You literally aren't willing to accept nuance or human behavior. You want an easy, reductive, sort feature in humans; and I'm telling you there isn't one. That is the reality of the human animal.
You know what standards include? Not "spazzing out".
Or are you going to tell me that standards don't apply after you get into a position?
Or perhaps you'd just like to throw out standards once you select someone at random that might have passed your initial mass filter on your excel sheet?
If you set that standard then every single woman will fail to meet it. The ones you think meet it are just a case of you failing to screen thoroughly enough, which will be revealed later with catastrophic results. It's more sensible to just fall back on old wisdom: No women in leadership roles.
Traditions are solutions to problems we forget existed. You'd be an idiot to casually discard them.
The ones you think meet it are just a case of you failing to screen thoroughly enough, which will be revealed later with catastrophic results.
Your filter is an unfalsifiable mechanism. You assume it will never be wrong, because it's not based on evidence, just the pre-emptive assertion that it's right, and no evidence is capable of showing that you filtered incorrectly.
You do not accept the reality of the human animal, because you prefer narrative.
Traditions are solutions to problems we forget existed. You'd be an idiot to casually discard them.
There is a pacific island tribe that has a ceremony for "coming of age" as a boy, where old men cut open their dicks to the urethra and then have the 14 year olds rub their genitals into the opened urethrae.
Now. What exactly is problem that this tradition solving?
Traditions may solve problems, or they could be completely wrong. An appeal to tradition is almost exactly as stupid and unnuanced as a reductive & narrative based ban.
You literally aren't willing to accept nuance or human behavior. You want an easy, reductive, sort feature in humans; and I'm telling you there isn't one. That is the reality of the human animal.
You know what standards include? Not "spazzing out".
Or are you going to tell me that standards don't apply after you get into a position?
Or perhaps you'd just like to throw out standards once you select someone at random that might have passed your initial mass filter on your excel sheet?
So you agree that women are to be excluded after all. Fantastic.
All I'm saying is set the standards. if they can't match it, that's their fault.
If you set that standard then every single woman will fail to meet it. The ones you think meet it are just a case of you failing to screen thoroughly enough, which will be revealed later with catastrophic results. It's more sensible to just fall back on old wisdom: No women in leadership roles.
Traditions are solutions to problems we forget existed. You'd be an idiot to casually discard them.
Your filter is an unfalsifiable mechanism. You assume it will never be wrong, because it's not based on evidence, just the pre-emptive assertion that it's right, and no evidence is capable of showing that you filtered incorrectly.
You do not accept the reality of the human animal, because you prefer narrative.
There is a pacific island tribe that has a ceremony for "coming of age" as a boy, where old men cut open their dicks to the urethra and then have the 14 year olds rub their genitals into the opened urethrae.
Now. What exactly is problem that this tradition solving?
Traditions may solve problems, or they could be completely wrong. An appeal to tradition is almost exactly as stupid and unnuanced as a reductive & narrative based ban.