101–110 of 113 posts
I often wonder why people who write these things don’t start with donating the mass of their fortunes first. Benioff could donate 5b to address poverty causes and still have more than a billion left over for himself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the focus should be on why aren't more women being hired for executive and engineering positions? I'm not putting all this on the hiring company; it starts much further back in the pipeline than that. So what is the company doing to get more women onto the track towards higher-paying executive and engineering positions, and keeping them on that track?
why is that their responsibility at all? Women are electing not to enter that “track;” it’s companies’ jobs to convince them to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the focus should be on why aren't more women being hired for executive and engineering positions? I'm not putting all this on the hiring company; it starts much further back in the pipeline than that. So what is the company doing to get more women onto the track towards higher-paying executive and engineering positions, and keeping them on that track?
It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. There's this creepy urge to pressure women to share exactly the same preference distributions as men. This restriction of women's choice for the sake of some neat gender parity is antithetical to human rights and equal opportunity.
I haven't seen any research showing one way or the other why this is. Have any links to share?
Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than we value work generally done by men?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. There's this creepy urge to pressure women to share exactly the same preference distributions as men. This restriction of women's choice for the sake of some neat gender parity is antithetical to human rights and equal opportunity.
> It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. I haven't seen any research showing one way or the other why this is. Have any links to share? Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than…
The most likely explanation is not that society values male work more than female work, but rather that men prioritize work that is socially valuable (i.e., prefer salary compensation) while women prefer to do work that affords them more flexibility. No one is punishing anyone or being punished by anyone; just different kinds of compensation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Profit is purpose. Only in a capitalistic system, which he is arguing needs revision. Your argument is therefore tautological.
My argument only requires that people own their own property/labor and have the freedom to trade those things with others. Without those freedoms we're in some dystopian/totalitarian state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvotes are fine with me; I don't put much stock in Internet points. I'm not trying to be persuasive in my single-sentence internet quip; if people care to learn more, they can do their own research.
You’re engaging in discussion and the downvotes aren’t disagreement here. They’re a sign your comment wasn’t contributing much of value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. There's this creepy urge to pressure women to share exactly the same preference distributions as men. This restriction of women's choice for the sake of some neat gender parity is antithetical to human rights and equal opportunity.
> It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. I haven't seen any research showing one way or the other why this is. Have any links to share? Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than…
I think you are 100% mixing up correlation and causation. "We" don't value anything. The market places a value on things based on what individuals are willing to pay, and has no knowledge or care about the gender of the person performing the task.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're supposing that women all want or aspire to the same types of positions that men do, which isn't true.
If that is the case, it might still be problematic to have a society that economically disadvantages ~50% of its members for what they naturally strive for. Of course this gets philosophical and idealistic fast, but I think it's still worth considering even though it's not a simple design/engineering problem with some obvious perfect solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't lobby for your selfish interests, you'll get out-regulated by companies who do. Lobbying is not an optional luxury. You have to do it. At least in politically sensitive industries. As a partially made up example, I'm guessing the plastic straw industry didn't think they had to lay a groundwork lobbying for their existence over the decades. And now they're dead.
I see your point, but bad example. There isn't a plastic straw industry. There is a plastic industry and a restaurant supply industry. There is no single focus on straws ... And no they are not dead. Get our of your bubble. The places where plastic straws are not allowed is tiny, tiny tiny.
Glad to hear there is more choice in other areas. But... what starts in SF tends to spread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're supposing that women all want or aspire to the same types of positions that men do, which isn't true.
If that is the case, it might still be problematic to have a society that economically disadvantages ~50% of its members for what they naturally strive for. Of course this gets philosophical and idealistic fast, but I think it's still worth considering even though it's not a simple design/engineering problem with some obvious perfect solution.
I naturally strive to stay in bed in the morning and do a lot of hobby projects. That's what I'd like to do, but I'd never argue that other people should be forced to pay me some sort of "bed bonus" to ensure that my natural strivings don't disadvantage me.
At a company like SalesForce, most of the most skilled employees will be developers and most of them will be men, because women, by and large, do not find computers interesting. Anyone who's ever tried to engage women in an enthusiastic conversation about programming languages knows this is true. The resulting "pay gap" isn't a pay gap at all but an earnings gap: it's correct and as it should be.