The two types of Feminism

[Toni]

I can't tell you why you are seeing something that isn't there. That's only for you to truly know.



Oh. I thought you were advocating for promoting these women over others because still others were unfairly promoted over them. If you are just asking the questions I've already answered then I just point you to previous posts.

What criteria should be used?

Merit and skill as I said before. If these women are the best qualified with the most merit and skill, then they should get the promotion. I said that a long time ago. So did the others you have been asking.

I said these women were fully qualified for those positions when I presented the scenario. They have all the merit, experience, and skill the job requires. They've had it for decades. They've had more of it than the men who were promoted over them.

So where's the beef? What's wrong with a policy of righting that wrong by promoting them at the first opportunity into positions they are fully qualified to hold? It seems to me that some folks don't like it because they think the young men are being unfairly treated, as though the men deserve the promotions more than the women simply be virtue of being men.

It seems that way to me, too. Or that it is incomprehensible to some people that a 50 year old woman might be more qualified than a 25 year old.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

He made no mention of 25 year old women also waiting a few more years

I think he misread you or you miscommunicated (not sure which) the scenario as the women who waited 30 years being promoted over male applicants and not female ones. Perhaps you should ask him that before projecting.

and apparently he doesn't care about women waiting 30 years for a shot at one.

He certainly didn't say that.

No, Jolly. Men are not being "punished" when women receive their long overdue, well earned, and thoroughly, utterly, and unmistakable merited promotions.

As numerous people here have said, they are being discriminated against unfairly if they are equally or more qualified than those women who were passed over 30 years ago. That goes for both the men and the women being passed over. If you are doing it motivated by the fact that these women were passed over 30 years ago, then in Loren's words you are "punishing" these people for something somebody else did. Are you following this reasoning or will you insert more projection?

I gave Loren an example of a work environment in which men might be unfairly denied promotions. He hasn't responded with a reason why it would be unfair to a young woman if an older guy got a promotion he was fully qualified to receive instead of her, perhaps because he doesn't have a problem with that.

Perhaps you should ask him to respond to that. Your posts have been numerous and lengthy. Mine have too. Neither of us have had each of our previous points and questions addressed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can you point to me where you stated that those with the most merit and skill should get the promotions? I can't seem to find that.

How about this direct response to your first post on this?

But you are talking about promotion based on seniority, like unions insist on here in Ontario, and which I find problematic in its own way. I believe that merit, qualification, and skill is all that should matter. Having more time on the job may contribute to being more experienced and qualified, but not necessarily. The new job being promoted to may have applicants from the outside who are better suited for the job role based on experience elsewhere.

Also I said one page ago

Length of time spent on the previous job is ONLY relevant so far as it constitutes experience, expertise and skill towards the job being promoted to or hired for.

I also said a few pages before that:

It is unfair and unjust to not just the male (if he is more qualified) but to the company and possibly society as a whole if what the company does is important, because the less qualified person is getting the position and is therefore likely to do a worse job.

And then this

ou are seeking to promote a group of people based on their gender combined with number of years at the company. As Terrel said, if the new folks (male and female) are more qualified for the job being filled (ie, being hired from outside with more expertise or being more skilled) then you are discriminating against them. You haven't mentioned what to do with any qualified men who were passed over for whatever reason when the women you are pushing for were (due to whatever reason).

I'm just repeating myself to you now and I don't know if you will read my words as intended without reading in misogyny that you expect to see in them. I hope so.

 

[Arctish]

I think he misread you or you miscommunicated (not sure which) the scenario as the women who waited 30 years being promoted over male applicants and not female ones. Perhaps you should ask him that before projecting.



He certainly didn't say that.

No, Jolly. Men are not being "punished" when women receive their long overdue, well earned, and thoroughly, utterly, and unmistakable merited promotions.

As numerous people here have said, they are being discriminated against unfairly if they are equally or more qualified than those women who were passed over 30 years ago.

They aren't more qualified than the women who have been discriminated against for the past 30 years (not just once 30 years ago). Women who are fully qualified to hold those positions, and are more qualified than the men who were promoted. Women who deserved, by dint of hard work, effort, talent, commitment, and excellence, to have been promoted at any time for the past 30 years, and who are finally being promoted now. The younger employees, male and female, are going to have to wait for an opportunity at promotion until after all those who have deserved promotions for far longer finally receive them.

I imagine some men will be inconvenienced. They won't be denied promotions for 30 years or anything like that. But they will have to put in their time in less exalted positions, working under 50-something female supervisors and managers. Is that a punishment?

That goes for both the men and the women being passed over. If you are doing it motivated by the fact that these women were passed over 30 years ago, then in Loren's words you are "punishing" these people for something somebody else did. Are you following this reasoning or will you insert more projection?

I gave Loren an example of a work environment in which men might be unfairly denied promotions. He hasn't responded with a reason why it would be unfair to a young woman if an older guy got a promotion he was fully qualified to receive instead of her, perhaps because he doesn't have a problem with that.

Perhaps you should ask him to respond to that. Your posts have been numerous and lengthy. Mine have too. Neither of us have had each of our previous points and questions addressed.

I did ask. He responded by calling it punishment and suggesting we suppose Derec punched me in the face.

 

[Arctish]

dp

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The younger employees, male and female, are going to have to wait for an opportunity at promotion until after all those who have deserved promotions for far longer finally receive them.

Why should they?

If your answer is because those women who have been waiting are better qualified and more skilled than the men and women who they are getting the promotion instead of, then they should get the promotion for that reason and this has nothing to do with the injustice that was done to them. The injustice was that done to them 30 years ago is irrelevant to their promotion, and they should be compensated for that injustice as both I and Terrell have suggested. That's the egalitarian / feminist argument here.

If your answer is that they should be promoted because the injustice was done to them, if that is taken as relevant in any way, and they are promoted over the other candidates because of it, then that is compounding injustice with further discrimination, as Loren, Terrell and I have all noted. That's where the "punishment" rhetoric comes in.

If your answer is just that "its their turn" because they have waited so long, then that's an argument for seniority and is irrelevant to this thread. I oppose it on grounds having nothing to do with gender issues. Unions have that here in Ontario and it leads to some bad results.

 

[Toni]

The younger employees, male and female, are going to have to wait for an opportunity at promotion until after all those who have deserved promotions for far longer finally receive them.

Why should they?

If your answer is because those women who have been waiting are better qualified and more skilled than the men and women who they are getting the promotion instead of, then they should get the promotion for that reason and this has nothing to do with the injustice that was done to them. The injustice was that done to them 30 years ago is irrelevant to their promotion, and they should be compensated for that injustice as both I and Terrell have suggested. That's the egalitarian / feminist argument here.

If your answer is that they should be promoted because the injustice was done to them, if that is taken as relevant in any way, and they are promoted over the other candidates because of it, then that is compounding injustice with further discrimination, as Loren, Terrell and I have all noted. That's where the "punishment" rhetoric comes in.

If your answer is just that "its their turn" because they have waited so long, then that's an argument for seniority and is irrelevant to this thread. I oppose it on grounds having nothing to do with gender issues. Unions have that here in Ontario and it leads to some bad results.

How is it discrimination to promote someone who has been waiting longer for an opportunity over someone who hasn't waited as long?

If there are 30 employees who qualify for a promotion but only 7 promotions available, does that mean that 23 people are being discriminated against?

You have even gone so far as to suggest that outside people be invited to apply and receive the higher position because surely they are even more qualified.

No one is suggesting that unqualified candidates or less qualified candidates be promoted as they were in the past. That indeed would be discriminatory.

If all the candidates fit the criteria for promotion equally well, what criteria should be used to promote them?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If all the candidates fit the criteria for promotion equally well, what criteria should be used to promote them?

You are stuck in a feedbsck loop. Read the post you quoted (which you ironically did not address but addressed your question here) and the previous post I wrote directly to you. If you have a question that I have not already answered I would be happy to do so. I feel that I have been as clear as I am able to be on what I already answered. I would also be happy to listen to your own views.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Women who merited the promotions were passed over in favor of less qualified men. So you agree that is wrong?

I've never said it isn't wrong. What I'm objecting to is your solution.

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

A time machine.

How would a time machine help? The women would still be discriminated against.

The point of a time machine is to go back and change the original situation.

Other than that, any attempt to remedy it is actually perpetuating the problem.

Really? That's what you believe?

You solve the discrimination against women by discriminating against men. You have just as many victims of discrimination when you're done as when you started. You accomplished nothing.

Do you have homeowner's insurance? Does it have a clause protecting you against theft of items in your home? I'll assume that you do.

Suppose your home is broken into and you lose $50K in jewelry, electronics, bonds, etc. that you had stored in your safe. The thieves are not discovered. Your items are simply gone.

Do you expect your homeowner's insurance policy to reimburse you for your loss?

I am pretty certain that you would.

I am also pretty certain that the insurance rate for your neighbors would go up because of the theft in your neighborhood---your home, in fact.

Or do you think it is more fair to expect you to rely on a time machine and install better locks on your doors to prevent the theft in the first place.

Your answer is I should go steal $50k of stuff from someone else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Projection detected.

Men are not being 'punished'. The younger workers are at the back of the promotion line because other workers, who should have been promoted long ago, are now being given their long-overdue promotions.

You don't think of it as punishment but the victims of your discrimination will quite rightly see themselves as being punished for the actions of others.

Furthermore, you have just traded one group of discrimination victims for another group.

I get the feeling you think anything that inconveniences men is terribly unjust because it inconveniences men. You're perfectly fine with women being shortchanged their entire careers. You don't feel the slightest qualms about women being denied promotions they earned 30 years ago and have been qualified to receive ever since, but make a 25 year old guy wait another couple of years for his promotion, oh the humanity!

You're fine with shortchanging men.

I'm saying that the past can't be fixed, all we should be doing is being fair going forward.

You're justifying it based on what came before--but the people being punished were neither the perpetrators nor the beneficiaries.

Suppose Derec punches you out because of how women have treated him in the past. Should be fine--it was a woman, you're a woman.

Suppose Derec takes my house because you took his. You've argued in favor of that sort of trickle down injustice. But the difference here is that no one is being punished.

People are not being punished when well qualified employees who should have been promoted long ago are being given promotions now. The fact you see it that way, as a punishment to men (but apparently not to the 25 year old women working at that company) is entirely due to your own peculiar worldview.

I'm not the one arguing for passing it on, you are.

If they are the most qualified person to be promoted at present then promote them. Don't promote them because they were the most qualified some time ago.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure how it is evil to promote someone who has waited a long time for a well deserved promotion, even if it means promoting the person who has been waiting a long time over someone else who has not been waiting so long. Please note: all candidates are qualified in this example. The only persons who are supposing that the male candidates who might be passed over are more qualified than the female candidates who have been waiting a long time for their promotions are: surprise surprise: male. In fact, this is not the case. Heck, Jolly is so determined that males not be passed over that he refuses to accept longer tenure at a job as being perhaps a good reason to award one candidate a promotion over another candidate. All things being equal except genitalia.

Discriminatory thought detected!

You are treating "qualified" as a binary state. It isn't. Some are better than others. Treating such things as pass-fail is a standard way of hiding the discrimination inherent in the policies you propose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unlike Loren, I actually do think that the individual women who were discriminated against due to their gender should be compensated for that. I just don't think you do that by creating FURTHER discrimination, now against some men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the original discrimination.

I am not objecting to directly compensating them if it can reasonably be done. It's just that that is generally not a viable answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I get the feeling you think anything that inconveniences men is terribly unjust because it inconveniences men. You're perfectly fine with women being shortchanged their entire careers. You don't feel the slightest qualms about women being denied promotions they earned 30 years ago and have been qualified to receive ever since, but make a 25 year old guy wait another couple of years for his promotion, oh the humanity!

You are explicitly creating a straw man instead of listening. I can't speak for Loren, but I wouldn't feel any differently about this if you reversed the genders. I see no indication that he would either. You are projecting.

Agreed--I'm saying to look at the current situation and make the best choice.

The criteria should be as public as practical, the testing for those criteria should be as blind as practical.

This still leaves the possibility of discriminatory criteria (for example, using a height requirement to keep out most women) but by making the criteria as public as possible such things get exposed.

For tests where enough people take them you can test them for discrimination. To start, construct a chart showing how people score on each question vs their overall score. You get a line from 0, 0 to 1, 1. For an average question it should be approximately straight, easy questions should be bowed upwards, hard questions should be bowed downwards. If you get something that wiggles instead of being bowed you have a bad question, throw it out.

Now, to detect discrimination, divide the group up by whatever you wish to test for discrimination about and plot the graphs again. If the graphs match you have proven the question is not biased. If they do not match (within acceptable error), it's most likely biased. (It's possible this is showing some other problem, though. The test covers A, B & C--but one group of test takers didn't study C. The graph on A and B will go upwards from the average and C will go down.)

So long as you have all the information this is no big deal on a decent computer.

 

[Arctish]

The younger employees, male and female, are going to have to wait for an opportunity at promotion until after all those who have deserved promotions for far longer finally receive them.

Why should they?

Because that's how merit based systems work.

Because at 25, there's no way they have the experience or the work record to justify getting a promotion over a person who has been fully qualified for decades.

Because a business that promotes less competent people over more competent ones is flirting with disaster. Anyone smart enough to deserve a promotion is smart enough to understand that.

If your answer is because those women who have been waiting are better qualified and more skilled than the men and women who they are getting the promotion instead of, then they should get the promotion for that reason and this has nothing to do with the injustice that was done to them. The injustice was that done to them 30 years ago is irrelevant to their promotion, and they should be compensated for that injustice as both I and Terrell have suggested. That's the egalitarian / feminist argument here.

You keep talking about it like it was a one time deal 30 years ago. It was on ongoing issue for decades. The most qualified people for those positions were the women who'd been stuck in place for years. When the company finally stopped discriminating against them it had no reason to promote anyone but them, because it had no one with better qualifications than them.

If your answer is that they should be promoted because the injustice was done to them, if that is taken as relevant in any way, and they are promoted over the other candidates because of it, then that is compounding injustice with further discrimination, as Loren, Terrell and I have all noted. That's where the "punishment" rhetoric comes in.

If your answer is just that "its their turn" because they have waited so long, then that's an argument for seniority and is irrelevant to this thread. I oppose it on grounds having nothing to do with gender issues. Unions have that here in Ontario and it leads to some bad results.

My question had to do with a company being proactive in addressing the issue, rather than reactive when it could no longer get away with that shit.

The company I had in mind is a medium sized corporation that had 15 separate branches. Every branch had hundreds of employees working in about a dozen different departments. Each branch had its own HR department, and these were staffed almost entirely by women. The lowest level employee worked at the front desk, answered the phone, filed paperwork, handed out applications for employment, insurance, vacation time, etc. The supervisor handled more complicated reports, schedules, ensured that paperwork was properly processed, and conducted preliminary interviews with prospective employees. The Manager and Assistant Manager handled sensitive information like medical records, disciplinary action, EEOC complaints, etc. They were responsible for keeping each branch in compliance with federal and state labor laws, OSHA regulations, corporate policy, and the like. Each Assistant Manager was supposed to be able to fill in for the Manager on a moment's notice. If the HR Manager left, the Assistant Manager became the Acting Manager until a new Manager took over.

The problem was, this particular business was led by some old chauvinists who liked to fast track young men up the corporate ladder. For some reason they decided to make the HR department one of the rungs. I have direct knowledge of 3 men who were promoted to HR manager despite having no HR experience at all, and one of them had no managerial experience either. I was told by many different employees that the same thing happened in all of the branches, and it was true that they all had men in charge despite being staffed almost entirely by women. My roommate at the time, an Assistant Manager with nothing less than excellent performance reviews and years of experience in the HR department, had to train a couple of different men who were promoted over her. One of them knew so little about labor law he kept trying to do things that were illegal and was stunned to learn why his 'perfectly sensible' suggestions weren't being implemented.

That situation began to change when the Manager left (on his merry way up the corporate ladder now that he knew a bare minimum about HR) and my roommate became Acting Manager for the third time. She applied for the Manager's position as always, only this time she told the corporate higher-ups she would not train the new Manager. She told them that if she wasn't qualified to do the job, she wasn't qualified to train someone else to do it. If she was qualified and they hired someone else, she expected it would be someone with equal or greater qualifications so training would not be needed. She didn't say anything about them hiring an incompetent noob but I'm sure they got the message. About that time the other Assistant Managers started dropping broad hints about laws against gender discrimination and what possible reasons there might be why a fully trained, experienced, and trusted Acting Manager might not be promoted to manager while a young man with zero experience was put in charge.

My roommate was finally promoted to a position she had fully earned years before. And for the next few years, all of the employees promoted to Manager of an HR department in one of the branches were women.

The company didn't decide to 'punish men'. It didn't decide to unfairly promote 50 year old women over equally qualified 25 year old men. There were no 25 year olds who were equally qualified. The company decided to stop screwing around with the HR department and put the most qualified people in charge.

I find it extremely interesting that you think it's reasonable to suppose a man's three years of experience is somehow equivalent to a woman's thirty year career. I can't think of any job where that supposition would be reasonable.

 

[Arctish]

Unlike Loren, I actually do think that the individual women who were discriminated against due to their gender should be compensated for that. I just don't think you do that by creating FURTHER discrimination, now against some men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the original discrimination.

I am not objecting to directly compensating them if it can reasonably be done. It's just that that is generally not a viable answer.

I agree. It's not viable. It would take a successful lawsuit to pry anything in the way of compensation out of a business. The average employee can't afford the lawyer it would take to win no matter how good a case they had.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The most qualified people for those positions were the women who'd been stuck in place for years. When the company finally stopped discriminating against them it had no reason to promote anyone but them, because it had no one with better qualifications than them.

Then the injustice done to the women was never rectified.

I find it extremely interesting that you think it's reasonable to suppose a man's three years of experience is somehow equivalent to a woman's thirty year career. I can't think of any job where that supposition would be reasonable.

I was of course speaking generally and not to your specific example (hence covering all scenarios). If you are hiring a manager for bakers at rub-a-dub-dub Inc., you could consider the baker that has been baking for 30 years. You could also consider the graduate of a business administration program who also has a year or two of management experience before coming to Rub-a-dub-dub and working alongside the bakers for a year. That's one year of baking experience vs 30 and it makes sense to promote the person with one. Talent is another factor. Would you rather hire a young Mark Zuckerberg for your software company or a guy who has been programming since there were punch cards but never produced anything notable?

I agree. It's not viable. It would take a successful lawsuit to pry anything in the way of compensation out of a business. The average employee can't afford the lawyer it would take to win no matter how good a case they had.

That's where unions and governments could step in, if they did it properly and not on an overbroad group basis.

Reparations for slavery would make sense if we had the actual people who had been slaves and their former masters to address. In Loren's terms, it would be unjust benefit to award such to and from people who are just the same race; that would be unjust "punishment". But here, you've got the former case. You've got the very women who were wronged and the very company that did it. Compensate the women.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo there are a series of ways in the real world to deal with such issues. First (a) acknowledgement. Then (b) apology to those discriminated against unfairly (even, imo, if this apology is not made by the original infringers, but those who are now in their role). Then (c) redress, if practicable (and in this scenario it might be practicable). Finally, (d) being proactive going forward.

But whether to go down the route of compensation or positive discrimination (of which there are several varieties anyway, some of them not involving what is being suggested here) at (c) is something one could argue the toss over until the cows come home. Pros and cons with both, imo, especially in different particular real-world and therefore complicated scenarios. So personally, I can't see a clear cut case for one over the other here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unlike Loren, I actually do think that the individual women who were discriminated against due to their gender should be compensated for that. I just don't think you do that by creating FURTHER discrimination, now against some men who had nothing whatsoever to do with the original discrimination.

I am not objecting to directly compensating them if it can reasonably be done. It's just that that is generally not a viable answer.

I agree. It's not viable. It would take a successful lawsuit to pry anything in the way of compensation out of a business. The average employee can't afford the lawyer it would take to win no matter how good a case they had.

Providing adequate financial compensation for the past wrongs would destroy the business and then nobody would get promoted.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Providing adequate financial compensation for the past wrongs would destroy the business and then nobody would get promoted.

Imagine if we allowed that excuse for all labour law cases.

"Adequate compensation" and what the company can survive are both up for debate in particular cases.

 

[Arctish]

Then the injustice done to the women was never rectified.

It was discontinued. That was the first, most important step.

What that company did was like damming the flow of a stream, in this case a stream of talented people flowing from entry level positions to the final stages of their careers. The system allowed unqualified male employees to bypass the obstacle while the qualified female employees pooled in ever increasing number behind the barrier. Once the dam broke, a flood of highly qualified female employees began moving through the system again. Having no real competition qualification-wise, they got all the promotions in their departments for the next few years.

That was not 'punishing' men. The women who'd been held back got those promotions due to their hard work, commitment, skill, and talent. They were the obvious first picks for promotion. That much could be seen even before the dam broke.

I was of course speaking generally and not to your specific example (hence covering all scenarios). If you are hiring a manager for bakers at rub-a-dub-dub Inc., you could consider the baker that has been baking for 30 years. You could also consider the graduate of a business administration program who also has a year or two of management experience before coming to Rub-a-dub-dub and working alongside the bakers for a year. That's one year of baking experience vs 30 and it makes sense to promote the person with one. Talent is another factor. Would you rather hire a young Mark Zuckerberg for your software company or a guy who has been programming since there were punch cards but never produced anything notable?

You just set up a situation in which someone with no managerial experience is competing for a job with someone who has it. That was not part of the scenario I presented. That's the 'fully qualified 25 year old' you kept trying to insert into the story.

Of course the one with experience is the better candidate. That's why those women were the better candidates when they were finally given the chance to fairly compete for promotions.

If I was hiring a manager for my bakery, I'd look for someone with managerial ability and/or experience. If I had qualified long term employees, employees with good work records and no issues that made them unlikely prospects for the job, why would I be looking for an unknown or a noob?

We can suppose there's a prospective applicant somewhere with the leadership abilities of Nick Fury, the interview skills of Black Widow, the integrity of Captain America, the thoughtfulness of Black Panther, the reliability of Falcon, can innovate like Iron Man and hit a sales target like Hawkeye (har har), and who's as nice as Scarlet Witch and as fun to hang around with as Ant-Man. In the highly unlikely chance that such a candidate walks in the door and applies for the position of Manager, sure, you should give him/her serious consideration. But even that skill set isn't necessarily better than decades of experience.

I agree. It's not viable. It would take a successful lawsuit to pry anything in the way of compensation out of a business. The average employee can't afford the lawyer it would take to win no matter how good a case they had.

That's where unions and governments could step in, if they did it properly and not on an overbroad group basis.

Reparations for slavery would make sense if we had the actual people who had been slaves and their former masters to address. In Loren's terms, it would be unjust benefit to award such to and from people who are just the same race; that would be unjust "punishment". But here, you've got the former case. You've got the very women who were wronged and the very company that did it. Compensate the women.

That plan isn't viable for reasons already given. It sounds nice but in reality it means that nothing will be done.

 

[Trausti]