.

                    I think we are done pretending you know anything.