See? This is what I was talking about. I _can't_ change your mind. Not that I don't have the arguments (I do, plenty), but each argument I use gets turn jiu jitsu style and supports your world view. I can (and will) continue to argue for fun, but as far as actually reaching you, I might as well fight a shadow. (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Confirmation_bias). Now, as far as arguing for fun goes: > I make no apologies for my belief that women and men are equal. They are equal. I know of no-to-little research that says they have significantly different _capabilities_. What I strongly disapprove is feminism (or however you call it, "society") trying to tell women what to want. That's the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The first, when confronted with an obvious imbalance (women in STEM, army, board room) will do its best to lower barriers, including btw with child care which most of Europe has. And surprise surprise, the more health care and government support you have, the more women still stay away from STEM/army/boardroom. It's as if more freedom actually allows them to express their real preferences. Equality of outcome is something I find repugnant, both because I was born in a totalitarian regime and because it insults my sense of justice. And I also find illogical to the point of being insane - I read when I was a child about an archaeologist found chipping away at the corners of a burial chamber, because it did not conform with its calculations. This is the kind of behavior I'm seeing, not honestly trying to find out what the reality is, but shaping reality to conform with a pre-decided idea of equality and to hell with the truth. If as a side-effect it makes lots of people unhappy, too bad, the Equality won!
So then explain to me how two equal things would have different outcomes? If I have two cars, they both are equally good at driving, but one wins 80% of races, then I can assume something is slowing down the other one. A perfectly level race track would mean each car would win 50% of the time (well, actually I guess they would tie, but that's not the point). If I offer a bunch of people a choice between two $5 bills, and people tend to pick the one in my right hand over the one in my left 80% of the time, then I can assume something is influencing them to pick the bill in my right hand. That's where I'm coming from. I don't understand how you can think men and women are equal and then be OK with men "winning" 80% of positions in a board room. The only way a meritocracy could put more men than women in a board room would be if men were better than women at the job. But neither of us agree with that. You also seem to think that requiring a certain portion of women in executive positions means that men would be unfairly discriminated against. I see it the other way around, that men who would have been unfairly promoted would be replaced by women who should have been promoted in the first place. >I_can't_change_your mind Do you see how that can go two ways?