Mountain Secure views

I have previously enjoyed a part of the quota, and this adds a piece to this puzzle

As hetrosexuell, white man who is married and has children, and are in the age group 40-50, am I expected to have all the benefits you can get and quotas can in practice only disadvantage to me. There is a clear risk that I am expected to speak in their own cause if I say any negative about affirmative action. All arguments that it is unfair to all who qualify on their own skills to become suspicious that poorer performance in which quotas have been a prerequisite for the position, could of course fall flat and assumed that they are pronounced in their own cause, to "avoid competition" from structurally disadvantaged women.

Let me start with an opinion, I think we can reasonably conclude that women are structurally disadvantaged. Quotas of "fairness" is a position I can understand, and to some extent sympathize with, but the effects on the women who actually qualify on its own merits makes it actually destroys more than it does good. You win a short-term advantage is the long-term damage. Urinating in his pants to keep warm!

Let us then make a fair argument in the debate and further from the arguments.

One argument that I agree with you; A team works best if you have many views, perspectives and skills represented. This is where I was going to dig further today.

What shapes us as individuals is traditionally defined by the terms heredity and environment.

Gender is shown to be inherited - that effect can not be doubted, but the interesting thing is then the next logical step:

- Which approaches, perspectives and skills is through inheritance attributable to women in their characteristics as women?

- If there are properties that relate to the environment, there is no reason to look at a woman because then of course one might as well have acquired them, right?

With my old militant feminist colleague, I had on some occasions, discussions of male and female abilities. She categorically rejected empathy and simultaneous capacity of female talent, and that all research revealed that there were no genetic differences that could explain this but it was just a result of the environment combined with prejudice. I do not know if she is right and have no access to search the research in this area, but let's assume she's right - it beats away the bones of the argument that quotas would lead to a diversity of approaches and skills. If she is right to look for an empathetic person - not just a woman. It does of course not a woman, but it need not necessarily be a woman.

The conclusion is the argument of the quota is to achieve a healthy diversity, is actually inconsistent with the position that we are genetically equal and that gender differences are merely a social construction. Either the characteristics of genetic origin, gender or the diversity argument just found out - both of which can not logically apply at the same time!