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.
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.)