Right, and no man on the court lauded that as an achievement yet Ginsburg did and it did her no harm.
Of course that's dumb. But that was not the argument that was made. Nine persons of the same gender on the SCOTUS is not the same as 'complete domination'.
Physical sports are 'dominated' by men because men are stronger and quicker than women, not because men have an agenda of purposely excluding women.
The Supreme Court may have been all men because more men were better qualified for the job. For example excessive emotion and empathy is not a great trait in a branch devoted to logic and high reason, so if men have less empathy there would be more highly qualified male justices at the top.
In other words, for your view to hold you would first need to show that men and women are equally fit for the job. Just like firefighter and oil rig jobs have properties that skew the distribution, other jobs do as well - which is precisely why you can't reason from the result backwards and suppose discrimination was the cause.
I thought it would be pretty obvious.
If an all-female court is 'complete domination' by women, then an all-male court (as was the case until 1981) would be 'complete domination' by men.
Basically SJW claptrap.
Of course that's dumb. But that was not the argument that was made. Nine persons of the same gender on the SCOTUS is not the same as 'complete domination'.
Physical sports are 'dominated' by men because men are stronger and quicker than women, not because men have an agenda of purposely excluding women.
The Supreme Court may have been all men because more men were better qualified for the job. For example excessive emotion and empathy is not a great trait in a branch devoted to logic and high reason, so if men have less empathy there would be more highly qualified male justices at the top.
In other words, for your view to hold you would first need to show that men and women are equally fit for the job. Just like firefighter and oil rig jobs have properties that skew the distribution, other jobs do as well - which is precisely why you can't reason from the result backwards and suppose discrimination was the cause.
It's not symmetric because men (by and large, TheImpossible1 notwithstanding) care about women and women don't care about men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf