11 ms·
I would argue that women and men are different both physically and psychologically and have different interests arising from these differences. I would further
by hajile 10y ago
I would argue that women and men are different both physically and psychologically and have different interests arising from these differences.
I would further argue that negotiation is a skill that some people have and others do not. Should we refuse to reward someone for their skill in negotiation? Should we even try?
On the first count, the brains of men and women are structurally different (women have drastically more white matter and men have drastically more gray matter). The observation that men and women view the world very differently is universal. When looking at the big five personality traits, men and women consistently show far different norms. If all observations both casual and professional tend to indicate significant differences, the possibility should be seriously entertained.
If men and women are identical, why do we need women in STEM? The men we have would work just as well. If one is making the case for more people overall in STEM, then they are making an economic argument (and one that doesn't favor STEM workers -- only employers of STEM workers). If one makes a case for different life experience, then there is an acknowledgement of difference. If men and women are different, then there is a distinct possibility that one group is better or more interested in a particular field than the other. In either situation, there seems to be little case for drastic change (except for employers suppressing wages by increasing the supply of workers).
As to the second count, let's say we put two people (of the same gender for sake of limiting differences) with the same qualifications into the same job with the exception that one is more skilled at negotiation. We then force both to work for the same pay. Will that end the advantages of the more skilled negotiator? The better negotiator will still be better at getting the good projects or a faster promotion.
In the long term, the negotiation skillset will simply turn into more profit in other ways and the level of control required to prevent this from happening is so draconian as to be unthinkable.
- emodendroket 10y ago> If men and women are identical, why do we need women in STEM? The men we have would work just as well Because it is inherently unjust to discriminate against people because of characteristics that have no bearing on the job, such as their race and their gender. If you don't accept this premise I don't think we can have a productive discussion because it's the basic principle I'm basing my argument on. > In the long term, the negotiation skillset will simply turn into more profit in other ways and the level of control required to prevent this from happening is so draconian as to be unthinkable. Maybe. So what? Careless drivers are still more likely to injure themselves than careful ones even if we make everyone wear a seat belt; it does not follow that making everyone wear a seat belt is pointless.
- mantas 10y agoYou gotta wear seat belt because careless driver can bump into you too. Or careless deer which is even worse.
- emodendroket 10y agoEven if we exclude accidents with multiple drivers from consideration seat belts reduce mortality.
- hajile 10y agoI accept the premise of equal opportunity, but you are insisting on equal outcome (and asserting that it is a foregone conclusion). Everyone is equal under the law, but that does not mean that everyone has the same qualities or qualifications. If you can show me a company that is refusing to hire a woman, then I'll be right there with you opposing them. If a company is forcing a woman to work for lower pay because she is a woman, then I'll be right there with you opposing them. When you ask me to discriminate against someone because they are better at negotiating, I cannot offer support. Blind moral assertion IS NOT FACT. You assert that we must have the same number of men and women because it is the moral thing to do. You further assert that this moral imperative is so absolute that the use of force to compel other people is perfectly fine. At its basis, this is no different than relatively small things like prohibition or large things like the inquisition or communist re-education camps. EDIT: to answer your first statement in more concrete terms, I believe men and women make different choices because they are different (as stated at the top of that post). If you are insistent on forcing women into STEM whether they like it or not, there should be more to that argument than symmetry. What you quoted addresses one part that line of thought.
- emodendroket 10y agoYes, if you take it as a given that implicit bias is fake or irrelevant then very few companies could be described as discriminatory. I didn't assert that we "must have the same number of both genders" either, or that any means are permissible to achieve greater gender equality. You're letting your imagination run wild.