The key issue is whether it matters that women are under-represented on the boards of financial institutions.
Does it matter whether women are included in human activity? What kind of rot have people succumbed to when they can "take or leave" the participation of women? What principle have they put in its place? I'm waiting to be very impressed.
10 comments:
Well, there's also the sense of "does it matter" that Jack Crow has been discussing recently, though of course it's pretty unlikely that that's what the Financial Times is talking about.
Incidentally, do you really subscribe to that rag? I knew you were dedicated, but that is dedication.
Ethan,
Yes, this one I pay good money for.
We can debate the kinds of institutions we want, but I don't think there should be any debate about whether or not people can participate in them.
When it comes to generic categories, I try out the insertion substitution.
For example:
The key issue is whether it matters that homosexuals are under-represented on the boards of financial institutions.
The key issue is whether it matters that blacks are under-represented on the boards of financial institutions.
The key issue is whether it matters that Christians are under-represented on the boards of financial institutions.
The key issue is whether it matters that Jews are under-represented on the boards of financial institutions.
The key issue is whether it matters that white men are under-represented on the boards of financial institutions.
The key issue is whether it matters that paraplegics are under-represented on the boards of financial institutions.
*
As for struggling to get represented in those sort of institutions, in the first - I'm inclined to double down on my original position, and wonder aloud if it's not only not worth, but counter-productive.
I think we can agree that women shouldn't be excluded on the basis of gender, so it makes perfect sense to challenge that exclusion.
Welcoming people into social life presupposes a willingness to accommodate their needs. That's why nobody debates the merits of wheelchair accessible ramps to institutions that are otherwise hostile to the disabled: it's assumed that accommodating people is a good thing. Nobody says, "Well, that veteran shouldn't be going to the bank; he should be trying to overthrow it." Insofar as we have banks, they shouldn't exclude people, period. That's true now, and it should remain so in the future.
You and I can agree that issues of exclusion go much further than liberal questions of "equality in the boardroom" since private boardrooms, by definition, exclude the public. So, I would just say that the principle needs to be applied consistently throughout human affairs: women shouldn't be excluded from the boardroom, and boardrooms shouldn't exclude the rest of humanity, either. And that is a consistent position which can serve as the basis for extending the reach of human freedom on an ongoing basis -- sometimes through reform, other times through revolution.
I hope it didn't sound like I disagree with any of that, JR.
I write in order to explain things to myself, and I expect that is the same for most of us. So I don't attach any particular significance to whether or not I'm in agreement with other people in the first instance. People come to issues with all kinds of assumptions and concerns; and reconciling those with one's own is something of an art in itself. What amazes me is how often people insist on a conflict when there needn't be one.
So, while I didn't expect anyone to have a problem with what I wrote, I also wouldn't have a problem (with them) if they did.
This blog really deserves more criticism than it gets, so I hope people feel comfortable offering it up in that regard.
I only hope it didn't sound like I disagreed with it because I don't disagree, is all.
And I don't know about anyone else, but if I ever see anything on here that I want to criticize, I'll feel comfortable doing so.
And yes, I also write largely to explain things to myself, as you say, and I post it publicly in the hopes that I'll get other people to help me explain things to myself.
Finally, my spam catcher test word is "menses."
Well said, my friend.
Just curious, but will you choose to force women to fill positions if not enough of them apply?
He said under-represented, not excluded. At least, that is what you quoted. I couldn't access the article to read it through. I have no idea how this guy feels about women in positions of power from the single sentence there. I have to take it at face value.
Unless I decide your take on him is the correct one, in which case I will assume that it is not the case that he doesn't care what gender someone is, but rather is apologizing for gender discrimination.
I find it interesting that we must today be racists (or sexists) in order to prove that we are not racists (or sexists).
I have a great anecdote to share on our crazy ideas about racism, et al, if you are interested.
Post a Comment