3 ms·
Exactly, but I'm referring to a specific phenomenon I've seen, where people have this (to me) flawed idea that if we reduce societal influence, we will end up w
by fastball 6y ago
Exactly, but I'm referring to a specific phenomenon I've seen, where people have this (to me) flawed idea that if we reduce societal influence, we will end up with industries that are naturally 50/50 men to women. e.g. if you stop telling men to be engineers and women to be teachers, you'll end up with 50/50 engineering and teaching.
I'm suggesting that the opposite is true, because when you remove societal influence you end up lending more and more weight to the intrinsic characteristics, of which I would argue sex/gender is the strongest.
- fastball 6y agoI also want to clarify here that I don't mean to imply that once societal influence is reduced, currently male-dominated industries will remain that way (and likewise for female-dominated) – it very well could be that the reason we have many male engineers is purely from societal influence, and that once reduced the "true" male-leaning industries would emerge. But the idea that any industry would end up 50/50 once you got to perfect egalitarianism with no societal influence is not very internally consistent. You would end up with industries where purely being a man (not people telling you should do it as a man) is advantageous and so they become male-leaning and likewise with women. And that is OK. It's better than OK, it's excellent. A world where you go into the industry you want to go into (not the one you're told to go into) sounds ideal.