jimoo wrote:Gender discrepancy in no way equals gender discrimination. That is the point I think you miss sometimes.
Whether you like it or not, there are differences between males and females, some of that is societal, some of is biological.
This isn't inherently a problem, it becomes problematic when individuals are pigeonholed/stereotyped into specific roles.
All I care about with government hiring is that the most qualified applicant for the position gets the initial job offer, no matter the race/gender/sexuality/etc of the applicant.
One of your things is not like the other.
What these statistics show is that, in the current environment, men are disproportionately judged as being 'more qualified' (barring, again, the slight and rather whimsical statistical possibility that this is all just some big coincidence).
Given that over 50% of the population is female, and only 19% of the top 28 managers are female, this seems like a classic quo erat demonstrandum
(that's Latin for 'slam dunk').
I would say that this is inherently problematic. But that's a political statement on my part, based on my ideological belief that there should be equal opportunity for all persons in our society. A meritocracy only works if there is a 'level playing field.'
So in this I (surprise, surprise) agree with Harris - I don't see the need for some expensive and time-consuming study to tell us what we already know.
If we collectively as a city want to do something about this, then let's do something about this - something tangible and concrete, right now.
If we don't, then let's not. S'all I'm saying.