Tuesday, May 03, 2016
I detest quota systems of any sort, but especially when they are proposed as government policy or, worse, imposed by an abuse of government force. That said, I have an entirely other reason for being disgusted by quotas, and Michael Hurd recently put that quite well:
Think about it. If Hillary Clinton hired you to be in her Cabinet, and you happen to be a woman, you will know that you're in that high position because of your genitalia. Sure, there will be other reasons. But the reason you rose to the top -- to become Secretary of State, Defense or Treasury -- is because of your unchosen biological gender, at least as much as any accomplishments.What Hurd says of sexism applies equally well to any other excuse leftists currently give to favor members of some groups over members of others. Years ago, when I was in high school, I "said so" and lost lots of friends. Part of that loss is on me, for doing that in perhaps the worst possible circumstances and manner imaginable. But had such programs not been in place, I would have never found myself thinking (although possibly wrongly in that case) that such policies had harmed me. (I already knew for a fact that they had harmed my father.)
It's insulting. It's irrational. It is sexist, too. Because sexism means elevating gender to the highest or only consideration in a job. If you reject someone on principle because they're a woman, when gender is irrelevant to the consideration for the job, you're a sexist; but if you accept someone on principle because they're a woman, when gender is irrelevant to the consideration for the job, then you're every bit as sexist. It's politically incorrect to say so, but it's also logical to say so. [bold added]
Ironically, I would find myself in the awkward position, a couple of decades later, of having to gracefully refuse exactly the same sort of "favors."