Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Would you say it's fair to assume that the number of women "who could do those jobs as well as men, but dont get the chance or have to work much harder at getting there" is less than two?
|
Given the population of the US, no, I'd say it's fair to assume there
are at least two women who got unfairly shafted in their legitimate hopes of being high-powered executives. Just like I'd also say it's fair to assume there are at least two women who have been promoted to high-powered executive positions when there were more skilled men who didn't get a fair chance at the job.
If you're going to defend broad statements with even broader statistical probabilities, then why bother making a point at all? I felt it was
fair to assume Phil meant a
relatively large number of women weren't being given chances or were being forced to work much harder for the same opportunities. If I was wrong, then forgive me, and we can all make his type of meaningless arguments together--for example, I'll say it's fair to assume that "there are [at least two] women" who would have been excellent air traffic controllers, but were denied that opportunity because they lost their eyesight in a tragic childhood accident. The air traffic controller industry is so unfair!