Here there be monsters (socratic) wrote,
Here there be monsters
socratic

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Every night for dinner we had a big old chunk of dirt. If we were really good we did not get desert. When I was your age.

It's Christmas day. That means that for 24 hours I will cease and decist singing Christmas songs. I like singing them at other times of the year but around Christmas I avoid doing so. Is it just to be different or difficult? Probably but isn't that like 95% of the fun of life? Okay maybe not that much. Maybe 40%? More than that. Let's say 57% with a +-3% margain of error, shall we?

Since it's Christmas, a time for joy, happiness, and good will towards men I thought I'd take the opportunity to take pot shots at feminism and its ilk. Hey, in my book that IS having good will towards men.

I could go after the odd feminist stance on abortion where "A woman's right to choose is important" has seemingly morphed into "Abortions for everybody without question or hesitation!" but that's too easy and overdone a target. Instead I think it's time to go after another overdone target, but one that really deserves it, and that is the idea of affirmative action.

Affirmative action is not merely a feminist concept, instead it was copied from the Black civil rights movement. This is one of the first flaws with it, since it places women in the same situation as blacks, which is patently absurd. Blacks were oppressed for centuries (some say they still are) and so had institutionalized social problems like poverty and lack of education. Women come proportionally from all parts of society and while individual women were oppressed one could not say that they came from oppressed families any more than men did. Give a black person the right to attend Harvard and he must struggle with gaining the necessary education despite parents who were denied access to college and who cannot afford to send him. Give a woman the right to attend Harvard and she is as likely as a man to have a college educated father and a family that can afford to send her.

I don't want to get too bogged down in why female affirmative action is far less reasonable than minority affirmative action because the fact of the matter is that the program as a whole is pretty silly. The idea behind it is that if as a society we give a certain number of slots in positions of power and influence to minority groups they will magically obtain enough social capital to make them equal. This is a pretty absurd thesis because it makes strange assumptions.

Assumption 1) Minority groups are oppressed to the point of needing help to obtain positions that presumably they could not earn in an open competition.

Assumption 2) Once they obtain those positions they will magically become capable of performing them credibly enough to earn the required social capital,

This is sort of an insane thing to think unless you believe, as many PC morons do, that not only are all groups roughly equal in their ability to perform all tasks (a fair assumption at least when it comes to race) but that all individuals regardless of education, training, and other environmental factors are equally able to perform all jobs and it's just lottery that makes certain people physics professors and others Fry Cooks.

This is a crazy way to think.

An alternative rationale behind affirmative action is that people are prejudiced and so women and blacks who ARE as competent as their white male counterparts are denied jobs for no good reasons. This one actually does have merit behind it. Studies have shown that the same resume will garner different responses if it has the name Lashawna attached to it than if it has, say, Kenneth. This is a real problem, no doubt about it. The question then is whether AA addresses this. I don't think it does.

The idea behind AA addressing this social inequity is A) that deserving people will be put in these positions once organizations are forced to take on a woman or a minority for them. B) Once in these positions minorities will thrive and thus change people's prejudices since exposure to a competent person will provide evidence to the contrary.

The problem with A) is that there aren't enough competent people in all fields to fill these openings. Let's look at academics, one of the places where AA is most common. There are disproportionately low numbers of Black and Female physicists. This means that even the least competent of them are likely to find jobs, AND that to balance out the White Male weighting of the physics department academic ghettos are created for black and female professors, like African American or Women's Studies. Both of these subjects in theory could do something useful but the majority of the time they are just a total waste of time. Women's studies especially is run by angry lesbians who care more about political agendas than worthwhile information. Teaching female students how to masturbate is not going to help them in the job market. Of course Black and Female students are disproportionately pushed into these departments and thus the ghettoization creates a vicious cycle. Female student is accepted to college, becomes a women's studies major, and finds after she graduates that what she's prepared to do is basically teach women's studies because virtually nothing of what she's studied has any application in the real world. How this helps anyone is a mystery.

As for B) well it doesn't work because of the poor application. Incompetent people are promoted along with the competents and they end up getting lumped together. In fact Affirmative Action makes legitimately successful blacks and women seem LESS successful than they really are because they 'only got to where they are due to skin color.' Good work AA advocates!

The problem is there ARE no easy answers to this problem. It takes time and effort to change the perception and success rate of a race of people. If you want an example look at the Jews. As late as the turn of the century they were discriminated against in large numbers and certainly faced more hurdles than Blacks or Women do today. Today Jewish people are among the more successful peoples in the United States and in fact the only way that Caucasians claim to be well represented in the sciences is by including Jews in their ranks. Something like 24% of science PHDs are awarded to Jews. That is radically disproportionate to their numbers in society. Likewise they are vastly over-represented in top universities and at top income levels.

Affirmative action wasn't necessary for this achievement.

Of coure there are notable differences between the situations of Blacks and Jews. The Jews who came over had often been successful people in their countries of origin or at the very least scholarly and even though they were Poor in America this often translated into successful familial habits. The black family structure was intentionally and violently destroyed and at the time of the civil war little remained of their culture that had not been tainted by slavery. This has made it a lot harder for them to reconstruct themselves socially. There is also the factor of the 1930s 40s immigration which brought much of the cream of the European Jewish crop to America. There has been no such creaming of Africa (although many slaves came from royal families this royalty was stripped of them through their treatment and family splitting.)

Affirmative Action then offers an easy answer to a difficult question. The kind of easy answer that isn't going to solve things and generally makes things worse in the long run.

Now we come to women. One immediate problem regarding women is that unlike African Americans they are not ever going to be functionally identical to men. Women and men think differently, act differently, and have different priorities. This is true across societies and there is very little reason to believe that it is not genetically determined, since in various non-human mammals female and male creatures display different behaviors. It's nothing so radical to suggest women can't be in the workforce or whatever, but it does suggest that they are less likely to be as drawn to or as good at certain mathematically determined professions as men. Keep in mind that we're talking in the aggregate here (another problem of Affirmative Action) and individual women can certainly be spectacular at mathematical pursuits. Also despite the fact that it has been way overweighted in social discourse there is data to suggest that women are more 'nurturing' and care more about spending time with their young than men do. Feminism blindly insists that this is totally untrue, but then again feminists lie all the time to try and forward their ideology so that isn't too important.

How to deal with women who want maternity leave or even to take a break from their careers when their children are young? (which, by the way, is good for the children.) Feminists who are willing to entertain the idea suggest that the solution is to have men take equal time off! They can shut up and go sit in the corner. It's fine to offer fathers the same opportunity but chances are that this burden is going to fall disproportionately on the female. This is also an issue for businesses who have to try and look for or train replacements when a woman gets pregnant and wants time off. This is hugely problematic for women who are very high up in management and might suggest that perhaps putting young women in such a position is taking a risk. Fortunately there are two things that prevent this problem from being crippling to female employment. They are that women who are cutthroat and ambitious enough to reach the top are generally not the nurturing types who want time with their children, prefering to warehouse them with a nanny just like men used to warehouse them with a wife. The second is that most CEOs and upper managers tend to be old enough that the chances of them having more children are rather low. This is further improved by the fact that women live longer than men. Hire a woman at 50 for a job a man would get at 45 and chances are she will be able to give you the same amount of time the man would before expiring or retiring. Thus she can both spend time with the children and have the same professional impact a man could. The extra life span allows for this.

These arguments don't help against prejudice but presumably in a capitalist society prejudice will take care of itself. Companies that promote and hire women and men based on competence only will presumably do better than companies that do not and eventually this will lead to those companies who are not prejudiced surviving while others perish. This will once again take time, but honestly it's the only real solution. Women and men may never become precicely equal in earnings or whatever in the aggregate but that's irrelevant really. All that matters is equal individual opportunity.

I am not going to go back through my ethical objections to affirmative action because I've described them Ad-Naseum. Instead I'll let these arguments stand. I also won't attack feminism on other silly areas like child support because this is already long enough that nobody will read it to completion.

Instead I'll probably post again later about other stuff I've been mulling over.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments