|
|
|
|
|
by _3u10
1685 days ago
|
|
It also presupposes such systemic disadvantages exist. Not sure why so many people from other countries immigrate to places that are so obviously systemically biased against them. Or why when institutions such as Harvard actually do systemically discriminate against Asians it’s routinely ignored by the woke crowd. Can anyone explain to me why Asians despite having some of the highest scores and GPAs have the lowest rate of admissions to some of the wokest institutions in America? Why is the difference in incarceration rate between men and women or the police shooting rate not presented as systemic discrimination? |
|
I've tried multiple time the argument "if we have quotas in top positions like board of directors, high-prestige public institutions, we should also have them in bottom positions. Where are the inclusivity programs for prisons?". The answer that I've always received was "these are totally different", as in you end up in a board of directors due to chance and privilege, but you end up in prison due to your own actions.
While this argument is a bit stupid and not really constructive, I find it surprising how easily it reveals that people apply very different standards to different social issues. It seem that for most people, the mechanism which makes men dominate society is totally different from the mechanism which makes men be at the bottom of society. My explanation for that is that the glass ceiling comes with a glass floor.
I personally haven't found other people talking about things this way, but that may be me not researching enough. I also find it unfair that some people would be in this "glass box" just because of how they were born. But I'll admit that I find it troubling when I hear people talking about "breaking the glass ceiling" all the time, which seem to benefit mostly people already well-off in society that want event more (at least for positions like board of directors), while leaving people to rot in prison because they're male.