The ethics of gender inequality

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So, there's a perpetual debate on whether there really are mental differences between the genders, or whether those differences are merely psychological or a result of cultural restrictions.

 

That's not at all what I want to debate here. We can talk about what the case really is in another thread.

 

Instead, I'd like to pose a question. What if it was demonstrated that women and men have significant fundamental mental differences, with men being better at certain tasks and women better at others?

 

Suppose, for example, it turns out that men really do have a biological predisposition towards science and mathematics, while women have a predisposition towards verbal skills. (It does not matter, for the purposes of this thread, if this is actually true.) What is the appropriate reaction? Should we try to educate people to suit their biological predispositions, or should we try to overcome them? Should "affirmative action" (hiring talented women preferentially over men in male-dominated fields, for example) in gender relations be encouraged, to boost a gender in fields it's not "good" at?

 

And again, this thread is not about what is actually the case, so let's please not debate what the differences actually are -- this is an ethical question, not a neuroscientific one.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[iNow]

What if it was demonstrated that women and men have fundamental mental differences, with men being better at certain tasks and women better at others?

It already has been. There are numerous studies showing that men are (on average) much better at spatial manipulation tasks, like mentally rotating objects, and also much better at point navigation and path memory. Women are (on average) much better at interpreting facial expressions, seeing colors, and recognizing scents... Better at leveraging social networks to achieve specific goals... That sort of thing. These are median behaviors, though, and there are always outliers.

 

 

What is the appropriate reaction? Should we try to educate people to suit their biological predispositions, or should we try to overcome them?

I'd say it's better to go with the predisposition, especially considering these particular dispositions are non-harmful to others. If someone were predisposed to be violent, however, I would probably change my response.

 

 

Should "affirmative action" (hiring talented women preferentially over men in male-dominated fields, for example) in gender relations be encouraged, to boost a gender in fields it's not "good" at?

This is an interesting area, but I'd probably say no. Regardless of gender, the most appropriate applicant should be chosen... in much the same way that we should not be selecting people for positions based on skin color or religious preference. Choose the right person... not the "right" gender.

 

 

And again, this thread is not about what is actually the case, so let's please not debate what the differences actually are -- this is an ethical question, not a neuroscientific one.

Sorry for my very first comments above. I was not so much debating, but instead trying to educate... stupid me being interested in neuroscience.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is an interesting area, but I'd probably say no. Regardless of gender, the most appropriate applicant should be chosen... in much the same way that we should not be selecting people for positions based on skin color or religious preference. Choose the right person... not the "right" gender.

 

But isn't picking someone because their gender is typically better at the job just like picking them because their school had a good reputation?

 

In other words, I don't see the difference between

 

"Oh, this guy should be good, their physics program is really good"

 

versus

 

"Oh, she should be good at this, she's female."

 

Both of them talk about averages. On average, the people from a particular college might be better prepared, just like on average, one gender might have better skills. It's another factor that indicates whether a candidate is more likely to be suited for the job.

[Mr Skeptic]

There are real differences between men and woman, both mentally and physically. Most of these differences are fairly small, and quite frequently much smaller than the biased opinions of what said differences were. In addition, sometimes people have trouble understanding statistical differences between groups compared to differences between individuals. As such, I would recommend against preferring one gender over another on the basis that that the average person of that gender is better suited to that task. In addition, doing so would create social pressures that would reduce the number of that gender seeking that type of job due to the discrimination, making it a bit like a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There are real differences between men and woman, both mentally and physically. Most of these differences are fairly small, and quite frequently much smaller than the biased opinions of what said differences were. In addition, sometimes people have trouble understanding statistical differences between groups compared to differences between individuals. As such, I would recommend against preferring one gender over another on the basis that that the average person of that gender is better suited to that task. In addition, doing so would create social pressures that would reduce the number of that gender seeking that type of job due to the discrimination, making it a bit like a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

I'm trying to be hypothetical here. Suppose we discover that the differences are significant. What then?

 

(I'm going to edit my first post to make this more clear)

[D H]

But isn't picking someone because their gender is typically better at the job just like picking them because their school had a good reputation?

One is a difference of degree, the other a difference of kind.

 

There is a difference between men and women (and long live the difference), but in terms of mental differences, those differences relatively small. All men are not equally good at physics skills. They fall in a spectrum, roughly a bell curve. Women's physics/math capabilities similarly fall in a spectrum that is roughly a bell curve. These two curves might have different means and variances, but there is an incredible overlap as well. If you lump these two populations together you will still see something that is very close to a bell curve.

 

Now compare the people who have a physics degree from MIT versus those with the same degree from 4th tier podunk U. Some curve will characterize the diversity of physics/math skills in each of these two groups. If you lump these two populations together you will see two distinct populations. The lumped population will be bimodal. There might be some overlap at the extremes, but in general it is easy to guess whether someone came from MIT or Podunk based solely on their skills. Conversely, it is easy to accurately predict future performance based on the school they attended.

[StringJunky]

Women are apparently better at multitasking. They can also withstand greater g forces before passing out so they could make better fighter pilots....this is due to them being shorter on average and can physically control the blood pressure in their head easier ( i think the difference is two g's).

 

In the spirit of the question, ethically, all candidates regardless of gender should be given equal opportunity because there will always be a significant minority in the 'wrong' gender for a job that is capable of excelling over candidates of the 'right' gender and it would be iniquitous to deny them that destiny. You can't really just differentiate the human race in to the physical Male and Female....in a sense they represent polarities but most people fall some where in between in terms of male and female emtional/intellectual/physical attributes which may individually total up as distinct to what is traditionally expected from their gender.

 

A female may have considerable latent ability in a traditionally masculine task and vice versa....is it fair to deny them that outlet for their ability just because they possess the wrong gentalia?

 

Regardless of whether one sex has a scientifically proven superiority over the other in a given task, the opportunity (and requirements) should be the same.

 

It's not in the interest of progress either...what if the next Einstein or Newton was female and we preferentially selected only males for science...it could be a particular girl that has the insight and capability to unify Quantum Physics with Gravity for example? That would be a bummer wouldn't it...look how often the likes of those two men turn up?

 

Selection also potentially hinders our future survivability by limiting the diversity and potential of our human resources. Diversity is king when it comes to handling adversity.

 

A strategy of officially organised gender bias fails on nearly all levels in my mind because we are not black and white different....more like a gradient of greys.

[forufes]

the thing is, while i'm definitely with the affirmative action..it's very prone to abuse.

 

if you want a coal miner you'd definitely go for a male, no body'd debate that, but open the door for that and you'd have talented females rejected because they're "women"..

 

if you can persue the affirmative action while being clear that you're only recognizing DIFFERENCES between the genders, and you're not for the "alpha male" males are just better agenda, and people would actually understand it that way, then go for it.

 

treating the different equally is unfair, treating the different fairly is to treat them differently.

 

equal =! fair (not always)

[swansont]

But isn't picking someone because their gender is typically better at the job just like picking them because their school had a good reputation?

 

In other words, I don't see the difference between

 

"Oh, this guy should be good, their physics program is really good"

 

versus

 

"Oh, she should be good at this, she's female."

 

Both of them talk about averages. On average, the people from a particular college might be better prepared, just like on average, one gender might have better skills. It's another factor that indicates whether a candidate is more likely to be suited for the job.

 

I don't think that was the implication. You pick the most qualified person. Just don't be surprised that 80% (or whatever) of the time it will be one gender, under that hypothetical condition.

[ewmon]

IMO, individuality, equal opportunity and merit should rule. Any prejudice, including gender-based prejudice or affirmative action, inhibits individuality.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think that was the implication. You pick the most qualified person. Just don't be surprised that 80% (or whatever) of the time it will be one gender, under that hypothetical condition.

 

Right, but just like graduation from a good university is a qualification, couldn't the correct gender be a qualification?

[insane_alien]

well, no. if you've graduated from a good university then you have prrof that your skills are up to a certain standard.

 

your genitals just suggest that there is the possibility your better than someone with the other type, but its not necessarily true and hasn't been tested.

 

if you had two applicants for a job and one submitted a CV showing they were a world leading expert in the field, top uni, published papers etc. and then another applicant who goes 'i have dangly bits! hire me! i'm obviously the best!'

 

which do you think would get hired?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I see. So even if there's a demonstrable difference between genders, your gender only indicates a likelihood of you being better suited, whereas experience at a university or a previous job indicates that you definitely were to their standards.

[swansont]

Right, but just like graduation from a good university is a qualification, couldn't the correct gender be a qualification?

 

No. Because you could have one of the 20% of the qualified ones from the other gender. Gender would be a probabilistic indicator, as is graduation from a particular university. i.e. you can't use probability alone to show that a person is or isn't qualified. That would only show the likelihood that they are (un)qualified.

[Sisyphus]

Even simpler example. A random man is far more likely than a random woman to beat me at arm wrestling. If I then arm wrestle a woman and she beats me, can I say that I actually deserved to win, because men have more upper body strength than women?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Even simpler example. A random man is far more likely than a random woman to beat me at arm wrestling. If I then arm wrestle a woman and she beats me, can I say that I actually deserved to win, because men have more upper body strength than women?

 

Okay. But if you're reading applications for the next member of your arm-wrestling team, are you wrong to favor males over females?

[Sisyphus]

Okay. But if you're reading applications for the next member of your arm-wrestling team, are you wrong to favor males over females?

 

It would make sense to favor males over females only if the application didn't contain any directly relevant information. "Male" is not directly beneficial, but it increases the likelihood of the beneficial attribute. If the attribute is in fact directly listed, gender becomes irrelevant again.

[swansont]

It would make sense to favor males over females only if the application didn't contain any directly relevant information. "Male" is not directly beneficial, but it increases the likelihood of the beneficial attribute. If the attribute is in fact directly listed, gender becomes irrelevant again.

 

Precisely. You hire the person with the best strength+technique, regardless of gender. If you don't, then you have discriminated illegally. Discrimination on the basis of ability is not only perfectly legal, it is expected.

[D H]

Precisely. You hire the person with the best strength+technique, regardless of gender. If you don't, then you have discriminated illegally. Discrimination on the basis of ability is not only perfectly legal, it is expected.

Are you sure about that? There are venues where the people with the best strength+technique cannot be selected because those venues specifically rule out selecting said 'best' individuals. I don't know if challenges to the legality of these venues have been made, but nonetheless such organizations certainly do exist.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hmmm. I don't particularly like it when other users come in with an ambush post and here I did just that.

 

So, being upfront, I am talking about profession women sports venues. The NBA, NFL, MLB and the PGA (amongst others) do not have rules against women competing with the men in professional basketball, football, baseball, and golf. The WNBA, IWFL, National Pro Fastpitch, and LPGA do have rules against men competing with the women in professional basketball, football, softball, and golf.

[PaulS1950]

The fact that women have more interconnections between the hemispheres of their brains than men do is a physical difference in the brains of men and women. To say that women can therefore think better in "parallel" than men or that men are more focused on a single task is a matter of conjecture. The truth is that we learn to think in the manner in which we are tho most successful. The physical body is developed as we grow and there are therefore women who are stronger than "most" men and men who are stronger than most men.

How we develope and use our individual talents is more important than what we are given to work with by our genes.

[Genecks]

I suspect scientists and psychologists would attempt to find ways to make men better with verbal skills and women better in science.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ooh, that brings up an even more interesting question.

 

Suppose they developed a "cure" for naturally being worse at (insert field here). Some sort of medication that "fixes" the brain difference and makes you equal to the other gender.

 

Would you take that medication?

[Genecks]

If you mean that I would be good at verbal skills and science?

Sure, then.

 

I'm somewhat already decent at both, though.

[Mr Skeptic]

Should we try to educate people to suit their biological predispositions, or should we try to overcome them?

 

Some of each, but mostly people should learn and work in the areas they are most capable. Unless they prefer to do something they are worse at for other reasons. And I think hiring practices should reflect competence and other relevant aspects, not try to do some balancing act. The only reason to encourage hiring someone that is less qualified because of their gender (or race) would be if the differences were social and it was desirable to remove those differences.

 

I'd say it's better to go with the predisposition, especially considering these particular dispositions are non-harmful to others. If someone were predisposed to be violent, however, I would probably change my response.

 

Yes, but I think there's a reason that most of the army is male. Not that I approve, but sometimes violence is necessary.

[Marat]

As a matter of empirical science no two people are ever equal in intellectual capacity, self-discipline, creativity, strength, health, or moral aptitude, but as a matter of law and morality everyone has to be treated as equal to everyone else. Equality is thus a value but not a fact, and our commitment to the notion that all people should be treated equally is always deliberately unrealistic, anti-scientific, and empirically unjustifed. But since both values and facts are important to human life, these two systems, the former moral and the latter scientific, can run parallel to each other and provide us with alternate reasons for treating people equally or not, depending on which perspective we adopt.