Joaz Banbeck wrote:Why aren't there more women at beer-chugging contests? Something must be done about that too! It's just not right!! If 50.6% of the participants are not female, there must have been discrimination somewhere...somehow...
So I'm going to be distributing more beer to women. All in the name of equality.
It appears that a few people missed the point of my previous post, so I'm going to re-write without the sarcasm. And with a bit more detail.
In the last 50 years or so, in the midst of well-intentioned efforts to ensure equality of opportunity for various genders and races and other categories, a belief has arisen: that one can measure equality of opportunity by measuring equality of result. This has been accompanied by the corollary: that if the results are unequal, that there must have been some discrimination.
I'm all for equality of opportunity. But I think that the aforementioned belief and its corollary are fallacious. They presume that all parties want the same things. Whereas, in fact, all do not.
Women and men are different. They do not want exactly the same things. Whether this is due to genetics or environment or influences of the planets, I cannot say for sure. For whatever reason women do not seem to have as strong an interest in playing go as men do. They also do not seem to have as strong an interest in chugging beer.
Ultimately, it is kind of demeaning to women to tell them that they are not making the proper choices - that they are not choosing to play go enough, and that we must do something to correct that. It is paternalism of the most insidious sort. It sounds vaguely noble when we do it with go, so I offered the sarcastic parallel of beer to unmask the paternalism. I was offering the same type of 'positive discrimination' as the OP, only with a somewhat more boorish activity.
I say make the opportunities equal, and let women and men choose as they wish. If the results are unequal, it is because people are different.