Thought experiment: Representative Ratios

[DevilWithaHalo]

We?re all fairly supportive of equality in one form or another. One of the many ways people gauge equality is through representation. As an example the argument that until we see 50% female representation in Political office we?ll never have real quality. Let?s assume for the sake of argument that we suddenly see an influx and the gender ratios change. I?d like you to think about what changes might occur based on just the simple adjustments of male-female ratios in certain industries. I?ll give you a few to choose from?

Game Development (design, coding, art, etc).
Governmental office (congress, parliament, etc).
Sanitary (garbage disposal, janitors, etc).
Physics (any higher math).
Secretarial (in any field).
Nursing (in any medical field, including home based care).

Take into consideration the following male-female ratios?
Male 90-10 Female
Male 50-50 Female
Male 10-90 Female

Think about the following questions?
What fundamental changes to the industry would occur naturally with each ratio?
What changes would be implemented because of the ratio changes?
How would the attitudes toward the industry change given the two extreme ratios?
Would the problems associated with each industry be affected at all?
How would the change affect policies surrounding said industries?
Who? What? Where? Why? When? How? Etc.

Try not to consider this from just a beneficial side; change isn?t always good, and unforeseeable consequences should be taken into consideration. Potential negative outcomes are just as important for discussion as positive ones.

So choose one (or more) of the fields, apply the different ratios and theorize the outcomes. If you have real life examples of ratio changes and their outcomes please include them.

 

[Darken12]

I've worked in places with a 50-50 gender rate in nursing. It's no big deal. The women herniate themselves doing heavy lifting just like the men, and everyone has to give patients sponge baths. My chosen profession (biochemistry) was highly scientific, with advanced math, advanced physics and extensive chemistry and biology, and it had a 90-10 female to male ratio. If those women had gone on to engineering or physics, they would've easily got those degrees as well, but pharmacy and biochemistry appealed more to them because of the practical applicability of their degree, and the potential of some day having their own lab or pharmacy. In my country, the scientist community in general is 50-50, and women are just as capable of publishing papers, giving presentations at congresses, keeping themselves updated, and debating anyone they wish. They are definitely the mental equals of men. In fact, I'd say 60% of my country's scientific eminences (that are still keeping up with progress despite their advanced age) are women (though that one might be skewed by the longevity of women).

In all the places I've worked, the cleaning/janitorial/sanitary jobs have been done exclusively by women, since they are one of the very few positions that will take anyone regardless of their education level or economic means, and while men often choose a life of crime, women tend to gravitate to whatever legal job they can get.

Governmental office? I've had two female presidents (one was before I was alive), and we have plenty of female politicians, though I'd generally say the ratio is still 30-70 in favour of men.

It's really no big deal. Let's not delude ourselves with the false triteness of "no change is wholly good". Gender equality IS wholly good, despite whatever discomfort it might cause in the current status quo and the men who benefit from it.

 

[Vegosiux]

It's really no big deal. Let's not delude ourselves with the false triteness of "no change is wholly good". Gender equality IS wholly good, despite whatever discomfort it might cause in the current status quo and the men who benefit from it.

Agreed, but, there is one thing to keep in mind.

My chosen profession (biochemistry) was highly scientific, with advanced math, advanced physics and extensive chemistry and biology, and it had a 90-10 female to male ratio. If those women had gone on to engineering or physics, they would've easily got those degrees as well, but pharmacy and biochemistry appealed more to them because of the practical applicability of their degree, and the potential of some day having their own lab or pharmacy.

A 50/50 split is not necessarily a measure of gender equality, because, as seen here, actual interest plays a part too. But I'll be damned if I know to find a way to determine how much a skewed ratio is the result of sexism and how much a result of simply skewed ratios in interest in a given field between the genders.

I'm all for gender equality, assuming that people are hired on the basis of their merits. That's why I personally don't think any kind of gender quotas are the solution. But, if in this example, if a 50/50 split was forced in the name of gender equality, that'd be rather sexist, assuming that such a skewed female to male ratio results out of actual interest for the field - if 9 times as many women are interested and their merits are on average pretty much the same as the guys', the only "gender equal" ratio is 90female-10male.

 

[Ryotknife]

Game development is about the only place where I say we NEED more women as it will actually help the industry perform better. As to the other fields, the gender has no real importance as to the task at hand, and therefore should just be satisfied with If X gender wants to be in the field then they can without forcing a ratio. If men dont want to be nurses, then dont force them. Will having more male nurses make things better? About the only area that should be looked at from the male point of view would probably be childcare where men are descriminated against. The whole thing should be about choice.

 

[Esotera]

Enforcing ratios isn't good because it will always discriminate against one gender when the ratio is particularly off. If you only 20% or so of women are programmers, then if you want to make all companies entirely equal, you're going to have to pick some bad programmers rather than pick a good male one. (Simply because more males know how to program than females)

We should be creating equal opportunities for both genders in both education & benefits, and then pick the best candidate based on their talent, not their genitalia.

 

[Darken12]

It's really no big deal. Let's not delude ourselves with the false triteness of "no change is wholly good". Gender equality IS wholly good, despite whatever discomfort it might cause in the current status quo and the men who benefit from it.

Agreed, but, there is one thing to keep in mind.

My chosen profession (biochemistry) was highly scientific, with advanced math, advanced physics and extensive chemistry and biology, and it had a 90-10 female to male ratio. If those women had gone on to engineering or physics, they would've easily got those degrees as well, but pharmacy and biochemistry appealed more to them because of the practical applicability of their degree, and the potential of some day having their own lab or pharmacy.

A 50/50 split is not necessarily a measure of gender equality, because, as seen here, actual interest plays a part too. But I'll be damned if I know to find a way to determine how much a skewed ratio is the result of sexism and how much a result of simply skewed ratios in interest in a given field between the genders.

I'm all for gender equality, assuming that people are hired on the basis of their merits. That's why I personally don't think any kind of gender quotas are the solution. But, if in this example, if a 50/50 split was forced in the name of gender equality, that'd be rather sexist, assuming that such a skewed female to male ratio results out of actual interest for the field - if 9 times as many women are interested and their merits are on average pretty much the same as the guys', the only "gender equal" ratio is 90female-10male.

I would agree, but I think you're missing the point that some professions have been traditionally barred to women, and even in our current day and age where women could apply for those jobs, they often think twice before doing so because the environment is still predominantly male and that brings a slew of potential problems (which I exemplified here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.402181-Poll-Is-the-ratio-of-women-in-the-industry-really-a-sign-of-sexism?page=3#16593538] in another thread dealing with this same topic).

So in the end, yes, interests do vary and people do have the agency to make their own decisions, but we cannot wholly blame them for the gender skew in a profession when the environment in that position is unwelcoming for them. If any regular sane person who might be interested in that profession would give it a miss and work on something else because they find the environment unwelcoming, that's not fine. We should be doing something about it.

However, I agree that it's not the best idea to hire someone because of a gender quota. I think that the best course of action is to preemptively change the workplace environment of gender-skewed professions in order to make them more welcoming to the other gender, and that sadly often requires changing the status quo that workers have got used to and will be resentful if it disappears. However, I think that's the best way to get a 50/50 gender ratio without engaging in discriminatory hiring practices.