Re:The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM
by dalbasal on Monday February 19, 2018 @04:21AM
(#16411741)
Let's assume we're not all disingenious a----les, trying for clickbait and gotchas, but still disagree on some points.
I would say that you're right, and this means that specific outcome equality is not indicative of equality of opportunity.
But, it's also true that equality before the law and other measures that have been tKe over the last 3 generations do not guarantee equality of opportunity. Opportunity is in itself a sticky concept.
If you grow up in a family/community where a lot of people are tradesmen then you'll be more likely to be a tradesman. Same for long term welfare dependance, academia, public services, fireman/police, housewives, medicine...
The dynamics are complex and not fully understood. People form an idea about what's normal, possible and such. This is a socially based phenomenon.
I would argue that it is important to the concept of opportunity. The boxes that you put yourself into by default, and others put you in.
There aren't necessarily physical barriers. Lots of people don't end up on the default paths, maybe even most. But, defaults matter.
Anyway, let's think about it in reverse. Let's say we are abolishing sexism, racism, caste systems or some other form of big societal discrimination. A generation later, no change in outcomes. Did we succeed?
OTOH, it's hard to know what to do with specifics like women in tech. It's not inherently bad for women to have different average preferences and that will cause unequal outcomes. But, we also can't ignore outcomes (imo) entirely either. There must be actual outcome changes.
There's also the issue of feedback loops. If certain spheres are male realms, with women in a tiny minority this makes it harder for women to enter in the future.
I would say that you're right, and this means that specific outcome equality is not indicative of equality of opportunity.
But, it's also true that equality before the law and other measures that have been tKe over the last 3 generations do not guarantee equality of opportunity. Opportunity is in itself a sticky concept.
If you grow up in a family/community where a lot of people are tradesmen then you'll be more likely to be a tradesman. Same for long term welfare dependance, academia, public services, fireman/police, housewives, medicine...
The dynamics are complex and not fully understood. People form an idea about what's normal, possible and such. This is a socially based phenomenon.
I would argue that it is important to the concept of opportunity. The boxes that you put yourself into by default, and others put you in.
There aren't necessarily physical barriers. Lots of people don't end up on the default paths, maybe even most. But, defaults matter.
Anyway, let's think about it in reverse. Let's say we are abolishing sexism, racism, caste systems or some other form of big societal discrimination. A generation later, no change in outcomes. Did we succeed?
OTOH, it's hard to know what to do with specifics like women in tech. It's not inherently bad for women to have different average preferences and that will cause unequal outcomes. But, we also can't ignore outcomes (imo) entirely either. There must be actual outcome changes.
There's also the issue of feedback loops. If certain spheres are male realms, with women in a tiny minority this makes it harder for women to enter in the future.