real horrorshow wrote:
There are two problems here. One, is the desire to impose quotas because women 'ought' to be equally represented in certain careers. A few days ago, it was mentioned that there are intermittent campaigns to get more women into STEM, and that yhe insuperable problem is that women aren't in those jobs - mainly - because they don't want to be.
It's the same with the 'women in atheism/scepticism' issue. Paula Kirby has made it clear: Try as you might to get women to take a part in speaking at conferences, most women don't want to. Bend over backwards, and you still get more men taking to the mic.
This is not good enough for the Watsonistas. Equity must be pursued for it's own sake. Bugger the quality of the speakers; at least half of them must be women. Likewise for the attendees. If the only way to achieve this is to have crap women speakers and to alienate men; all to the good. Women will then become a larger part of the shrinking whole. Never mind that the logical consequence is to have women 'owning' 100% of nothing.
Exactly, quotas only appear when women are underrepresented and the job is good. Have you ever seen a campaign or quota to get more men into nursing or teaching?
In Colombia we have had a guerrilla problem for like 50 fucking years, and there is a peace negotiation going on in Norway now. So recently we've had a couple articles on newspapers asking about the women in the negotiation team and asking "why aren't there more women in there".
My answer of course would be that the people in that team should be there because of their skills, not their genitalia. If they found 10 men who were better at the task than any woman they had available, then we'll send all men and now women. If it was the opposite, then we would have 10 women, too.
Women seem to be used now to having women everywhere just for being women, because if there aren't a certain number of women in the government, an office, or an skeptical conference, then it's a problem.
When did we being so worried about having "enough" women everywhere? Have you ever seen a group of women worried about getting more men involved in their stuff?
We should start a campaign to add rocket missiles and transformation abilities to the Barbie Convertible to attract more boys.
real horrorshow wrote:
The second problem - going back to the workplace - is that women, especially fembot women, will naturally wish to leave dirty, dangerous jobs to men. They will also choose to leave difficult, taxing jobs to men, even when they aren't dangerous. Fembots will campaign for equality only in those arenas where they can be well-paid for spending their time in comfy offices doing little but talk.
Men build civilization. Women shop in it.
Of course, there is never a group of feminists fighting for the right to be coal miners, or deep sea divers, or sewer cleaners. These jobs are always a choice, and men do them because they choose to do so. But if women are out of a job they would love to have, then it's discrimination and patriarchy and we need a lot of affirmative action so we can have a 50/50 distribution.
Or what happened with college degrees, when women were in the minority, there were bunches of programs to help them. Now that they are in the majority, no one is doing anything to help the men who are now dropping out more often and not getting degrees in the same proportion.
