This is tangential. That (1) is not what’s expressed in the quote (2). Mills exposes very well the consequences of inaction with the purpose of persuading the reader to take the matter in their...
This is tangential.
(1) In 1867, John Stuart Mill reminded his audience that inaction is tantamount to complacent agreement
(2) Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. (Mills)
That (1) is not what’s expressed in the quote (2). Mills exposes very well the consequences of inaction with the purpose of persuading the reader to take the matter in their own hands. But he does not say inaction is equivalent to a “complacent agreement”. Two equally inactive individuals can have vastly distinct inner thoughts.
Please forgive my conjecture, but maybe he avoided that out of rhetorical wiseness: he sides the reader with the good and virtuous, only to stipulate a condition the reader must meet in order to remain in that group.
So, if the similar disparities exist for all business sectors, isn't this just a systemic executive leadership problem? Not to say it isn't a big problem, but the article seems to frame it in a...
National surveys have shown that similar disparities cross business sectors and Provinces throughout Canada
So, if the similar disparities exist for all business sectors, isn't this just a systemic executive leadership problem? Not to say it isn't a big problem, but the article seems to frame it in a way that is exclusive to tech companies.
If anything, I would assume that sexism would be a bigger problem as you go down the heirarchy. If co-workers don't value someone's option due to bigotry, they're less likely to move up the chain, and the problems get worse over time.
I'm reminded of a phrase I heard along the lines of 'change must come from the bottom up.' It's a pretty good argument for starting to move to flatten org structures through methods such as strengthening unions and workplace democracy.
This is tangential.
That (1) is not what’s expressed in the quote (2). Mills exposes very well the consequences of inaction with the purpose of persuading the reader to take the matter in their own hands. But he does not say inaction is equivalent to a “complacent agreement”. Two equally inactive individuals can have vastly distinct inner thoughts.
Please forgive my conjecture, but maybe he avoided that out of rhetorical wiseness: he sides the reader with the good and virtuous, only to stipulate a condition the reader must meet in order to remain in that group.
So, if the similar disparities exist for all business sectors, isn't this just a systemic executive leadership problem? Not to say it isn't a big problem, but the article seems to frame it in a way that is exclusive to tech companies.
If anything, I would assume that sexism would be a bigger problem as you go down the heirarchy. If co-workers don't value someone's option due to bigotry, they're less likely to move up the chain, and the problems get worse over time.
I'm reminded of a phrase I heard along the lines of 'change must come from the bottom up.' It's a pretty good argument for starting to move to flatten org structures through methods such as strengthening unions and workplace democracy.
Ugh, looks like the cert expired about an hour ago...can't get past the HSTS.Edit: Lynx works if I ignore all errors, yay!Thanks @DaveJarvis, issue resolved!