> the hope is that by putting a finger on the scale in favor of equality of opportunity, eventually society (after several generations of induced equity) will actually become equitable

Admirable principle, are you actually consistent with it? For instance, tall people get paid more (six inches = extra $4,734! [1]) and obese people less [2]. If it turns out that the combined adverse effect of being short and overweight is larger than that of being female, are you prepared to make affirmative action in favor of short, overweight people your top priority?

> to suggest that this is not a worthwhile goal essentially means that you think the status quo is fine because it affords you certain advantages that you did nothing to achieve

What if you think it's not worth your while because it's being promoted through ineffective, destructive methods?

[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200310/tall-people-g...

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8337512.stm

>Admirable principle, are you actually consistent with it?

Are you searching for a way to make an ad hominem here, or just fishing for a contradiction? Either way, this seems like a backwards to make the argument. If you believe that the principle behind affirmative action would lead to absurdities if applied consistently, why not just come out and say so?

>What if you think it's not worth your while because it's being promoted through ineffective, destructive methods?

The statement was about whether the goal was worthwhile, not the means.

"Nobody thinks the artificial equalization provided by things like affirmative action actually is equality"

Do you really think that if women dominated tech, people would be clamoring for more men in it? The few nurses I know have no trouble with the lack of men in their profession. Maybe they're just sexist?

there are actually large national and industry-wide efforts to recruit men into nursing. and, in fact, being a male nurse is a huge boon to one's career. though men are only 6% of the nursing population, far more of them have advanced certifications. we'll probably disagree about the reasons for this, but the result is they are more desirable and paid more.

maybe the female nurses you know are happy to have a job where their opinions are respected by their peers. have you actually asked them or are you just assuming because they've never discussed it with you?

I know a few people who are concerned about the lack of men in primary education (UK - ages 4 to 11) or in nursing and other work.

In education at least, this is usually due to the desire to include strong male role models in childrens' lives, not in a mission for equality.

Yup, a few.

If nursing and primary education were the glamorous professions where the next generation of billionaires were coming from, there might be more clamoring.

I know a large number of librarians, some male and some female, and have had a discussion with most of them about the dearth of men in their profession. Most of them are concerned by it. So now we both have anecdotes, hooray!

A mild tangent: When the Internet was being rolled out beyond the initial research labs it ended up being part of the library's remit. Thus there are a bunch of women of a certain age who were there at the early days of the Internet who know a lot about protocols and netiquette etc.

I have heard stories of male nurses being repeatedly passed over for promotions. Maybe your closing question was meant to be rhetorical, but the answer just might be "yes".

It’s much easier to get hired as a male nurse and those who are responsible will always be looking for more male nurses.