I don't see how you think these questions ignore cultural evolution. I think the question can be rephrased as asking "What causes of gender-biased job funneling/preference are acceptable in our hyper-PC society?"
1) Gender-biased job preference due to unequal opportunity:
Bad
2) Gender-biased job preference due to unequal societal expectations:
Bad
3) Gender-biased job preference due to genetically pre-disposed traits that are influenced by environment/culture: Possibly OK as long as culture has gender-equal expectations and opportunities.
4) Gender-biased job preference due solely to genetically determined traits and inherent job qualities.
Ok. (I don't think this exists much as most traits that impact job preference have a significant emergent/environmental components).
I think our "hyper-PC" society agrees with me on 1) and 2) and possibly 4).
I think most of the disagreement happens around 3). Is 3) ever OK? How do we tell if society if sufficiently equal for 3) to be Ok?
My personal stance is that it doesn't make sense to argue that 3) is ok until we have done a much better job of eliminating 1) and 2).
> 3) Gender-biased job preference due to genetically pre-disposed traits that are influenced by environment/culture: Possibly OK as long as culture has gender-equal expectations and opportunities.
Isn't expecting "gender-equal expectations and opportunities" strange if you agree with "Gender-biased job preference due to genetically pre-disposed traits"?
Why would culture expect a tall thin person and a short muscular person to be equally good at basketball and weightlifting?
Who knows... Maybe it's the same white/blue collar worker separation?
On the other hand - I also find it hard to believe that the only difference between the sexes is the body build. Based on my engineers' mindset it would quite surprise me if two bodies which look and work different were wired totally alike. Though this line of thought is quite out of fashion.
What about Gender-biased job preference cause by people choosing jobs based on finding people with similar life experience?
I often see a preference in particular young adults that pick summer jobs or education based on where they can find co-students/workers that has the same gender, age, color, economical status, and life experience as they. Is this Bad, and if so, how do we eliminate that feeling of familiarity and safety that such choice brings?
There is a yearly study in Sweden that polls peoples priority when looking for job. Highest on the list is often the social environment and co-workers, and the pay (ie, the rational argument for picking a job) is often far low on the list.
I don't see that presupposition. They don't mention any differentiation between 'genetic' vs 'cultural' explanations. I think you are reading that into the use of the terms 'innate' and 'natural'.
1) Gender-biased job preference due to unequal opportunity: Bad
2) Gender-biased job preference due to unequal societal expectations: Bad
3) Gender-biased job preference due to genetically pre-disposed traits that are influenced by environment/culture: Possibly OK as long as culture has gender-equal expectations and opportunities.
4) Gender-biased job preference due solely to genetically determined traits and inherent job qualities. Ok. (I don't think this exists much as most traits that impact job preference have a significant emergent/environmental components).
I think our "hyper-PC" society agrees with me on 1) and 2) and possibly 4).
I think most of the disagreement happens around 3). Is 3) ever OK? How do we tell if society if sufficiently equal for 3) to be Ok?
My personal stance is that it doesn't make sense to argue that 3) is ok until we have done a much better job of eliminating 1) and 2).
edit: layout/typo