Why would 50/50 gender parity across all industries ever be a desirable goal? Coal mining is male dominated -- should we push more women into becoming coal miners?

> Why would 50/50 gender parity across all industries ever be a desirable goal?

If women and men "are indeed biologically identical in their job preferences" you could argue a good measure for real equality of opportunity would be 50/50 parity across industries. Because given a fair shake everyone would be evenly distributed across all industries (since we have the same preferences).

"job preferences" is not the same as job aptitude.

In a free market system people are going to be pushed into the jobs for which they have the most aptitude (or out of the workforce if their aptitude is too low/lower than machines) regardless of their preferences.

You could, but I don't think it's fair. Shouldn't it be: If women and men (or any other classification) are indeed biologically identical in job preference, willingness to work in the first place, and aptitude, the quota in each job should reflect the basis distribution?

Just assuming that all of these are the equal might hide the actual problem we want to fix. Or might point to asymmetries we might not want to fix.

Of course, the 50/50 gender parity has also a different motivation, trying to address the culturally influenced preference. The argument goes like this: Because of historical reasons, some professions are male dominated. Girls are not interested in these professions because female role models are missing. So if we force the promotion of female role models, this historically created bias will vanish.

Coal mining is a historic industry; we should not be pushing anybody into coal mining (Looking at you, Australia)

I’m assuming you picked coal mining because it’s an example of a dirty, dangerous position in an industry that’s rightfully stigmatised by most modern countries.

If you’re suggesting that we shouldn’t push women into dangerous jobs but it’s okay to push men into them, then I would counter that we should make dangerous jobs safer for everybody and no, there’s no fundamental reason that women should not have the opportunity to work in these industries.

> If you’re suggesting that we shouldn’t push women into dangerous jobs but it’s okay to push men into them

No I didn't suggest this.

My question was not about energy policies. Let's substitute coal miners for waste collectors (colloquially referred to as garbage men, because 99% of them are male), and ask the question again.

Garbage collection is male dominated -- should we push more women into becoming garbage collectors?

If I'm reading https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm correctly, ~82% of waste collectors are male.

On the other hand, ~42% of meat processors are women; that is certainly a dirty, dangerous unfun job.

The real male-dominated industries are lawn care, sewage treatment, and repair and maintenance. Coal mining is too small an industry to report demographics, but mining as a whole is "only" ~88% male.

We shouldn't push anyone into anything. Why is it ok for a man to be a garbage collector and not a woman? That sounds like gender inequality to me. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think anyone is saying that's it's "not OK" for a woman to be a garbage collector. Some are saying that the fact that women are generally not garbage collectors is a problem.

I honestly don't know where I stand on that. While I absolutely believe that much of the disparity in preference is cultural, I'm apt to believe that some of it is biological. Further, I'm not sure eradicating that cultural bias is beneficial.

Its also highly paid at least in the west even more so when you get to supervisory roles eg £2k for a single 10 hour weekend shift for a pit deputy.

I think the question "why is parity a desirable goal" is valid and important. I don't think we need any examples to support the question, it stands on its own.

It's worth noting that the "Why don't feminists try and push for gender parity in coal mining?" is a very tired question (and rather silly meme) and it's got without a variety of answers from casual feminists. A cursory Google search for this question on Reddit has thrown up a variety of answers:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3bjr41/why_ha...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2rpbil/why_ar...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3inzi0/lookin...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/97f59k/are_fe...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/63lydf/why_do...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/5z79oe/are_fe...

Most of those answers boil down to 'because they are more desirable', is there any specific one you think nails the answer?

Not any specific one, but I'll try and summarize the points:

* Feminists really do fight for representation in these jobs[0][1][3] to the point where one of the largest sexual discrimination lawsuits was brought up by women trying to get into the coal mining industry.

* Women already have significant representation in such jobs and especially in other low wage jobs, such as textile manufacturing (in sweatshops, for instance[2]), nursing, fast food work, oil drilling, childbirthing (and other thankless reproductive labour), janitors/sanitation etc.

* These jobs are generally seen as undesirable anyway, and there isn't a social push for men to enter them. It's expected that with less push for dirty (and trade) jobs in general, there would be less of a liberal feminist push for them too. This is consistent with the fact that second wave feminists argued for any involvement of women in the workplace, even blue collar jobs, but now such activity is less prominent.

* It's a class issue too, and the perceptions, biases and elitist attitudes which prevent entry to such jobs for both men and women have been challened by intersectional and Marxist feminists.[4]

* Part of feminism is challenging essentialist and elitist narratives about women and their capabilities, which managers in such industries cite in arguments against hiring women

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3am8ri/if_the...

[2] http://www.feminist.org/other/sweatshops/sweatfaq.html

[3] http://the-exercist.tumblr.com/post/105284613217/is-that-so-...

[4] Sean Sayers, "Marxism and Human Nature" discusses this elitism at length as both a gender issue and a class issue

Your two comments don't really answer the question I posed. The first one denigrates it and attempts to outsource the task of answering it to Reddit. The second one is, I guess, mostly a recitation of various things feminists have done or not done in relation to this question, among other issues. But nowhere do you make a clear statement about whether you would advocate for pushing women into these jobs, and why or why not.

I didn't know the question applied to me personally. I'm not entirely sure myself, which is why I gave various reasons (some conflicting) for what other feminists think. I'm not even sure I'd advocate 'pushing' women anywhere, I think that we should try and counter bias that may set in from society or parents from a young age, and also make clear that various opportunities are available to all, including opportunities in jobs which are unfashionable nowadays.

That's a fair response, thanks.

I used the word 'push' because I was responding to a comment which identified 50/50 representation in all occupations as potentially a reasonable goal. It would surely take a big push to achieve gender parity in garbage collection, which is 99% male in the US!

> Because if it is purely cultural then aiming for 50/50 gender parity across all industries is a reasonable goal.

If that's the case, then I see how it could be an attainable goal, but what is the basis of asserting that differing are something undesirable?