I already established earlier in this thread that I am not advocating for quotas because everyone agrees quotas are dumb. My question was not an argument for quotas, but an attempt to discuss potential solutions for this issue: that millions of women feel like there is discrimination, harassment, and assault in the workplace.
I'm fully aware of this.
But you still posed the question on quotas, so I answered the question.
I never made any claim or allegation that it was your position.
And I did propose a solution, looking at the causes of differences such as poverty, and recognizing biological differences.
You are telling millions of women they are wrong and discounting a great deal of statistics, research, and personal experiences that corroborate that they, at the very least, PERCEIVE a real problem. The articles I've link established that there is, at the least, a problem with sexual harassment that is affecting far more women than men in the workplace.
Keyword: Perceive
I'm focusing on combating actual discrimination and causes of it.
Not on what people want to imagine is happening.
And as far as Sexual Harassment is concerned, that could also be a case of how many get reported.
Even if not, ok that's one point towards female discrimination. But that has nothing to do with Gender Quotas.
As far as women not having interest, there is no established link between testosterone and thinking science is fun. Women are, on average, better at language skills and men are, on average, better at spatial relations... but this doesn't stop millions of men from going into language-oriented careers, so the opposite should hold true for women. In point of fact, there is a lot to suggest that women are not only interested in but talented at these subjects, but simply not going into these fields, dropping out of them, or not being promoted. (I also linked several articles and resources on this subject.)
The Testosterone was a base example to highlight my bigger point of genetic differences.
Now I don't claim to be an expert in that matter so I won't bother debating the precise differences and where they might lead, I was simply saying to be mindful and aware of it's existence.
And how it can lead to a society which is equality of opportunity still having a difference of outcome.
Women also beat men in Social and Biology Sciences, as well as in Education.
And there's a lot to consider for why someone might not pursue a field also.
For example I have an interest in topics such as Science, but I don't plan of becoming a scientist for a living.
While there is also the social bias of men focusing on their work instead of spending time with the kids.
Which would effect the amount of time they take off.
But even if all bias were gone women would still take more time off on average.
Because for men it's strictly personal choice, while with woman part of the time it would be a biological necessity due to the nature of pregnancy, medical complications and how pregnancy can effect performance or safety in specific fields.
The fact is that even today, people still expect women to be the ones choosing family and childcare time over career time. Which is bullshit and also hurts new fathers who can't get paternity leave. A lot of the time, men don't even get the option. So it's women who are forced to be the ones taking time away from careers. This totally ignores the men willing to take the time off or the men who choose to be stay-at-home dads. According to the Department of Labor, 2 million US men were stay-at-home dads in 2012.
So you already acknowledge this.
Then why are you arguing it as a women's issue rather than a human issue?
In terms of physical strength, men are physically stronger on average; that's indisputable. And no, I don't think anyone should take a job which requires physical strength and not be able to perform. Seiji's story from earlier in the thread is a good example of why that doesn't work out. It's natural to expect to find more males than females in fields that require brute strength.
But it's not just more men, it's a LOT more men. According to this study by an organization geared toward promoting career opportunities for women, in 2008 women made up:
6.7% of mechanical engineers
2.5% of maintenance workers or repair jobs
1.5% of carpenters
1.4% of plumbers and related careers
1% of electricians
0.4% of masonry jobs
And that's just for example.
With training, people- men or women- can build muscle mass in order to meet physical requirements. A woman with developed muscles might very well outstrip a man who went through the same training, depending on inherent physical structure. No, not every woman will be able to do this, but a good number can and do meet physical requirements for their jobs.
Agreed.
But once again, I was answering the question on quotas.
I wasn't implying anything of your own personal stance and opinion.
But as far as Quotas would be concerned, they would look at the higher amount of men in these fields, claim discrimination and then start replacing competent workers for incompetent ones.
Many manual labor jobs that once required high strength have also been industrialized with machines which mean anyone with training can do the job, so this should not rule out women from these careers.
If it's truly replaced by Machines then yes that's agreed.
But if there's still aspects, vital ones especially that remain reliant on a individuals strength then such requirements would still be justified.
Now the racial bit is off-topic, but I will say that research shows that while poverty is a big factor into whether PoC get jobs, it's not the only one.
For Gender Quota's specifically, yes.
But the only legalized laws that enforce such Quotas at the moment don't just target sex, they also target race.
And I do agree that element's like poverty aren't the only cause.
But it's a rather big one that Quota's tend to ignore completely.
It also seems you've missed one of the key points of my last post:
But other people have seen things that you have not, and telling them that their personal experiences mean jack ain't going to win you any arguments or convince anybody to take your POV into their consideration.
Like I said earlier, I'm focusing on actual discrimination, not perceived discrimination.
If I focused on trying to take everyone's personal experience into consideration when arguing how to fix this issue we wouldn't get anywhere.
Everyone would clash having experienced things differently, and instead of being able to address the facts we'd be stuck in ideological warfare.
People want to claim stuff like "There is a systematic oppression against ______!" can hate on me all they want for that, never is a human being able to make everyone like them.
But if real change, actual change for the better can be gained out of it then I will consider it a victory.
Are millions of women talking about sexual discrimination, harassment and assault significant, or not? If you don't believe in systemic sexism, how do you justify a belief in a systemic reaction to perceived sexism?
Because there are 6 billion people on the planet and some them will unavoidably share similar opinions and conclusions.
Especially with inventions such as the Internet making it easier than ever for those individuals to connect.
Why is one a more valid theory than the opposite?
Because one relies on personal testimony, which is subject to human bias, memory alteration, mis-remembering etc*.
While the other is looking at numbers and statistics.
*And yes, even the ECE horror stories I mentioned earlier in the thread would be subject to such errors.
However I didn't express that expecting people to enforce laws to change it, I was simply saying I went through something shitty before and found it insanely stupid.
