Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Realistically of course, Mann (the boy) obviously knows there's a good chance that a woman will soon hold the most influential office in the world, and undoubtedly knows some or most of those Coyote mentioned earlier: Carly Fiorina (Republican nominee and former CEO of HP), Margaret Thatcher (Britain's Ronald Reagan), Queen Elizabeth (monarch since the stone age or something) and Dilma Rousseff (President being impeached just before the Olympics)... I'll admit I don't know who 'Bures' is and apparently Google doesn't either. Obviously saying that "We just don’t give them the chance to" "run a country, own a company, and throw a nasty curve ball" is one (of 2 or 3) literally false statements. And yet it's equally obvious that this is hyperbole, not deception or delusion.
The fact is that while women make up over 50% of the population in most countries, fewer than 20% of folk in the US Congress are women and only 4% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. The argument that men just want it more only goes so far.
Claims of bias based on gender or ethnicity are often overdrawn (and in the case of gender, actual biological differences sometimes ignored); but it is a proven fact that otherwise identical resumes with obviously male/female or clearly European/non-European names at the top do result in different interview/hiring practices. Interestingly, for some roles - most notably childcare, receptionists, and probably wait staff - that bias is in favour of women; and even female recruiters are less likely to interview/hire women for male-dominated roles. So we're not necessarily talking about racist or sexist attitudes here, so much as association and expectation.
If most or all the people you've seen doing a job are women, you'll associate that job with women. It's only natural. Again, it needn't be racist or sexist, but it's an unconscious bias tendency which for now does still exist and which works against women and most minority groups for most higher paying jobs. And the only way to reduce unconscious bias is to recognise and confront it.
As far as privilege goes, to my mind the hierarchy goes something like
1 > Non-abusive parents, no serious illness, no great tragedies or disasters
2 or 3 > Loving parents, good role models
2 or 3 > Economic status, better education, resources and contacts (which in fairness can be strongly correlated with ethnicity)
4 > Being straight and cisgender
5 > Being male
6 > Being white
So what I don't like about the poem is that it basically puts the bottom two up front and centre (mentioning economic status in passing, at least).
But all these unsubstantiated emotional over-reactions that Mann is "indoctrinated" or "a serious head case" or "hating himself because he is white" seem to miss the point altogether... at best.
While some of that is valid, I'd disagree with the expectations of women necessarily being CEO's or representatives in government.
If there are less women pursuing those things, you can't make women run for those things.
The issue is that there is this selective belief in gender job parity (ie, things must be 50/50).
The odd thing about that though, is this parity is usually only demanded in jobs that pay very well, are high prestige and are high power.
You aren't going to see a parity demand for roofers, a job that can suck giant balls.