The philosophic burden of proof is on you as you're making a statement counter to user "audessuscest"'s claim that meritocracy is important and the ideal is to make solely skill-based hires.
Let's just... ignore the larger societal angle of harassment, denigration, fear and uncertainty that plagues women and some minorities in STEM fields or finance, okay? Let's say, "It exists but let's not discuss it here."
I really don't wanna do this conversation AGAIN but the contention is that right now "whiteness" and "maleness" are implicitly part of the meritocratic process as positive traits. That happens in 2 ways:
1. Young, single, white (and Asian!) men are targeted by recruiters because of a perception of a "work ethic". This ethic is "I expect people to prop up my life so I can work 80+ hours a week, which is not sustainable if you have ANY responsibilities at all outside of basic sustenance". Historically, they has been a safe bet.
2. Subsequent "pattern matching" be it implicit or explicit, kind or cruel, expects that kind of commitment and education and ethos. That this wasn't ever reasonable is lost because people are just trying to recognize someone who can likely work in the same way they're expecting or have worked.
You can argue that people should work that hard and that it's fair, if you want. But what actually happens is that people find that there is a specific profile of people most likely to be willing and able to commit to that kind of lifestyle and then they optimize for selecting that. Therefore, Meritocracy is not a hedge against racism or sexism. Indeed, Meritocracy may be selecting "merit" based on attributes which explicitly reinforce sexism or racism.
So when you say, "skill-based hires" I can't help but hear, "people like me" every time. Because if anyone actually gave a shit about skill based hires they'd be blinding their recruiting efforts, doing pre-filter tests and desperately trying to remove every drop of bias from the industry to identify them.
No, let's not just agree to a narrative that you want to sell. I strongly reject your premise that uses weasel words and emotive language. You already tried manipulating the conversation by referencing a lawsuit without mentioning that the outcome ran counter to your narrative of endemic sexism.
>I really don't wanna do this conversation AGAIN but the contention is that right now "whiteness" and "maleness" are implicitly part of the meritocratic process as positive traits.
It's clear that you're used to "arguing" with people that agree with your ideology. If you don't want to deal with disagreement, then don't bother responding -- stay in your echo chamber.
The/my meritocratic process doesn't care about race or gender. When I hire consultants and contract-out work, I often don't know their race or gender and I'm not interested. I choose candidates in my price range based on the best work-samples.
>1. Young, single, white (and Asian!) men are targeted by recruiters because of a perception of a "work ethic". This ethic is "I expect people to prop up my life so I can work 80+ hours a week
Sorry, you forgot to mention that those people have experience in the industry or are otherwise credentialed -- your phrasing either intentionally or unintentionally suggests that recruiters just contact arbitrary white and asian men: "Hey, so we see that you're currently painting fences. Want to run a tech startup?" That's not the case.
Further, your assignment of "work ethic" to mean "I put my career first" reflects a personal choice. Either gender and any race can make this choice. By the way, "working really hard" isn't a "perception of a work ethic", that's just what's meant by work ethic. It's okay for words to have definitions.
>2. Subsequent "pattern matching" be it implicit or explicit, kind or cruel, expects that kind of commitment and education and ethos.
If I'm unpacking your assertion correctly, you're just saying that an interviewer or recruiter wants/looks-for commitment, relevant education, qualifications, and a career-first mentality. What a shock.
>But what actually happens is that people find that there is a specific profile of people most likely to be willing and able to commit to that kind of lifestyle and then they optimize for selecting that.
Which makes me think that I'm understanding you. The person that makes the personal choices and sacrifice required to excel in an industry is the logical pick over the person that didn't.
>Indeed, Meritocracy may be selecting "merit" based on attributes which explicitly reinforce sexism or racism...if anyone actually gave a shit about skill based hires they'd be blinding their recruiting efforts, doing pre-filter tests and desperately trying to remove every drop of bias from the industry to identify them.
According to your reasoning, hiring someone with a very strong work ethic is a "reinforcement of sexism and racism". Your prior suggestion that that those traits are unique to "young, single, white (and Asian!) men" is disgusting and offensive. Stop diminishing the importance of personal agency in becoming successful in a highly competitive field.
I'm going to stick with my approach of not caring about the gender, race, or any other _not at all relevant to their work or how I treat them as a person_ detail. If this wave of "social justice" parasites actually wanted change instead of attention and money, they'd quit the bullshit and put in the work to become great engineers or create their own companies.
It might be true for you. We know it's not true for many other people. That's why orchestras stick auditionees behind curtains. It's why people are advised to remove any protected characteristic information from their resumes/CVs.
> I'm going to stick with my approach of not caring about the gender, race, or any other _not at all relevant to their work or how I treat them as a person_ detail
I'd be interested in how you know you've eliminated this bit of strong conditioning, or whether you're operating under a cognitive bias.
Because so far when we test people who say "I don't care about race / sex / etc" we find people who do in fact care about it.
