this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
385 points (87.8% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
3125 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think this is the response that summarizes why someone would have an issue with this:
A class of men used their time and resources to build an old-boys-club to help each other. This is widely regarded as a bad thing. There are actual solutions that would address the underlying issue of special interests giving certain demographics an advantage, like anonymizing applications to circumvent discrimination and ensure the most qualified applicant gets the job regardless of demographic. Instead, the approach here is to make a new old-not-boys-club to give an advantage to different demographics.
That's the issue here. The response to gender discrimination isn't to take turns, it's to eliminate unfair discrimination entirely.
That can't be done without first leveling the playing field.
Yes, a level playing field is one where no one has an unfair advantage, not one where all the various unfair advantages balance out.
That's what leveling the playing field is, removing the unfair advantages. Like anonymizing applications.
As stated elsewhere, there are other hurdles besides gender Identity which obstruct applicants. Equality of opportunity by selectively advantaging demographics immediately devolves into absurdity. You have to accurately quantify the exact degree of historical disadvantage and precise proportionate counter-advantage for every demographic, normalized by demographic, and accurately combined to address intersectionality. Every attempt at which obviously creating ripples of advantage and disadvantage to infinitesimally complicate the calculus, not to mention how you even quantify any of these values accurately in the first place.
And you must do all of this, because otherwise you're just making a new tier of privilege to join in on oppressing the minorities who slip through the cracks and don't have advocacy groups to devote time and money to give them a helping hand.
Or, like I said, you could focus on stripping away existing advantages instead of starting new ones, so your efforts benefit everyone disadvantaged.
It's more like acknowledging that under such a system of selective advantages, many underprivileged demographics slip through the cracks because they're not one of the vogue disadvantaged demographics. You're left with towering historic advantages, surrounded by a hierarchy of new trendy advantages, rising in proportion to the power of their advocacy groups. That's not a level playing field, it's a city skyline.
A step in the right direction for those with well-funded advocacy groups. For those without, it's a further step in the wrong direction. Either demographic-based discrimination by private entities is a problem or it isn't. You don't get to morally vindicate selective bias because it was biased in your favor this time. Eliminate the bias.