Equality

Read this interesting post on the NY Times about differing male-female motivations ("Is there anything good about men?..."). It describes an argument by a Dr Baumeister (apparently a prominent social psychologist) that the fact that men have a lower chance of reproducing than women (today's human population is descended from twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors, according to Dr Baumeister) leads to women adopting 'safer' behaviour than men (since they have more to lose by taking risks which may lead them to be unable to have offspring). This in turn leads to some of the societal structures we observe, where men take up more prominent and influential social roles.

Anyway, you can read the details in the article if you are interested. What I feel compelled to point out here is my old favourite topic - the role of evolution and genes in shaping the behaviour of humans (and all other living beings). I am all for the right to equality, and think that it is one of the basic foundations of a fair and economically successful society. But that right to equality should be one of equality of opportunity, not of outcome. If someone points to the fact that women occupy only a small minority of significant managerial posts in big corporations as being evidence of discrimination against them, then I believe that they are making a logical mistake. If women (or whichever social group in question) are in a minority at the top of the corporate ladder, then the could be a variety of reasons for the same. Discrimination is one possibility and can take myriad forms. Discrimination could either happen directly within the corporation, or in the form of denial of opportunities for education at earlier age, for example. Another possibility is that the behaviour exhibited by females as a statistical entity would predict such a situation, given that certain traits are required to reach and occupy executive managerial posts. If taking care of their children is more important to a person than spending insane hours at work, then he/she may not find it easy to become a CEO. If women are more likely than men to exhibit the behaviour of devoting more time to their children, then it is logical to expect to see fewer women CEOs (This is a hypothetical argument of course - I do not know if becoming a CEO requires spending insane hours at work). Of course, I would assume in this case, as in most others, the reason is a combination of a bit of both (which one is more significant, or if there are others, I do not know). Similarly, if fewer men than women serve as nurses in hospitals (I do not know whether this is true, but am just presenting a hypothetical example), then I would not automatically conclude that men are discriminated against in this profession.

When proponents of reservations for deprived classes point to their under-representation in higher education or private corporations as being evidence of discrimination, I fear they might be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Perhaps such simplifications make life easier for those seeking to persuade the public, but they do end up confusing and occasionally riling me :(