[erikpukinskis]

> It almost certainly will make those changes through coercion rather than eliminating sexism in the interview process

Why do you say that? You're basically presuming bad faith. Eliminating sexism in the interview process is exactly what anti-bias recruiting tries to do.

> it only builds resentments against movements which restrict and criticise behaviors which are fair

Not only that. It also helps get better people into the positions where they can be more effective, which leads to a more productive economy overall. The resentment is an unfortunate (I think inevitable) side effect.

To me the wage gaps are evidence that we're not using the labor force effectively, that there are talented women and people of color who are not getting into jobs where their skills are adequately leveraged. So getting them into better positions means companies will be more successful. The statistics suggest that some of the men in these positions don't deserve to be there and are holding their organizations back.

I understand you interpret the data in a different way, that some things just make men and white people more valuable. Differences aside, can you see that these interpretations are subjective and the data doesn't actually differentiate between "the women are just less capable" and "the process is not promoting the best people"? Those two realities are indistinguishable from pay data alone, which is why the stats become a Rorschach test for peoples' beliefs about gender differences.

Not sure how to engage the rest of your argument... I definitely wouldn't say people are blank slates, nor would I deny that gender differences exist. The vast majority of feminists don't think those things, those positions are straw men that anti-feminists like to bring up because they are easy to argue against.

[topmonk]

> Not sure how to engage the rest of your argument... I definitely wouldn't say people are blank slates, nor would I deny that gender differences exist. The vast majority of feminists don't think those things, those positions are straw men that anti-feminists like to bring up because they are easy to argue against.

Not to derail the conversation too much, but why does the extreme seem to be accepted as ok by the left? Kids as young as 8 are getting hormone treatments to try and change their gender. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/transgender-children-getting-...

I myself see this as child abuse. It's a life altering decision made by a child who is too young to understand the consequences. If you don't see this as harmful, you can ignore the rest of this comment, because then I don't have an argument. But if you do see this as a problem, why don't you and others on the left speak out against it?

This is what scares me about you guys. Some of you preach moderation, but you all seem fine with things be taken as far as they can go.

[belorn]

> wage gaps are evidence that we're not using the labor force effectively

That is only true if we view wages as the only factor in job selection and priority. If we accept that men are greater impacted by wealth through attraction and social status then we also should accept that those should create a bias in how prioritized wealth is.

And as could be guessed, that is exactly what studies show. When given multiple choices, men tend to choose higher wages over other work benefits. An employer that tries to maximize the effectiveness of the labor force might do so by providing the maximal amount of benefit to their employees. Worse, if they try to predict the needs of the their employees the wage gap would be created even if individual employees don't share the overall priority of their group.

We could fix the wage gap statistics by trying to convert all aspects of work that an employee values into a common unit. Job satisfaction could be such metric but normally wages are not considered a part of it so in a mirror reflection of the wage gap, there is a identical gap in job satisfaction that favors women.