SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Journal by The Mighty Buzzard
In case you haven't heard, FreeBSD has a new code of conduct that's seemingly pulled straight from the shit-spewing face of a blue-haired intersectional feminist.
Me, I refuse to contribute to any coding project with a code of conduct designed to protect people of one political ideology from those who disagree with them. They're of course welcome to do what they like but they'll be doing it without my help in any way.
Reply to: Re:interesting!
Post Comment
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 23 2018, @09:06AM
I'm not implying that I assume anything at all. *sigh*
Let me spell it out for you.
If we apply "equality of opportunity not equality of outcome" to the "wage gap" as it's defined by those who promulgate the concept, the conclusion is not that it's right or wrong - it's that it's irrelevant, if we're talking about justice. It is entirely and explicitly a collective measure. Females earn less money in wages, per 10 million. Ok, so what?
You're measuring outcomes but outcomes are not the appropriate measure.
If I told you that blue-eyed people made more than green eyed people, in the same sort of aggregate measure, would you decide that green-eyed people were being underpaid on the basis of that evidence? Let's smash the evil blues and make them give the greens their fair share!
Ooops, I read that backwards, greens make MORE money, they're the evil oppressors, gas the blues!
This is all nonsense. You're measuring the wrong things.
Is there any sort of obstacle preventing the virtuous greens, err I mean the long-suffering blues, from competing on an equal playing field?
If yes, what, specifically? That would be very interesting. There's a tremendous amount of hand-waving but very rarely does anything solid get pointed to. You realize, I hope, that actual discrimination, hiring preferentially or paying more based on gender, is actually an offense that police and district attorneys and courts investigate and prosecute and can easily destroy anyone for, right? If you have any evidence for anyone doing that in any western nation you can literally shoot it off to a state lawyer and see careers if not the entire enterprise destroyed, that's no joke.
But if not, then yes, then we reach the point of "well, in that case, it seems likely that this is a result of different choices." And in fact there's plenty of scholarship documenting and detailing that, that's exactly what it is. Females, in that same meaningless aggregate sense, work less, make less money, live longer, spend more money. You want to talk about the wage gap, how about we talk about that spending gap huh?
But I say that only rhetorically, again, the real point is that we're measuring the wrong thing, both ways.
If you believe in individual justice, then a "wage gap" that appears only as an aggregate, statistical generalization based on a very narrow set of measures, and one that neatly disappears when you start to control for different people having different values and pursuing different goals, then you don't see it as a problem. If you cared more about money than I did and you pursued it with more vigor and energy and determination than I did and you got paid more of it... I don't see the problem. And I don't know or need to know your gender. That's just completely irrelevant.
But as I said earlier, "social justice" is not the same thing at all. So if you view everything with this lens of collectivism, it doesn't matter that no individual was harmed, it's intolerable that those greens, I mean blues, I mean males, got more than their fair share.
That's not a rational position, or one that's genuinely respectful of other individuals and their rights either.