3 ms·

If you wrote just the first three paragraphs, I would upvote you. I agree completely. But then: > Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, o

by js8 9y ago

If you wrote just the first three paragraphs, I would upvote you. I agree completely. But then: > Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, or had less interest in, we would want lower the difference, with equal representation if possible. Who are we to tell people what they should do? If people want or don't want to work in some field, they should have the freedom to do so. They shouldn't be forced to work in some field just so that the society could mark the 50:50 checkbox. Now, you can say, there is "discrimination", and that's why that's somebody preference. But that shouldn't really matter, as long as you fulfill each individual's honest wishes. If I ask you about something, and there is no reason for you to lie to me, then that's your preference and it should be respected if possible. If it's respected, then there is no discrimination, doesn't matter what the group outcome is. Individuals matter, groups are just constructs. (In fact, the reason why the whole nature vs. nurture debate gets invoked is that somebody has an agenda. You can see the same thing in reverse with gays. Some people want to believe that being gay is cultural, because if it's cultural, then it can be changed, and according to them, should be.) So this worries me, by going against individual preferences, we are going to make people unhappy, just to satisfy some "higher" goal. There is always a tension like this, in the free market (which I don't believe in), the pay should resolve it, but why to add to it? Sadly, there are some women out there who are vocal proponents of for example more women programmers (I actually wish for that too, because programming is just cool, but I can't force anybody) and want positive discrimination, but if you ask them personally, if they considered programming as a career, they will tell you that it doesn't interest them for one reason or another. It's incredible hypocrisy.

matt4077 9y ago
This isn't about telling anyone what they should do–at least not in any new way. Everyone is in some way being told what to do by society, in that the needs of the economy are reflected in any number of mechanisms that influence peoples' decisions. I'd even say almost nobody actually gets to "work in the field they want to work in", simply because the demand for "highly paid beer tester" is lower than peoples' interest in the job.
- js8 9y ago
  > Everyone is in some way being told what to do by society I do consider that a problem as it is, no need to add new "societal" goals to that. The reason why I don't like "societal" goals (like many libertarians, although I am definitely not one) is that it's not clear who is asking. I am big proponent of direct democracy (even in the workplace), where the societal goal(s) are the sum of each individual's preferences, weighted equally. This is a clear mechanism. However, who actually wants the 50:50 gender parity (or whatever ratio) in particular jobs? Especially understanding that it would lead to lower chance to land a job that you actually enjoy doing? Of course, I understand that we need coal miners, even though it isn't people's preference, someone has to do it. But there are physics reasons for that, we need it to survive (well, not exactly in the case of mining, it's actually more nasty). Ideally, they should be paid well enough (and in better societies they somewhat are) for the trade off.

by js8 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

This isn't about telling anyone what they should do–at least not in any new way. Everyone is in some way being told what to do by society, in that the needs of the economy are reflected in any number of mechanisms that influence peoples' decisions. I'd even say almost nobody actually gets to "work in the field they want to work in", simply because the demand for "highly paid beer tester" is lower than peoples' interest in the job.

js8 9y ago
> Everyone is in some way being told what to do by society I do consider that a problem as it is, no need to add new "societal" goals to that. The reason why I don't like "societal" goals (like many libertarians, although I am definitely not one) is that it's not clear who is asking. I am big proponent of direct democracy (even in the workplace), where the societal goal(s) are the sum of each individual's preferences, weighted equally. This is a clear mechanism. However, who actually wants the 50:50 gender parity (or whatever ratio) in particular jobs? Especially understanding that it would lead to lower chance to land a job that you actually enjoy doing? Of course, I understand that we need coal miners, even though it isn't people's preference, someone has to do it. But there are physics reasons for that, we need it to survive (well, not exactly in the case of mining, it's actually more nasty). Ideally, they should be paid well enough (and in better societies they somewhat are) for the trade off.