Because if it is purely cultural then aiming for 50/50 gender parity across all industries is a reasonable goal.
If it is not, it is a 'terrible', 'terrible' idea to approach gender equality from that angle.
If it is not, it is a 'terrible', 'terrible' idea to approach gender equality from that angle.
I’m assuming you picked coal mining because it’s an example of a dirty, dangerous position in an industry that’s rightfully stigmatised by most modern countries.
If you’re suggesting that we shouldn’t push women into dangerous jobs but it’s okay to push men into them, then I would counter that we should make dangerous jobs safer for everybody and no, there’s no fundamental reason that women should not have the opportunity to work in these industries.
No I didn't suggest this.
My question was not about energy policies. Let's substitute coal miners for waste collectors (colloquially referred to as garbage men, because 99% of them are male), and ask the question again.
Garbage collection is male dominated -- should we push more women into becoming garbage collectors?
I honestly don't know where I stand on that. While I absolutely believe that much of the disparity in preference is cultural, I'm apt to believe that some of it is biological. Further, I'm not sure eradicating that cultural bias is beneficial.
On the other hand, ~42% of meat processors are women; that is certainly a dirty, dangerous unfun job.
The real male-dominated industries are lawn care, sewage treatment, and repair and maintenance. Coal mining is too small an industry to report demographics, but mining as a whole is "only" ~88% male.
If women and men "are indeed biologically identical in their job preferences" you could argue a good measure for real equality of opportunity would be 50/50 parity across industries. Because given a fair shake everyone would be evenly distributed across all industries (since we have the same preferences).
Just assuming that all of these are the equal might hide the actual problem we want to fix. Or might point to asymmetries we might not want to fix.
Of course, the 50/50 gender parity has also a different motivation, trying to address the culturally influenced preference. The argument goes like this: Because of historical reasons, some professions are male dominated. Girls are not interested in these professions because female role models are missing. So if we force the promotion of female role models, this historically created bias will vanish.
In a free market system people are going to be pushed into the jobs for which they have the most aptitude (or out of the workforce if their aptitude is too low/lower than machines) regardless of their preferences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3bjr41/why_ha...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2rpbil/why_ar...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3inzi0/lookin...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/97f59k/are_fe...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/63lydf/why_do...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/5z79oe/are_fe...
* Feminists really do fight for representation in these jobs[0][1][3] to the point where one of the largest sexual discrimination lawsuits was brought up by women trying to get into the coal mining industry.
* Women already have significant representation in such jobs and especially in other low wage jobs, such as textile manufacturing (in sweatshops, for instance[2]), nursing, fast food work, oil drilling, childbirthing (and other thankless reproductive labour), janitors/sanitation etc.
* These jobs are generally seen as undesirable anyway, and there isn't a social push for men to enter them. It's expected that with less push for dirty (and trade) jobs in general, there would be less of a liberal feminist push for them too. This is consistent with the fact that second wave feminists argued for any involvement of women in the workplace, even blue collar jobs, but now such activity is less prominent.
* It's a class issue too, and the perceptions, biases and elitist attitudes which prevent entry to such jobs for both men and women have been challened by intersectional and Marxist feminists.[4]
* Part of feminism is challenging essentialist and elitist narratives about women and their capabilities, which managers in such industries cite in arguments against hiring women
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3am8ri/if_the...
[2] http://www.feminist.org/other/sweatshops/sweatfaq.html
[3] http://the-exercist.tumblr.com/post/105284613217/is-that-so-...
[4] Sean Sayers, "Marxism and Human Nature" discusses this elitism at length as both a gender issue and a class issue
I used the word 'push' because I was responding to a comment which identified 50/50 representation in all occupations as potentially a reasonable goal. It would surely take a big push to achieve gender parity in garbage collection, which is 99% male in the US!
If that's the case, then I see how it could be an attainable goal, but what is the basis of asserting that differing are something undesirable?