• phillaholic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Counting the number of women vs number of men affected by a change is not cherry picking data. It suggests that there is systemic bias in the way the change was decided upon. Systemic bias may not be intentional.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Good lord. Re-read the quoted text from the article.

      Even their source isn’t claiming that the distribution that they cite represents all the people negatively affected by the RTO order, they explicitly say this is one person’s anecdotal experience on a very small sample size.

      And then they immediately project this small cherry picked sample with claiming the mandate itself is sexist. And it appears to be the source of the unverified sample itself that makes that extreme assertion on sexism. Which is extraordinarily sus.

      Reading comprehension and critical thinking.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Any policy that impacts a disproportionate amount of one gender over the other in any group small or large has the highly likely chance of systemic bias. You seem quick to call me an idiot, but you don’t seem to understand the meaning behind the term, or how it doesn’t mean the people in charge are sexist assholes who hate women. It can be completely unconscious.

        If the outcome of your decision has consequences like this, the suggestion is you should reevaluate your decision to figure out if you’ve missed something.

        It’s been claimed that Dell lacks representation of women in higher levels, so it’s possible those making decisions lack the experience that lead them into this outcome. Again, this in no way means they are an intentionally trying to get rid of women.