Except they can't, by definition (hence the word, "preference", as in prefer A to B). If you accept a less paid position A rather than better paid position B, because you prefer doing job A rather than job B, then it's a CHOICE. Why you should be forced to take position B for some higher societal goal of "equality"? That's completely insane, and I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality (which is always, by definition, driven by either lack of choice or non-rational choices).
You are making mistake thinking that person is something whole. Person could want a high paid job but at the same time couldn't stop drinking. Or not drinking but eating garlic every morning, or hating math or someting else. Mind easily can hold any number of inconsistent ideas. It is the reason why sometimes people needs psychologist help.
Moreover preferences is something that person could change. For example one can stop smoking, drinking, or start to love math. But not everyone is able to do it. It needs some psychological traits that not everyone possesses.
You seems to believe that person have free will from birth and have ability to consciously choose which preferences she would have as an adult. if you are than it is the second your mistake. If person nurtered in white supremacy environment from birth to twenty, it would be very hard for him to change his views later. It would be very hard to society to change his view later. Because as I said, not everyone is capable to change himself.
I do not know when person becomes able to think himself about his preferences and choose them consciously. Is it age of 12, 18, 21? I don't know, really. But I'm sure that at age of 12-16 when the love or hate to math can be nurtured, person is not ready to manage strategically his/her personality traits. No one at that age is ready.
And notice, than I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math. One of the reasons why I'm afraid to touch this topic is my bad English, it is hard to me to think such an ideas in English. I'm more stupid when I think in English. Therefore I need to think such a controversial ideas in one language and than translate to other. It is a pain and translation inevitable lose something. The other reason: before we start to discuss society we need to find some common understanding what person is.
> I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality
If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. If you was a PhD in STEM I might just ignore that, because it didn't matter when we speak about society. But "leftist" or "democrat" or any other political attachment is not an evidence of deeper than average understanding. Even other way round: people who have political attachment tends to be believers and to have faith. Therefore there are more likelyhood that their views is not better then average.
No, again, you got it wrong. Preferences are not addictions or anxieties. They are possible choices, by definition. They are basically informed answers to a honest question, "what do you want?".
It's your approach that's very patronizing. You are effectively saying that you know better than somebody else. I believe people should be considered to have free will (not saying they actually have it, by the way) and make their own choices in life (mostly - children and mentally ill are the exceptions).
I hear the same argument you present in other contexts. For example, muslim women should not be allowed to wear hijab because it's a sign of oppression. No, sometimes these women decided to do it, because they consider it as a part of their culture, and it has nothing to do with oppression. Unfortunately, some people choose to misinterpret it as a political choice, but that's an error those people make.
Or it was raised against gays - that what they do is immoral and therefore they should change their sexual behavior.
> I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math
Because that's a bad argument to begin with. The girls have some preferences, and make some choices, and whatever they are, those girls should not be held morally responsible for how society treats them as a result! That's blaming the victim. It's the same argument as the one against hijabs, which I mention above. It's important that they have the choice (also known as "non-discrimination"), and that's it. (Actually also important is that they can change their mind later, if they want.)
> If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue.
Don't give me that! Again, it's very patronizing and undemocratic idea (coming from Plato, among other places), that people who don't have PhD in social science or what not cannot have a preference in social issues. Or that we cannot make an informed choice.
Of course I am a democrat and leftist and I have an excellent idea why and what these terms mean.
> Therefore there are more likelihood that their views is not better then average.
Of course, my view is not better than average, and you should understand it by now. I don't have a better idea about life than a young woman who decides not to work in computing, or to wear a hijab. Unlike you, who would probably want to dictate them.
And you should totally read this after two days and rethink your position. Because your position is actually more conservative (patronizing) than mine.
> I believe people should be considered to have free will (not saying they actually have it, by the way) and make their own choices in life (mostly - children and mentally ill are the exceptions).
Yes. I agree with it. It maybe tempting to change preferences of adults without asking them first, but it is unethical and therefore forbidden.
I'm not arguing to change preferences of adults. Its up to them. They can like everything that they want to like. But society has his rights, and it could demand to exclude sexism or racism from speech, if there are reasons for it. One can be racist, it is his free will, but he shouldn't speak about it publicly.
If society wants gender equality and too few women in STEM leads to inequality rise, than society can change it by foridding sexism talk, by changing education practices, by using media to educate adults and so on. Society can create environment where any sensible parent would try to make her daughters to like math and her sons to not being sexist.
> Again, it's very patronizing and undemocratic idea (coming from Plato, among other places), that people who don't have PhD in social science or what not cannot have a preference in social issues. Or that we cannot make an informed choice.
Stop thinking politics. Here and now we involved in discussion, not in democratic voting. Try to see the difference. You can speak what you want, but it is mine decision would I change my mind or I wouldn't. It is not your decision, and not decision of society. It is mine decision. You tried beautiful argument "I'm leftist", I answer you that such an argument has negative value for me, it devalues your opinion in my eyes.
Yes. I do not understand this problem. I have read those article before, and was unable to find some concrete example of such a problem. And, you know, I cannot understand abstractions without examples. Have never succeed with such a task.
Can you explain what mistake I've done on this concrete example without referring to some abstract ideas?
> Of course, my view is not better than average, and you should understand it by now. I don't have a better idea about life than a young woman who decides not to work in computing, or to wear a hijab.
If your view is not better that average then why do you bother youself explaining it? Are you think that I'm lower than average and didn't understand average views already? If so, do you really believe than you are better at explaining than others, and you can explain me some average ideas which I cannot understand?
> Unlike you, who would probably want to dictate them.
No. Maybe I failed to explain myself clearly, but I didn't say nothing like this.
> And you should totally read this after two days and rethink your position. Because your position is actually more conservative (patronizing) than mine.
One more time: its not more patronizing. But the idea is: I would not spend two days on thinking only because someone in internet believes that my views conservative or patronizing. I could spend two days if I have reasons to. For example if someone who is clearly knows better than me cannot agree with me. Or if I encounter some arguments which show me that my views is contradictory. But I will not spend two days thinking just because someone marked my opinion with some political labels.
> If society wants gender equality and too few women in STEM leads to inequality rise, than society can change it by foridding sexism talk, by changing education practices, by using media to educate adults and so on. Society can create environment where any sensible parent would try to make her daughters to like math and her sons to not being sexist.
But why should "society" want gender equality, if the individuals, that comprise it, don't?
Consider the following paraphrase:
"If society wants traditional family values, and people being gay lead to erosion of these values, then society can change it by forbidding homosexuality. Society can create environment where every sensible parent will want their kids not to be gay or lesbian."
This is often argued from conservative side, under assumption that homosexuality is all nurture. You argue the same way against women's preference against computer science, again, under assumption of nurture (which is quite likely to be wrong according to science).
So here is the is-ought fallacy of yours. This is a moral issue (what _ought_ be), regardless of the actual origin (nature or nurture) of the people's usual preferences, which are what _is_.
To be fair, I don't have a big problem if that "society decision" is a democratic vote (that is one person one vote) on the matter. But it's important to realize that this goes against moral preferences of many people, which are more liberal (including mine).
> "If society wants traditional family values, and people being gay lead to erosion of these values, then society can change it by forbidding homosexuality. Society can create environment where every sensible parent will want their kids not to be gay or lesbian."
> This is often argued from conservative side, under assumption that homosexuality is all nurture. You argue the same way against women's preference against computer science, again, under assumption of nurture (which is quite likely to be wrong according to science).
Um... It is just a little more complex.
Of course, it would be nice, if we was able to start with moral judgement, select terminal goal, and only then start to search for ways to reach that goal. But we are not omnipotent, and therefore while finding solutions for social problem we need to take into consideration possible ways to implement those solutions. It would be not very bright to select unrealistic goals. For example, if homosexuality is all nature, than it would be difficult to get rid of it, it would be either impossible or would need some kind of eugenics with artifically guided evolution, which is morally bad and no-no.
I didn't touch question "is equality good or bad". It is some kind of ethical question. I assume that equality between men and women is good and important fight now because it is the current consensus in society.
So, equality is the terminal goal. Equality is ought to be, right? Then we must find the best way to it. And for it we should know nature it or nurture, because if it nature than the terminal goal can be unreachable. For finding the best way to archieve equality we need to investigate causes of inequality, we need to know is this causes are nature or nurture ones, because without this knowledge we probably would try to do stupid things which will not work. And probably our investigations reveal that there are no acceptable way to archieve perfect equality, than we would need to find some compromise, to solve some kind of optimizational problem dealing with tradeoffs.
> To be fair, I don't have a big problem if that "society decision" is a democratic vote (that is one person one vote) on the matter. But it's important to realize that this goes against moral preferences of many people, which are more liberal (including mine).
Of couse such a facts we all should know, but there are historical examples when opinion of some big groups of democratic society didn't matter. For example, ~50 years ago there was a lot of white supremacist, but society decided that their views is their problem and shouldn't be considered while changing society.
Accepting or rejecting views of some group is moral judgement somewhere on the level of finding terminal goals for society. I'm not ready for such a judgements, moreover I'm not USA citizen and it is just not my problem. All my speculations based on assumption that equality is good and society is ready to do something about it.
Except they can't, by definition (hence the word, "preference", as in prefer A to B). If you accept a less paid position A rather than better paid position B, because you prefer doing job A rather than job B, then it's a CHOICE. Why you should be forced to take position B for some higher societal goal of "equality"? That's completely insane, and I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality (which is always, by definition, driven by either lack of choice or non-rational choices).