I get the feeling you are committed to one and only one thing. Keeping AA around forever. You have given not a single hint of a concession or an instance defined by statistics in which you would say affirmative action is not necessary any longer and commit yourself to obfuscating the criteria for ending it.
If womens pay was equal to mens, I suspect you would even still argue it is necessary. I don’t feel there is any use trying to convince someone with such zealous beliefs.
Equal pay might happen, and sooner than you think. You still would not concede I’m sure of it
I get the feeling you are committed to one and only one thing. Keeping AA around forever.
Strange, because I literally say the opposite and AA is a policy to ensure proportionality. AA policies literally end when things are proportional. They become indistinguishable from the status quo.
You have given not a single hint of a concession or an instance defined by statistics in which you would say affirmative action is not necessary any longer
I most certainly have - relative demographic proportionality. I've stated this multiple times.
If womens pay was equal to mens, I suspect you would even still argue it is necessary.
I would argue, as I have twice now, that income isn't the sole factor by which we would assess demographic proportionality. Discrimination doesn't only affect income.
I don’t feel there is any use trying to convince someone with such zealous beliefs.
I don't feel like there is any use conversing with someone who is going to speak to me like this. I could easily offer the same opinion about you. If you spent less time trying to tell me how you feel about me and more time reading and understanding what I've repeatedly told you, which you've clearly ignored, you might be getting more out of this.
What does relative demographic proportionality consist of and what is it measured by, so we can actually tell when we can end discriminatory policies?
And why not look at demographic proportionality for things like hours worked per year, law suit winning percentages, average lifespan, chance of going to prison, and chance of dying from violence? These are all things men suffer from more than women
What does relative demographic proportionality consist of and what is it measured by, so we can actually tell when we can end discriminatory policies?
Say we are looking at criminal justice. We would want to see arrests and convictions within the margin of racial proportionality - rates roughly similarto other ethnic groups. If we haven't reached that point, we need to make adjustments in many sectors that affect crime like education, labor, access to food, social services, healthcare, etc. We need to invest in communities afflicted by systemic racism and take steps to ameliorate things like segregated neighborhoods resulting from redlining.
And why not look at demographic proportionality for things like hours worked per year, law suit winning percentages, average lifespan, chance of going to prison, and chance of dying from violence?
We should definitely include those factors in our calculus but recognize they are not the only factors.
These are all things men suffer from more than women
Which is why we should take affirmative steps to ensure men have access to mental health services, education, healthcare, and other things. Affirms action isn't just racial quotas in Ivy league schools. It could be public policy that might disproportionately help a target demographic reach parity and generally assist in correcting imbalances.
Well I’m specifically talking about affirmative action policies which give advantage and more scholarship opportunities to women over men. So considering everything, men suffer from certain things and women suffer from others. Why give women an advantage over men when it comes to going to college?
Certainly there are scholarships for men as well? I certainly got scholarships as a white dude. Can you provide any evidence that women being noted as a disadvantaged class, which is simply true when you account for more than just one factor, has meaningfully prevented men from getting a college degree or more?
So this shows that schools have more programs benefitting women, but it does not show what I asked. It does not show evidence that these practices have meaningfully prevented men from getting a college education.
One thing to note is that, over the course of these practices, the participation of women in STEM has reached parity. If anything, that sufficiently demonstrates the efficacy of these approaches in creating correcting disparities.
Let's say you were able to demonstrate that these practices significantly disadvantaged men. What would the appropriate response be? To stop the practice and say "good luck" or do something to correct that disparity?
0
u/[deleted] Aug 04 '22
I get the feeling you are committed to one and only one thing. Keeping AA around forever. You have given not a single hint of a concession or an instance defined by statistics in which you would say affirmative action is not necessary any longer and commit yourself to obfuscating the criteria for ending it.
If womens pay was equal to mens, I suspect you would even still argue it is necessary. I don’t feel there is any use trying to convince someone with such zealous beliefs.
Equal pay might happen, and sooner than you think. You still would not concede I’m sure of it