Spoiler: my answer no It is based on skill, luck and what they are looking for. I wouldnt see it as discriminatory at all. like does gender matter when sending someone to the future? its mostly personality traits and such they are looking for Spoiler: my answer That could also contribute to why they were chosen Spoiler: my answer that means being an historian wasnt really something they were particulary looking for Spoiler: my answer each person has a 1/11 chance of being chosen. why is it sexist? why does gender matter at all in this scenario? the woman probably had the skills they were particulary looking for Spoiler: my answer cool. so what? the woman could be too :v Spoiler: my answer maybe why they all had a much higher chance of all being chosen. Spoiler: my answer They are picking people to go to the future. gender just simply doesnt matter! who cares?? but if the person is conscience of this matter and is purposefully trying not to seem sexist, yes. they are sexist
1. You should have added an 'only' somewhere along the lines. You said 10 men picked, but didn't say that no women were picked. The 'maximum is 10' statement is too vague. 2. I'm sorry, the 'historians' part made me laugh. wtf would anybody pick historians to go to the future? The future should already have knowledge of the past. xD I assumed that the next spoiler would be "In fact, although they're historians, they were Really chosen because of their skills." 3. The questions were too transparent. I Immediately thought "what if the women were historians as well?" when you said the men were. 4. Is this a return trip? The only reason to send historians to the past would be to clarify information on the past. Otherwise I'd be choosing a group with diversified skills so they don't all get killed upon arrival. For the future trip, I'd be choosing engineers and scientists, so they can bring back useful knowledge. And if it's an apocalypse scenario, that's ever More of a reason to send survivalists with technical knowledge rather than bookworms. As for not trying to be sexist, that's easy: make the choosing blind. Only view CVs and answers on paper/screen, without any indications to gender. Orchestras have started blind auditions to combat unconscious sexist biases.
I think there are other categories needed in order to judge people who are sent both future and past since it's a very important thing. If the result happened to be men together and women together, well then blame it on their abilities that passed the categories. So my answer is, things are not necessarily what they look like from 1 point.
I'd like to thank everyone for their responses. They are thought provoking. Yes, there was a reason they were historians. Going to the future, they were researching into how the future viewed the past. Going to the past, they were trying to not interfere. And you are all right. There is a lack of so much information, and that, I guess, is the fault of the writer. Thus, I am questioning the reality which was created. *.*
It does make sense that they wanted to research 'how the future viewed the past.' But can't they just use the future equivalent of google and copy things back for analysis? For the novel, I would suggest, in any case, to make sure that all the people chosen have additional skills that are relevant to survival in specific time periods. For example, for the past, you can have a person whose hobby is to cook things medieval-style, one who's a linguist, one who likes to roleplay historical settings and is a prick about historical accuracy, etc. And they must have means to make enough money to eat and travel. And a doctor. Don't want them dying off from all the nasty diseases lying around as soon as they get there, eh?
Wasn't the whole point of lack of information to make people jump to conclusions that it was sexist? And what else would the whole point of not checking the next spoiler ahead of time be? It's clearly intentional, and presumably, it would be worse at doing it's "job" (for my lack of better description) if it did provide the information in one go.
You are correct in the assumption that it was the intended affect to make people believe it was sexist. However, I can clearly see that there were elements which would make the entire exercise pointless. I got some interesting results, though.
1: I need to know more to say, too less info right now. 2: That makes me think of why you would send historians to the future rather than the past .... but figured it out while typing that: must be to learn and analyze with future knowledge, then come back and tell about it/prevent some shitty stuff from happening. Also: none of the women were historians? 3: Same situation as nr 1. Give me more info xD 4: Of course I am. Bring it on~ 5: I was just thinking whether me answering this makes any sense cause I always say the same: too less info xD 6: Just from this piece of info, it'd seem rather logical to send a male historian as well ... but again too less info. What if knowing about history isn't important for this time travel? 7: "not to look sexist" ... I'd say that most of the time when there are only members of one sex chosen for a task, it will appear sexist to some people. That is, until you tell them the requirement of the task and the logic behind the pick/ give them more info. In this case, the person who picked can't really give a reason for picking these people aside from one that involves gender and this for a task that doesn't seem to have any gender requirements/restrictions itself. (I mean like not being able to give birth for men or being statistically physically weaker for women. Less obvious ones would be knowledge about certain areas that are more likely to be known by women/men like - cliché alert - cosmetics/cars). In this case, it may have backfired that they didn't wanna appear sexist.
To really answer this question, we have to distinguish between what is the difference between equality and equity. For instance, when dividing up a treasure chest among six people, a policy that prioritizes equality will call for giving each person 1/6th of the treasure (the same amount to each person, regardless if they are rich or poor). However, a policy that prioritizes equity will call for giving the biggest shares of the treasure to the people who need it the most (the poor). In this sense, "equality" is more concerned with the process, whereas "equity" is more concerned with the outcome. There are some situations where equality is more desirable, and there are some situations where equity is more desirable. In an olympic race or a contest where we seek to find the best, for instance, equality is more desirable. For a different situation, like democratic representation in Senate or Congress or other situations of political power, equity is more desirable because we want the composition of our government/decision-makers to look like the demographics of the country. Otherwise, we end up with under-represented demographics and minority groups that never have their interests heard (politicians are usually best at serving their own demographics first and foremost). Therefore, a situation like 98% of political power being held by wealthy whites (even if it may be from meritocratic reasons) while a third of the population is black is not desirable. Or maybe go back fifty years ago when there were no women politicians even though half of the population is female.
Go Ahead. No. Rather, not necessarily. Okay. So ... all the women are is the next question right? And there it is. That would wholly depend on facts we don't have. Has the future become a dystopia where women are once again considered nothing more than property? Maybe men are considered nothing more than property. Also I've realized I've fallen into the real trap of this whole exercise, why would a person being a historian matter for traveling to the future? Having historical knowledge while novel isn't usually something of immediate use even in present day (ie, dates of historical events and knowledge of historical figures.) and would likely have just a little relevance in the future. If it were the past it could be a huge benefit but for the future not so much.