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
I am completely committed to removing biases and discrimination that stand in the way of competent people, but I find the idea of equality of outcome for its own sake to be deeply troubling. It moves the discussion away from systemic biases, and to an artificial metric that has little relation.

A simple example of why equality of outcome might be undesirable is this: people don't like doing jobs they find unfulfilling.

Even though I admire the nursing profession, I have absolutely no desire to become a nurse. If nursing were the highest paid profession, it still wouldn't interest me -- because I get my kicks out of playing with ideas and building things.

In my case, it has nothing to do with ability, or IQ, or emotional intelligence.

Should nursing training and culture be manipulated to be more appealing to people like me? I would only want that if it were beneficial for the nursing profession itself.

It doesn't matter that people with my temperamental make-up are under-represented, because there are plenty of other people who are drawn to nursing.

Where there are systemic problems that hinder women / minorities who want to excel in tech, focus on those, instead of an artificial number.

>>biofox+zj
> idea of equality of outcome for its own sake

It's not for its one sake. It's for peace in the society.

> Should nursing training and culture be manipulated to be more appealing to people like me? I would only want that if it were beneficial for the nursing profession itself.

Have you tried it? I think it's not really reasonable to assume that humans are made to do exactly one thing. It's more of a necessary convention to have a functioning society.

> Where there are systemic problems that hinder women / minorities who want to excel in tech, focus on those, instead of an artificial number.

The number is not artificial its reality. One systemic problem is nudging which is tried to be fixed implementing quotas. The quotas are not meant to fix the number but the nudging effect.

>>edna31+Rv
I worded my comment poorly. You're right... the number in not artificial. And I agree with your point on humans being capable of many things.

I want to live in a society where people can make a living doing things they enjoy and are good at. My concern is that quotas for outcomes (rather than things that more directly measure discrimination) might end up achieving the opposite: on one hand encouraging people into positions that are not a good fit for them, through external incentives, while at the same time removing opportunities from others who would prefer them.

Shouldn't measures of workplace satisfaction matter a hell of a lot more than the number of women on the board?

>>biofox+PM
I never argued that quotas are great solution. But, I think once you realize that a solution to a problem is bad you should look for a different solution instead of declaring that there is no problem, which seems to be the easy way out.