&gt; your uncommon definition of sexism<p>My definition of sexism really is the common academic definition (although by &quot;definition&quot; I mean &quot;definition plus corollaries&quot;, but it&#x27;s a good enough approximation for people unfamiliar with research).<p>&gt; Why would I trade actual predictable present-day happiness for unpredictable changes in future behavior that might theoretically be somewhat better?<p>Why wouldn&#x27;t you? The question of what you <i>should</i> do is a philosophical question (perhaps the ultimate philosophical question) and depends largely on your values. I am not trying to dictate what you should or shouldn&#x27;t do, simply show that your &quot;optimal&quot; decisions are not neutral ones based on &quot;data&quot; but ultimately a result of your assumptions and your (valued) goals. Achieving similar power distribution between men and women is a value of mine and it may not be yours, but you cannot justify your actions by anything other than another value.<p>&gt; If you disagree with me that influence on future preferences is unpredictable, and think you can predict social dynamics better than random chance, offer me a basket of bets at favorable odds.<p>Well, my views of social dynamics are a result of years of study. I cannot say that my predictions are better than random because historians don&#x27;t even try to make predictions (and I wouldn&#x27;t dare call myself a historian), but we do know one thing for a fact: social action does indeed create social change. When it comes to complex systems, a familiarity with the dynamics does not translate to good predictions -- I&#x27;m sorry, but that&#x27;s a direct result of the math. Non-linear, multivariate differential equations are very hard to predict (and we don&#x27;t even have the right coefficients). But I know enough to recognize <i>terrible</i> reasoning that ignores what we do know, and denies its own assumptions.