= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Link: quotas-microaggression-and-meritocracy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (163)
As I have said a few times already in this thread, the numbers make it look very much as if the dominating factor was an assessment that the "female" candidates were less competent than the "male" ones. Lack of commitment and increased lawsuit risk don't seem to me like matters of competence and I would expect the faculty surveyed to share that opinion.
Do you have a rough estimate of (1) how much more likely women would have to be than men to do those things, in order to justify a difference in evaluation of the magnitude found by this study, and (2) how much more likely women actually are to do those things?
(Two remarks in regard to sexual harassment lawsuits. 1: I think the relevant figure isn't how much more likely women are to file such suits but how much more likely they are to file them when no harassment has really occurred. But perhaps not: suppose women are more likely to be victims of sexual harassment sufficient to justify a lawsuit, and therefore more likely to file such lawsuits; then one possible position would be to consider women less desirable employees on those grounds and rate them as less competent. Personally, I think that would be odious, but I can imagine that some people might disagree. 2: My understanding is that actually such lawsuits are really rather rare, much too rare for rational consideration of their risk to yield the reported difference in evaluation even if (a) all such lawsuits are assumed groundless but successful and (b) the resulting losses in productivity and collegiality are assigned to lack of "competence" by the person filing the lawsuit. However, I don't have extensive statistics on this and will be happy to be corrected if wrong.)
The problem is that "whether sexual harassment has occurred" isn't all that well-defined. You can of course define "sexual harassment" however you want but then you have to establish you it's a bad thing. For example, from a briefing at the company I work at the examples of "sexual harassment" was:
1) a woman goes to work in somewhat provocative/revealing clothing and a male coworker complements her on her appearance.
2) a manager used the phrase "guys and gals".
Frankly if these examples are typical of "sexual harassment", I'd say sexual harassment isn't a problem.
Did either of these examples result in lawsuits?
I don't know, the presenter didn't say. Although the fact that these were presented as examples of behaviors not to engage in, is telling. Also even if they don't bring a lawsuit, the fact that they make an issue out of these kinds of things is not conducive to a good work environment.
Of course I wasn't there. But it occurs to me that there are several reasons why "marginal" examples might actually be the most useful:
I'd put the examples you give in the category of (not typical examples of sexual harassment, but) things that are frequently harmless but (1) might cause easily-avoided annoyance or upset in some cases and so should maybe be avoided and (2) in some cases might indicate, or be thought to indicate, an underlying bad attitude (women in the workplace being seen primarily as eye candy; women being seen as lower-status and akin to children).
I repeat: of course I wasn't there and don't know exactly what your presenter said about these examples. If s/he said "these things are definitely harassment and you could get in serious trouble for doing them" then I'd regard that as unreasonable; if s/he said "these things may seem harmless, and often they are, but you should still avoid them", I'd agree.
Anyway, I mention all this just in the interests of mutual understanding; it's all kinda irrelevant to the question of whether "greater risk of sexual harassment lawsuits" is a good justification for rating an identically-described person as substantially more "competent" if they have a male name than a female name. Do you really think it is?
The problem is that it causes people to treat it as an archetypical example.
I fail to see why it should be policy to cater to people who are clearly being unreasonable.
For one thing, because being unreasonable is simply What People Do and it seems better to care about outcomes in the real world than outcomes in some imaginary world where everyone is always reasonable. So if doing something predictably results in a bunch of people being upset, then it might be better to avoid it even if it would be better for everyone if they weren't upset by it.
For another, because what's "clearly unreasonable" to one person may be "clearly reasonable" to another. It may seem "clearly unreasonable" for a woman to have a problem with having her appearance complimented by her male colleagues. But if what she's found is that over and over again her male colleagues comment on her (and other women's) appearance, and never on their ideas, while the reverse happens to the men around her ... why, then, I have some sympathy if she gets frustrated by yet another compliment on her appearance. (It might in some sense be better for her to focus not on the compliments on her appearance but on the absence of response to her work. But actual things that actually happen are easier to see and more psychologically salient than absences, even when the absence is the bigger underlying problem.)
Only people who are -- how shall I put it? -- clearly being unreasonable. One might prefer not to make policy on the basis of people who are clearly being unreasonable :-).
Seriously: yes, I agree that that's a potential problem. The obvious solution seems to me to be to make it as clear as you possibly can when you're talking about central examples and when you're sketching the boundaries. Unfortunately, I bet there will always be (clearly unreasonable) people who don't take any notice and either mix the two up or pretend to. I'm not sure much can be done about that.
I mostly agree (and upvoted), but...
Well, complimenting people wearing attractive clothes is is simply What People Do and it seems better to care about outcomes in the real world than outcomes in some imaginary world where no-one ever notices other people's clothes. So if wearing certain clothes predictably results in a bunch of people commenting on your appearance (and it annoys you), then it might be better to wear more modest clothes yadda yadda yadda.
;-)
You say that like you expect me to disagree, but I don't think I do. (But I would generally avoid saying so to the people in question, which I might not on the other side, because it seems more obviously unreasonable to have to avoid wearing nice clothes to work than to have to avoid complimenting people's clothing at work. I'm not terribly sure how much sense that makes, though.)
It seems even more unreasonable to be to wear sexy clothes (how did "sexy" turn into "nice"?) and then object when someone comments on them. Frankly the only way I can explain the woman's actions are that she was either insulted that the complementer was too low status or trolling for an excuse to accuse someone of sexual harassment.
Well, that's not obvious to me, anyway...
Well, these aren't mutually exclusive. Can't we do both? Postel's law, anyone?
While lawsuits may be rare, they are expensive, and people are risk-averse.
Also, the range of behavior that has to be avoided to avoid an unjustified lawsuit is much wider than the range of behavior that has to be avoided to avoid a justified lawsuit, and since even unjustified lawsuits are expensive, the former category is what really matters.