Well, Novelty seems to believe either that his own hiring policies (kudos for them) leveled the field for whatever industry he’s in, or that so long as one little corner of a field is level, one should be happy that the whole field isn’t a 70% slope. DuVernay has decided that creating a slice of playing field isn’t enough: the whole field needs to be even. She’s aiming to achieve that goal by creating a seesaw: by slopping her corner in a way that lets women get CV-building experience they would otherwise be denied, those companies which go for a level-corner approach will then have pools of experienced candidates which are much more equal than what’s now available. Eventually things will spread about and the whole field will be close enough to even, but that takes time.
When everybody who gets hired for certain types of positions with no previous experience is type-X, saying “oh, I’m willing to hire anybody with experience in that type of position, therefore I don’t discriminate”… maybe disingineous wasn’t the right word, but it’s a denial of the reality many people in biased fields face day in, day out. One of those fields is non-gender-dependent jobs in the movie industry, from gaffer to director to Scientist#7.
You seek, in good faith, to make it better. Things don’t “magically” find their level it takes hard work over many years and it takes that time for attitudes to change and people to die off.
When you misrepresent my position.
i.e. the “magical” quip, it does the debate a disservice.
Putting aside the validity of the underlying point you’re making, you’re certainly using the word “discrimination” in a way that is quite nonstandard.
This is a deeply flawed analogy because Ava DuV isn’t just choosing who to play with or hang out with, she’s choosing who to employ, and in doing so is subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations, laws and regulations which are in general designed to fight against discrimination, and which are generally “on her side”.
No, I don’t really want to be subject to your twisted version of morality. Preferential hiring is immoral and I really don’t think I’m going to be shifted on this.
It should be illegal and it pretty is wherever I’ve worked. There are better ways to fix the problem that don’t rely on knee-jerk, headline-grabbing discrimination. Ones that already bear fruit in other areas of industry and have seen more and more women enter the workplace in positions once closed to them.
No, I’m using the first definition that pops up on Google: “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”
IMO, people don’t *really *disagree with the definition I’m using, they disagree with what is and isn’t “just”
You *do *understand how an analogy works, right? Nobody’s employing anyone on a playground.
If she’s doing something illegal, then she should probably stop that.* If only *there was some way to test the validity - I bet DuVernay’s never thought of that!
Of course it was deliberate. I mean, the parallels between what DuVernay is doing and race-based Affirmative Action just write my lines for me.
Would you have preferred something with less baggage? How about “strident”? “Screeching”? “Shrill”? “Termagaunt”? “Shrewish?”
So, in answer to my previous question - you’re against all affirmative action and Title IX actions too, I take it?
That you think this is “knee-jerk”, rather than a considered, calculating response to systemic injustice, is more telling of you than DuVernay.
And you say “headline-grabbing” like it’s some kind of pejorative. Sure, if that was *all *it was, it’d be bad, (and you seem to be implying that’s the sole reason for the move, which : :rolleyes: )but as a side effect? All I can say is “Damn straight, you get that press, girl!”
This is not my experience of tech firms, and if I were hiring, I’d only hire women, as well.
And my country would actively reward me for doing so, I might add.
Leaving so soon? Well, I’m always here if you need to talk.
Discrimination in hiring policy is always morally wrong, even with the best intentions. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Lasting change won’t come about by actions like DuVernay’s but it has come about in other areas without any need for suchlike and to make it last you are going to need that robust regulation, legislation and education anyway, so it makes sense to start there.
That’s it. Now we’ve started repeating ourselves and arguing over word definition plus I’ve made all the points I want to and it is all more heat than light so that’s always my cue to leave. Others will have other points to make I’m sure.
And you are correct, of course. The fact that gender imbalances can correct themselves, and even shift to politically correct imbalances, is further evidence that they aren’t driven by sexism.
My father was a veterinarian and a male*, and he saw the shift first-hand, from hardly any women to mostly women. He put it down mostly to the shift to mostly small-animal practice, and away from large-animal - doing a digital exam on a twenty pound cat is not as physically stressful as sticking your arm up the rectum of a fifteen hundred pound steer.
Regards,
Shodan
*Included the disclaimer because, well, it’s the SDMB