| Thanks for the thoughtful response! > I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women. Sure, it very much depends on how you define "self-optimization". Let's just say there is a group of people interested in certain (selected?) topics related to self-optimization that predominantly attracts men. > I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well. I have no issue if someone says "This and that subculture attracts mostly men [with certain character traits] and here's why this is problematic" and then goes on to explore this topic in detail. But carelessly throwing around stereotypes of masculinity and feminity doesn't help anyone. > I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall Yes, I would say so as well. > It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality. I'm not really sure I subscribe to this idea/desire of "real equality" (which I interpret as "equality of outcome", i.e. in this case a 50-50 representation of genders), at least not on a general basis. Different people have different interests and propensities, and it seems these are controlled by biological factors (e.g. sex) to some degree[0], though it is not clear how much exactly. In any case, not only does achieving a 50-50 gender distribution across all groups seem unrealistic, it would also go against freedom of will of the individual. Now this is not to say that making a given group (e.g. a university's chemical engineering program) more inclusive and welcoming to all kinds of people (and all genders) doesn't have benefits. It does. But if, at the end of the day, we don't reach a 50-50 gender distribution everywhere, I don't think this is an issue, either. [0]: See the debates about "systemizing vs. empathizing" and "people vs. things". |