What I am saying is I don't see how we would defeat an apparent inequality in social norms by a very real and systematic inequality of picking lesser qualified women over qualified men? How would this extremely prejudice system rectify this apparent social injustice? I can only see it creating hostility and divisiveness. I don't think this could ever defeat " current gender expectation, roles and stereotypes." by having an unfair system.
Do you have data to support your claims? As of right now it seems like an idealistic dream without a solid foundation using methods that are harmful.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 29 2016 11:17pm

With your seemingly generous but delusional vision enacted, you would see more of what we have now - a collapse in the birth rate AND low happiness ratings from women that are the lowest in recorded history. Biology and gender have a very distinct affect on us. You're the one ignoring biology and living in an emotionally frustrated world where you're afraid to stand up for your genuine interests - instead preferring vague notions of how you think everyone SHOULD feel. Can we just accept that women and men gravitate toward different activities at different proportions? I don't hear you trying to improve Women Marine's fitness standards.

Hayek was right when he said " There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, 'a new form of servitude'."

To this, I would say like I said before that affirmative action is an auxiliary tool as part of a larger goal surrounding social change, and is therefore not the solution in and of itself. It merely is a tool that helps toward that aforementioned goal, but is also not the end-game. It does so by allowing for conscientious efforts for diversity and moving past historical social barriers, at least to some degree. For instance, seeing more women in STEM fields helps attack the stereotype that "girls are bad at math" and that STEM fields aren't for women, and they'll also inspire young girls to follow in their footsteps, since such a big part of influence and inspiration is seeing people similar to you going out and doing X, Y, and Z. The idea though is see affirmative action go away eventually, but only once that larger social change has actualized.

I also don't know how prolific it is, the experience where lesser-qualified women are given jobs and opportunities over more-qualified men. Not to say that that doesn't happen or has never happened, but I would venture to guess that that experience is overstated in occurrence rather than understated.

As for data, I'm not entirely sure which claims you're asking for data on, since my perception of this conversations leaves me feeling that we're discussing mostly theoretical personal considerations of affirmative action rather than talking about things that involve statistics/data. If there are specific claims you have in mind, I'd be more than happy to either clarify them or try to provide relevant data though.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jun 30 2016 01:25am

I don't think there's a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that there's some strong, compelling biological reason(s) that necessarily translates to differences between men and women when it comes to areas of interest. This is, assuredly, where we disagree and whereupon much of this discussion hinges.

It seems to me that if one were to say that there is a strong, compelling biological reason(s) as to why the areas of interest differ between women and men, that to a certain extent we would also be saying that there are certain things/areas that either women or men are inherently predisposed to and better at than one another. That's a deep rabbit hole though, and seems to be invoked when convenient, but then criticized when inconvenient.

For example, one might respond to the differences between men and women in terms of the disparity of industry demographics (men in STEM; women in human service) by invoking these "biological" undercurrents, and saying that women are inherently drawn towards human services because they're "more nurturing" or "more caring", or whatever other gender stereotype. This seems to fall apart though when it plays out to the "disadvantage" of men though, as many people talk about women being awarded custody over men simply because there's a bias towards women with respect to child rearing. It seems to me inconsistent to criticize when this happens in custody disputes, but to simultaneously be either indifferent or supportive of it with respect to industry demographics.

I do accept the bolded, of course, I just have a very different perception as to why that occurs.

I haven't said anything regarding the underlined, because that's neither what this thread nor my conversation with majorblood have been about.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jun 30 2016 01:46am

if someone could help me understand this video, i'd appreciate it

This "girls are bad at math" would only be reinforced by affirmative action. Girls that are as good as boys at STEM can currently be as successful as boys at STEM, giving them an unfair advantage would imply they aren't as good. If I knew someone I looked up to only got into the field because of affirmative action I would lose a lot of respect for that person, personally. Will little girls look at inflated affirmative action statistics as role models or women like Marie Curie who were top of their class through handwork and dedication and made groundbreaking discoveries her in respective fields?

With this system of affirmative action the only other thing that could happen would be the male and female in question have literally the exact same qualifications. This scenario seems less likely than affirmative action supporting a lesser qualified over a qualified based on gender.

The data I am interested in is affirmative action having a strong role it "gender expectations, roles and stereotypes" in a positive manner enough to justify the prejudice. I am just curious if this idea is induced by data

I think it can be easily argued through evolutionary biology that women are more likely to be interested in child care than men.


This is easily shown in any sport or things that require strength like weightlifting/power lifting


Inconsistency on one's stance doesn't change how truth works. If women are biologically better than men then in most cases they should get custody except in cases where the woman is demonstrably worse than the male.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 30 2016 02:40am

Newest campaign ad for Johnson/Weld.

I prefer a candidate with modern age qualifications. Why should I support just another candidate of standard quality?
A vote for Johnson/Weld is a vote for Standard Definition. We must not let them alone hold back Ultra HD and HD progress.
Their SD policies seek to continue on tracks of the standard system which finds itself being sorely in need of modernization higher definition is humanity's future resolution transparency sensation!
A vote for Johnson/Weld is living in a flat world. It is time to get 3Dimentional!

This post was edited by TradeBot on Jun 30 2016 10:44am

garry for president

Can I get this in English?