LogFAQs > #881416641

metroid composite posted...

(FWIW it's not that hard to measure--it's hard to figure out how much any one individual privilege matters, but we can see how they combine together by looking at how far the average man/woman gets in society).

I think that's a fine suggestion, but I imagine you would still run into the problem of weighting different privileges, unless I misunderstand what you mean by "How far people get in society".

For instance, while men make more money on average and are over-represented in high-ranking positions like CEOs or political office, women have a longer life expectancy and lower rates of untimely death.

metroid composite posted...

But if that's the approach we're taking, we shouldn't complain about solutions. Scholarships for, say, women in science is a solution to the problem that there has historically been a gender imbalance towards men in science fields. Similar approaches to fix gender imbalances have worked in other fields in the past (Law school used to be very male dominated, is now relatively gender balanced). Same idea with stuff like girls-only computer camps for highschoolers--they exist to try and encourage more enrollment at the university level, which has been a recent problem.

I don't think that quotas make things fairer, but it depends on what your goals are. To me it's not necessarily a problem if one sex is over-represented in a specific field. If there are certain policies or barriers that make it harder for the other sex to enter that field, then that I would agree is unfair. But the sensible solution would be to remove the unfair policy itself, rather than to add another unfair policy as a counterweight.

But even if you disagree, it can't be denied that sex-specific camps or scholarships or quotas are a form of privilege based on sex. That just means that sex-specific privileges aren't inherently a bad thing.