|
|
|
|
|
|
by unscrupulous_sw
2439 days ago
|
|
|
> Why can't you criticize your own model, though? I do but lunchtime only lasted so long before it imploded > Your assertion that hiring more women will lower standards is premised on a belief that men are inherently better. Isn't that embarrassingly obvious to deduce from what you say? If you're making "embarrassingly obvious deductions" you might be pattern matching me into your favorite straw man and not really deducing anything at all. I never said women are inferior to men and it's not possible to logically deduce that from what I said. The only premise I assumed is that there are currently more men than women at the top (e.g., pipeline problem). You can even have the average women be way superior to men and still have the problem of hiring more women leading to lower standards, if the few top women are all happily employed elsewhere. I am not even saying this reflects reality, just that your logic sucks. Why does everything have to be a dog whistle to fit people into hate groups? Some assholes like me are merely technical correctness assholes. |
|
|
So you were just trying to make a nuanced point about women's general engineering skills based on their biology and don't want to be lumped in with all those unsavory people who give lesser consideration to women engineers based on sexist beliefs about women. Noted.
>I never said women are inferior to men and it's not possible to logically deduce that from what I said.
Didn't you imply that hiring women would be 'lowering the bar'?