[isykt]

> For example, it's been shown that the woman pay gap is largely explained by different life choices rather than sexism.

How were life choices controlled for in these studies? I’m sure lots of black people in the pre-civil rights American South never applied for jobs only given to white people because not getting lynched is a pretty important “life choice.”

Put another, less stark way: if you see no one like you in a certain field, starting as a child, can you really say it was a “life choice” not to pursue, I.e, computer science?

[olalonde]

It's a bit what I was getting at. Culture and environment are often sufficient to explain outcome disparities between groups, even in the absence of discrimination.

> How were life choices controlled for in these studies?

The studies would consider lynching as a form of discrimination. I can't recommend the book enough if you are curious about the topic, it cites numerous studies.

The overall conclusion is that we shouldn't expect equal outcomes even in a world devoid of discrimination. The most obvious example of that are the various minority, and discriminated against, groups that outperform majority groups (e.g. the Chinese in Malaysia, American Jewish, etc.).

[iinnPP]

Yes. Assuming you accept individualism. Further, quotas mean you are basically guaranteed a spot in a job where you are vastly outnumbered by group (i.e. gender).

However, a lot of folks let group mentality ruin otherwise great opportunities.

[vkou]

> Assuming you accept individualism.

We don't need to accept individualism to accept that argument, we need to accept that people are blind and deaf to the world around them, and somehow make major life decisions without basing them on any sensory and social input.

Which is a much harder sell.