> Preferences are not a problem, social inequalities are a problem.
Exactly. Preferences are not a problem. Social inequalities are a problem. However, neither of those are easily directly measurable. So we do indirect measurements on things like gender participation in a given career. When we measure unequal participation in a field, I think we are too quick to attribute it to social inequalities when perhaps it is more personal preference. That's the only point I'm trying to make... My movie preference analogy confused my point. Sorry about that.
EDIT: I have a clearer analogy for you. Imagine that we lived in a world where the US watched lots of action films and Spain watched lots of documentaries. Furthermore, imagine that there was a lot of money and power flowing into the documentary industry, and that the action film industry is relatively dry.
That's a proxy for socioeconomic inequality. Now what you are trying to argue is that Americans just might prefer action films. Ok... great. Americans prefer action films. But why?
So we go out there and we ask Americans how they feel about documentaries:
"They are boring. We'd prefer not to watch them."
Hypothesis confirmed! So we ask them why the prefer action films:
"Because they are in English. All the good documentaries are in Spanish."
Ding ding ding! Of course Americans prefer action films! They don't have access to good documentaries! Why would they prefer documentaries when they are all in Spanish?
---
So when you ask why women prefer not to work in STEM, you'll learn something about the cause of the social inequality. Saying it's a "matter of preference" tells you nothing. It just sounds like you're trying to invoke a naturalistic fallacy and stop investigating.
Maybe if you invested more in good English documentaries, they would be quite popular. Maybe the preference would disappear. So it doesn't matter if there's a preference. What matters is why there is a preference.
I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on.
Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path. Their movie preference shows this well: you can't possibly think that even in an "ideal" society men and women would prefer exactly the same movies? Why would they prefer the same professions? Surely you've met some nurses and seen why it might be a popular occupation among women?
The "preference" model hints what part of gender unbalance would be present even in an ideal world, and the rest we should address. That's the point you're missing here.
>I think you have to challenge your perception professional preference has to be gender-balanced, or else there is something wrong going on.
Why? What are my goals? Why should I be assuming that women should not have the same opportunities as men with regard to professional preference?
>Men and women are physiologically different. They have an intrinsically different hormonal and social development path.
Obviously. But the culture of business doesn't have any innate hormonal path, so why should it conform to mens' hormones and not women's? Why can't we change the realities of STEM to create a balance?
What is it about STEM that makes it incapable of accommodating different brain chemistry?
>The "preference" model hints what part of gender unbalance would be present even in an ideal world
An ideal world would have gender inequality? Got it.
>Surely you've met some nurses and seen why it might be a popular occupation among women?
Are you serious right now? Explain this to me. Why do women prefer to be nurses? Tell me all about how nursing requires vaginas and estrogen.
> But the culture of business doesn't have any innate hormonal path, so why should it conform to mens' hormones and not women's? Why can't we change the realities of STEM to create a balance?
"Business" is far different from the realities of mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, etc -- which go from very specific courses in education to certain work environments.
For example, take children of age ~7. Boys love playing with cars; girls do like them a bit too, but it's pretty clear they prefer simulating social interactions, specially dolls talking. Should we address this imbalance too? That would be like making a toy which is a car with a doll strapped on it's back and forbidding all other toys -- we'll achieve equality, but won't it be artificial? Will boys and girls actually be happier with their toys?
I'm not claiming all unbalance in STEM comes from preference, I'm claiming some may come, and it's important to recognize that to effectively address the situation.
>"For example, take children of age ~7. Boys love playing with cars; girls do like them a bit too, but it's pretty clear they prefer simulating social interactions, specially dolls talking."
Bullshit. Do you have a source for this, or are you just unaware of how bigoted this is? It is not 1950. I am not going to agree that "girls like dolls and boys like trucks" without some reliable evidence. I'm sure if you marketed trucks to girls long enough and dolls to boys long enough, they would prefer the opposite just fine. Here's what you've been arguing:
Left handed people prefer not to use scissors.
Therefore, scissor manufacturers shouldn't bother to make left-handed scissors.
This is in spite of the fact that, when asked *why* they
don't like scissors, they tell you "because they are
uncomfortable to use."
"Left handed people prefer not to use scissors because they are uncomfortable, therefore we should not make comfortable scissors for left handed people."
I'm sorry that I'm unwilling to jump on your circular logic bandwagon to defend your obvious bigotry.
PS> I'm still waiting for you to explain why women should be nurses and men should be doctors.
If you don't believe boys and girls have some fundamental differences in personality maybe you need to get away from your monitor and interact with a child.
You can find countless studies of gender distinction in just about every physiological/psychological aspect, just google it. (your point about handedness is very poor since humans have bilateral symmetry, unlike genders; although some asymmetric brain specialization actually seems to create some fundamental differences in the way left handed people think)
If you didn't get this after all this discussion I'm afraid you never will.
>PS. I didn't suggest women would prefer nursing to clinician work, but it's fairly obvious they would prefer nursing over truck driving.
Exactly. Preferences are not a problem. Social inequalities are a problem. However, neither of those are easily directly measurable. So we do indirect measurements on things like gender participation in a given career. When we measure unequal participation in a field, I think we are too quick to attribute it to social inequalities when perhaps it is more personal preference. That's the only point I'm trying to make... My movie preference analogy confused my point. Sorry about that.