Agreed. But the way it tends to work is that if (say) 60% of all engineers are men and the rest are women, then a man more closely fits the idea of an engineer that those people who are in charge of giving the chances have in mind, and so they're more likely to prefer a man to a woman.
You sort of run into this chicken/egg problem though: are women underrepresented in engineering because of what I described above (bad), or do they actually have equal opportunities and simply aren't choosing to become engineers (okay), OR do they actually have equal opportunities and are simply not choosing to be engineers just because the profession currently comprises mostly men and they feel discouraged when they see that, even though they're otherwise interested (bad), or etc. etc.
It is not certain that this choice is OK, though. While the causes of gender disparity are undoubtedly complicated, there seems to be some persistent factor in engineering & technology that results greater disparity than in other fields like medicine and law. It is unlikely that current participation levels are at their natural equilibrium; the gender distribution was more balanced in the past than it is today. The problem is not merely that women may "choose" not to enter (or that they choose to leave and not return) engineering, but that the status quo of the community might be actively driving them away. Engineering & tech have a reputation for allowing behaviors and personalities that would not be tolerated in other fields that are more gender balanced.
Finding the natural gender distribution in tech will require actively changing the culture to make it more inclusive and inviting, not merely removing explicit barriers to entry for women.
EDIT: Clarified to social darwinism from darwinism.
The deep-rooted fear of academia isn't that the masses may do something stupid with the idea of gender differences... it's the fear that they, the academics, will do something stupid. (Again. Although, not the same literal people, of course.)
This is not something "the masses" do, because "the masses" do not have the ability to successfully run with an idea and gather enough power to impose it.
It's not just the holocaust, either. There's a huge history of 20th-century "social engineering" that rather a lot of people would rather forget, because it pretty uniformly went badly. See also "eugenics" for another reason that academics are afraid to think too hard about how people may be different or how genes may determine things about people... and not entirely without reason. "The masses" did not impose eugenics. In fact a lot of eugenics had to be hidden from the masses.
With power comes the power to screw up. Academics have a lot of power. It would be strange if they'd never screwed up.
Express all the humorous strawmen you like. How do you think these things happen? In the 20th century, the only bad social engineering event I can think of that could even remotely be considered the outgrowth of a broad movement of the masses is sort of Nazi-ism. Everything else was led by somebody with an idea from academia. "The masses" don't originate many ideas, and in the era of the all-powerful State (which the 20th century is firmly in), "the masses" don't run around committing genocide, or doing any of the things they may have done in previous social systems, because all that power is now reserved to the State.
And the State and academia have always been attached at the hip, as they are today. How else would it be? Do you think it's some sort of bizarre coincidence that the dominant ideology of academia today and the dominant ideology of the State are exactly the same? Of course they are... they're causally connected. (Where do the "technocrats" in technocracy come from? Certainly not the farm!)
As for this being "conspiracy" theory... no, it's just an understanding of how the world actually works. It may happen to explain this opinion of mine, but that's only because as a ground fact of the current world it explains lots of things. Academics wield power through the State. It's clear as daylight... it would be some sort of bizarre theory that they don't. What would that even look like?
Looks to me like Lenin graduated from university but didn't go anywhere near an advanced degree. I'm not sure which Nazis you're referring to but I'm not aware of a particularly large number of university professors among the ranks of the top Nazis.
Sure, academic don't rove about with black helicopters and guns, but academia has the ear of industry, politics and government for good reason. Applied academics has the ability to predict outcomes, grow economies, win wars and generate massive revenues.
But it also has the ability to go horribly wrong. It's undeniable that Nazi eugenicists modeled their ideology after the American eugenics movement, encouraged by American academics and NGOs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics#Origins_in_the_w...
Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Even a bad idea.
Academia tends to be where far-out ideas come from, just because it's an environment that encourages it. Some of those ideas will be discovered by people in power and used to shape policy. Other will not. To blame academia for this or point to this process as evidence that academics are powerful seems an awful lot like being afraid of language because language can be used to convince people to do bad things.
It would be a fiction to downplay the power of academics in modern society. Academics has the power to mold and frame the minds of the next generation of leaders, alter government policy and to influence an entire populace from childhood.
I see your point that academics has been demonized at times, however I think it's more appropriate to judge it on outcomes.
Now I'm confused. Not really, because this thread is nonsense -- confirmation bias mixed with absurdity.
For example, Margaret Sanger didn't want to round up people and exterminate them but she did want to keep them from reproducing.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Effect_on_inf...
Mice that descend from two males or two females have already been created in the lab.
You still need wombs, but they can be grafted and will probably be farmed from stem cells in the future too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterus_transplantation#First_s...
Something as simple as validating and completely "accepting" the notion that "there is[sic] some genetic differences between the sexes" requires individuals to throw out entire swathes of subsequent ideas/notions/etc, if we were to be logical about things. I.e. You now have "Men and women are equal but ..." or "Men and women are equal except when...", instead of the pure and logically consistent "Men and women are equal".
If you ask me, the entire thing (sex-differences topic) is starting to smell full of tiny errors and corner-cases. Perhaps we're on the verge of a paradigm shift happening once people clarify their ideas, without exceptions and acceptable-errors:
Equality is about equal treatment. It's about judging the individual on their own merits, not some group they happen to belong to. "Men and women are equal" doesn't mean women are equally muscular and men can have babies. It means that when writing a law, selecting an employee, or counting a vote, you don't change your approach based on whether the person is a man or a woman.
There is nothing wrong with saying, for example, most of our warehouse workers are men because more men are able to do the heavy lifting required. There's nothing unequal about that. What equality demands is that you never say, I will not consider you for a warehouse job, regardless of your actual strength, because you are a woman and all women are too weak for it.
It's not actually that complicated IMO.
Have you ever wondered how the electorate becomes uninformed? Certain information is declared off-limits because of what it might make people think or do.
I've literally never heard the latter argument made by any proponent of women in combat roles. The closest I've seen is calls for the requirements for certain combat roles to be reviewed for appropriateness to the real requirements of the specific role; most proponents of relaxing blanket restrictions on women in combat roles I've heard will explicitly accept that, for most roles, any reasonable set of standards will still make it easier for men.
They came when women were first admitted to the armed forces at all, and are contemporaneous with the rules barring them from combat roles. They are not the product of pressure to include them in combat roles.
Roles (including, but not, AFAIK, limited to, combat roles) within the military can have physical standards above the minimum standard for the branch of service, and no one that I know of that has argued for removing the restriction on women serving in combat roles has advocated against gender-blind role-specific standards.
The first is the one you're probably thinking of - you need to be so strong or so fast in order to do your job.
The second is more subtle, along the lines of "we want soldiers to have the discipline and willingness to follow rules that physical fitness signals." This is why they want a drone pilot, for example, to meet physical fitness standards.
Really, the military should have three fitness standards: one for all male soldiers, one for all female soldiers, and another for the soldier's specific speciality.
Yup. One of the things that annoys me most about prejudice and such is that it is inefficient. For a well-run and rich (economically, socially) civilization, we ideally want everyone to excel to the best of their best ability. To find the best use for everyone's talents. We want everyone to find their own niche, irrespective of their gender, race, orientation, etc.
Actually, I would say the vast majority of people not currently writing a post on an internet forum fall in some middle ground there. Like, the vast, vast majority.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/nyregion/questions-of-bias...
They aren't trying to force equal outcomes, they're trying to make sure that if a test produces worse results for minorities then it had better be because of actual differences in the population and not subtle bias in the test.
Unfortunately there isn't much room for this middle ground. People who want to acknowledge sex difference want to use sex as a filter, e.g. "no women in combat roles." People who want to give everybody a chance also want to even things out, e.g. "Allow women in combat roles, and lower the standards for women so they have just as much of a chance as men have."