zlacker

>>andren+(OP)
I don't get it. Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? These authors only try to disprove theories which potentially explain the inequality and then conclude that there is no injustice. This is logically flawed in my opinion. In order to justify the inequality they would need to come up with a plausible theory why the inequality is inevitable and then support it with sound facts. Otherwise social pressure from "feminists" is well justified.

>>edna31+rd
> Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal

I guess it depends on how you go about it. If you needed 100 programmers, and there were exactly 100 programmers available, but 80 were men and 20 were women - but you insisted on equality of outcome, you'd hire 50 of the male programmers, all 20 of the female programmers, and be 30 programmers short, even though there were 30 perfectly capable programmers that would upset your gender ratio.

>>comman+fs1
That would be indeed a problem in that special case, but I never argued that these quotas are a great idea in general. I just wanted to point out that the article dismisses gender equality as a bad idea with a equality of chance argument, which isn't explained, but the reader is expected to accept it as universally valid and always superior to equality of outcome. I was just questioning that.