Overheard on the news: "Many people think that a female should take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat."
What? Since when is an X chromosome count the main requirement when selecting a senator? Shouldn't we pay more attention to their brains, convictions, and record?
I mean, it may very well be that a woman is the best choice for that Senate seat. In an ideal world, the odds of that should be about 50%. But pushing any woman for any position for the primary reason of her being female sends the absolutely wrong message: that you can be selected for the job simply because you are a woman, not because you are the most qualified candidate.
And that is the last thing I ever want to hear said about me.
The perverse incentives of academia
6 years ago
2 comments:
agreed. ideally, we should be evaluated for our abilities not for our genders.
I thought the same applied for the race for the white house - I was appalled at some of the comments that turned up as in we are voting for Obama because he is african-american and Im african-american and I associate with him. It horrified me really - you dont want someone in government because they are a particular race, sex or religious affiliations - you want the best person for the job. I realise this is a rant, but this disturbs me. Similarly I dont want a job because Im a female etc either I want it because Im am damned good at what I do.
E.
Post a Comment