This is why affirmative should remain in tact

[Lindbergh]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  

Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

[Lindbergh]

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

I think it is.

[7S]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  

Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

[7S]

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

I think it is.

I don't doubt u do.

[PNym]

If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

One my favorite misconceptions about Affirmative Action. You do have to have to be comptent to benefit from AA. Any other system is a quota.

Candidates for positions in a company will always be a mixed bag, and different HR departments will have a different idea what qualifications are most important for the role that the candidates are competing for.

The HR departments will have a better idea what qualities are desired and what are not, and in what proportions, than someone who is pressuring the company to pass an AA policy.

It may very well be that the culture of a company is such that hiring any woman would disrupt the group dynamic. One example of this would be hiring for Chippendale dancers, although I'm sure there may be others. It's better to let the company's management, rather than an unaccountable 3rd party, decide which candidates could best contribute to their bottom line.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

Even though my assertion can't be deductively proven, most assertions cannot be deductively proven, so that point doesn't weaken my assertion in particular. Most assertions are given as knowledgeable due to the preponderance of evidence that supports the assertion, not because they are deduced from relationships to other assertions.

For example, if I came across a man holding a bloody knife and standing next to a dead woman lying on the ground with a bloody knife wound in her throat, that observation doesn't deductively prove that the man killed the woman, but it would strongly support an assertion that he did.

This is clearly not the same type of reasoning that characterizes the argument "All dogs are mammals. Since Spot is a dog, Spot is a mammal."

[PNym]

??

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.

Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.

Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

Because it still supports his position? 

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.

Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.

Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.

[PNym]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  

Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

Heck, any commitment you make (any option you choose) necessarily confines your options. Going to law school prevents me from doing other things, like joining the military or entering the movie industry. This should be pretty obvious.

[7S]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  

Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

Heck, any commitment you make (any option you choose) necessarily confines your options. Going to law school prevents me from doing other things, like joining the military or entering the movie industry. This should be pretty obvious.

Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

[7S]

??

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.

Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.

Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

Because it still supports his position? 

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.

Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.

Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.

Did you quote a study? I don't remember you ever providing a link. And does this study compare single wonmen to married men. If so, it is an "apples to oranges" comparison.

[PNym]

The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  

Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

Heck, any commitment you make (any option you choose) necessarily confines your options. Going to law school prevents me from doing other things, like joining the military or entering the movie industry. This should be pretty obvious.

Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.