Skip to Main Content
2012-02-20 01:53 (UTC)
Right now, you and I largely talking to each other, and because of my double post, we're doing it in two separate sub-threads (is that the term I'm looking for?) I hope you don't mind if I answer both this and your other recent post in the same post.
(Your other post, for the ease of anyone else reading along)
[No, I don't think the rule would be worthwhile in that case. In a world with true gender equality, panels would sometimes be all or majority male, but they would also sometimes be all or majority female. In a truly gender equality world, there would be significantly less - perhaps nothing - for which a female perspective would be more useful than a male perspective, and vice versa.]
I think that excluding anyone based on their gender is unfair. But I'm coming to see what I think is the more important issue, which is that if we were to grossly oversimplify matters and give fairness a numerical value, the rule could be argued to be removing two or three fairness units from the category Fairness Towards Men, and adding several dozen to the category Fairness Towards Women, for an overall increase in the Fairness for all involved. Does that make sense?
Reply to this
Thread from start
Post a comment in response:
This community only allows commenting by members. You may comment here if you're a member of
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Log in with OpenID?
Forget your password?
Site and Journal Search
Buy Dreamwidth Services
Gift a Random User
Site and Account