You are saying it is perfectly okay to select a man, then another man, then another man, then another man, then another man, then another man, then another man, and so on.
You would have to be blind not to see the pattern of bias.
You are advocating a totally sexist methodology in Supreme Court.
When man after man is selected, and statistically it is out of whack with the number of candidates, that is why I bring it up. Got it?
And just in case you don't get it, let me be crystal clear about how the courts have ruled already (lower courts of course, where there is diversity), they have ruled that STATISTICS prove sexism. Courts have recently ruled that any corporation that has its statistics out of whack is proof of sexims.
If you don't think Bush is out of whack, look no further than the current corporate lawsuits that were decided by the courts.
If statistics proves corporations are biased, why doesn't the hiring for Supreme Court be held to the same HIGH standard that corporations are held too? Why the inconsistency? - look no further than Bushies.
RE: "attacking the "males should lead women" point of view "
You seem to think it's perfectly okay not to have representation. One of the things that got the so-called founding fathers upset was the lack of representation. ( Of course, they were sufficiently selfish enough to only be upset with a lack of representation for themselves. )
Regarding your last sentence, I think you are not a big picture person or you are weak in mathematics and statistics. Statistics don't lie. Patterns don't lie.
So how do you think the majority of men would feel if 99% of the leaders were women? It would be totally unacceptable for most of them and I would completely agree with these men. People should be represented.
101 about diversity means a representation of different POVs.
Amy J |
