As I am sure most of you are
aware, yesterday was International Women’s Day.
This, of course, sparked a number of discussions on the necessity of feminism
in Western society. This all reminded me of a previous discussion I had with an
acquaintance over what is the best way to measure gender equality. Essentially,
it boiled down to whether we should measure equality of representation or
equality of opportunity, with my acquaintance arguing the former while I argued
the latter. I wish to articulate to you all a point that I tried to impart on
my discussion partner. This is that the equality of representation side has a
fairly large assumption built into it; namely, that men and women are actually
equal in all respects.
Before you fly off into a tirade
about how much of a misogynist I am, hear me out. The debate over biological
gender difference is one that it still going strong; there are points made on
both sides that make it hard to come to any conclusion beyond ‘we don’t know at
the moment’. For example, testosterone has been linked to aggression in both
males and females and males have higher levels of testosterone simply due to
being male. The counterpoint to this is that it has also been found that witnessing
and emulating aggressive behaviours can increase testosterone levels. Thus, to
take a position on policy (that women and men should be equally represented in
all fields) is to run with a conclusion that has yet to be established.
Whereas, if your policy position is to remove barriers that prevent women from
access certain fields, you allow for both the possibility that men and women
are and aren’t equal.
To demonstrate this point, let me
present a hypothetical world. In this world, there are no cultural, social or
legal barriers to either gender undertaking any task; men can be homemakers,
women can be CEO’s and no one bats at eye at either choice. Now, if men and
women have equal capabilities/preferences, we would of course see an equal
representation of both genders in all fields. However, if there are differences
between the averages of the abilities/preferences of each gender, then we would
see differences in the representation of both genders. For example, women may
actually as a matter of biology rather than culture be more nurturing on
average than males. This would lead to an overrepresentation in fields that
require a nurturing temperament (healthcare, teaching etc.). This would not be
unfair; to the contrary, it would be exactly what the individuals want of their
own accord.
It should be noted that I am in
no way defending the status quo; there are still many barriers that prevent
women from having equal access to the same opportunities that men enjoy and we
should make every effort to see that they are eliminated. My point is more that people need to point to
these problems directly rather than point to the difference in representation
and infer that there must be a problem because of it.