That statistically can not be the case, right?
There are about 50/50 men women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals.
So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women.
Right?
I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around?
#2: In a system in which women are discriminated against, it takes extra grit for women to push through, get hired, and do the work anyway. These are women who really want it very badly. The cream of the crop. Therefore it's not surprising to see them perform better than their male peers on average.
#3: In a system in which women have historically been discriminated against, there will be lots of men with jobs they don't deserve. When women begin to enter the workforce in greater numbers, these men will be the first to lose their jobs to rising women.
I could go on. There are plenty of reasons why women might be getting promoted faster. One should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it's solely due to affirmative action quotas with no evidence to back that up. The world is more complex than that.
If favoritism (or some sort of -ism) is/was responsible for all of men's achievements or stations -- isn't the converse true?
Doesn't that mean that if women rise through the ranks faster than men, that there is preferential treatment?
Otherwise, you would pretty much have to say that men and women are different on some fundamental intellectual level. Is that what you are saying?
Or are you just saying that preferential treatment is ok, just if it is your preference that is being treated?
You were suggesting in the top comment that women are being given jobs because they are women (rather than men), and that that is unjust. I don't see the difference between that statement and the idea that women are "taking" (i.e., unjustly acquiring) jobs (which would otherwise have been men's.)
I did not.
However, since you bring it up, women statistically can not move up the ranks faster than men, right?
There are about 50/50 men/women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals.
So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women. Right?
I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around?
I am suggesting that "we should hire more women" is every bit as sexist as "we should hire more men".
If you want to get rid of all -isms, why not do blind hires based on resume/testing (weighted some way)?
Yes you are. You have completely confused everything I have written, even though I thought it was in plain English.
> Do you think women are being given jobs that should have gone to men in a fair world or not?
I think people should hire blindly using blind job tests and weighted experience/education. That would get rid of all "-isms".
I imagine that people would still find something to bitch about, though.
It's not that "Wimmin' are takin' our jerbs!", he was just pointing out that promoting women because they have a vagina is just as bad as promoting someone because they have a penis or white skin.
Why not promote how well you do your job?