3 ms·

There is an excellent Norwegian documentary, Hjernevask, that explores this question and many others like it. The premise is set up in the first couple minutes

There is an excellent Norwegian documentary, Hjernevask, that explores this question and many others like it. The premise is set up in the first couple minutes of the first episode: why is it that in one of the most gender equal countries in the world that women and men still flocked to traditional jobs? It had such an impact that the government decided to shut down their Gender Studies Institute. But you won't see these kinds of things discussed on HN. I'll be surprised if I don't get any ad hominems lazily labeling me as a redpiller.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago
Thank you for this - a fascinating documentary and I am planning on watching the rest in the series. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-in-norway-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwash...) The above link is from Wikipedia and is a English subtitle - the comedian / host wants to know why in Norway there are clear gender divides - 10% women in a construction firm, no men in a hospital maternity ward. He approaches Norwegian researchers who basically say there is no biological difference, but it's cultural (boys clothes in blue etc). He then points at a road sign with a male worker digging. Then we fly to USA and England, visiting researchers in biological basis of gender difference. And hey presto there are some. He amusingly shows English researchers video of Norwegians and vice versa, running his own academic face-off. In the end the Norwegians Coke off worse, being dogmatic about there being no biological basis instead of some mixed approach. Well worth a look. Does it matter? Is there some (testosterone related) difference in empathy that means jobs with more human to human basis (nursing, pre-school teaching) attract women / reject men and vice versa for construction / IT? Well, yes. Does this mean that you and I and every hiring manager and departmental culture is perfect, balanced, diversity friendly,. No of course not. The biological basis for our geneder differences is valid and (not being an expert) probably unassailable. However if there is some scientifically determined geneder ratio for each industry (or even individual job!) is the firm you work in showing that ratio - or is it biased towards some other ratio? That's my point - no matter if biology says 50/50 or 80/20 , I refuse to believe every tech firm out there is perfectly gender balanced and has nothing to learn. Oddly enough, one thing that shines through is that in "poorer countries" (India, Eastern Europe) gender preferences are over-ridden by the simple desire to get lucrative jobs. And anecdotally, there are more non- western women in my Fortune 500 workplace than western. And this leaves the last question - what should be the ratio of men/women in software? 10% like construction firms? 50/50 like medicine? I doubt this is a simple or solvable question - but Inwoukd always suggest that if you think you are doing it all right and have nothing to learn - you are wrong.
- pdex 11y ago
  I like how the documentary investigated studies on nature vs. nurture. One thing I do admit is that it's very difficult to measure how much of it is genetics alone, since we can't raise kids in a lab isolated from the outside world to ensure 100% that there is no outside cultural or parental influence that may skew the results. That steps on some ethical toes as well. While it's gotten much better, there is still a great deal of culture, advertising, parenting, etc that can subconsciously influence gender roles. Although it looks as though you can only influence people so much, at innate genetic/biologic nature seems to want to resist. I don't think there's an answer to it either, but to me it looks like while biology and genetics do have some sway, so does environment and culture- enough where the current gender percentages probably shouldn't be quite so divergent. We're still a society in transition, and it wasn't very long ago where women weren't allowed to have career opportunities at all, it will be interesting to see how the numbers change in another generation or two.
pdex 11y ago
I, too, must also thank you for that link. That is a very interesting documentary, I watched all 7 episodes. I do have to say that while it brings up a lot of good points, research and the validity of it is very difficult to verify at times. I was disappointed in some of the closed-mindedness that some of the "experts" seemed to have, although they may have been correct about some of the research being on shaky ground in terms of proof. A lot of research offers up correlations and anecdotal observations, but no actual scientific proof. However if you find a lot of anecdotal correlations pointing in the same direction it's begs for scientific study to see if there is proof or mere coincidence. Sadly many of those scientists didn't seem the least bit curious to find out if there was any scientific cause behind anecdotal evidence, especially if it conflicted with their political views. That was so disappointing! I would have expected a much different attitude from scientists and experts. But if political opinion is what funds research and determines which scientists get promoted, I suppose I shouldn't be quite so shocked. I do wish they looked into why non-western females had a higher rate of interest in STEM, they seemed to gloss over it and attributed it to "It motivates them because it's more lucrative", I don't buy that and I wish they investigated it more.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

Thank you for this - a fascinating documentary and I am planning on watching the rest in the series. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-in-norway-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwash...) The above link is from Wikipedia and is a English subtitle - the comedian / host wants to know why in Norway there are clear gender divides - 10% women in a construction firm, no men in a hospital maternity ward. He approaches Norwegian researchers who basically say there is no biological difference, but it's cultural (boys clothes in blue etc). He then points at a road sign with a male worker digging. Then we fly to USA and England, visiting researchers in biological basis of gender difference. And hey presto there are some. He amusingly shows English researchers video of Norwegians and vice versa, running his own academic face-off. In the end the Norwegians Coke off worse, being dogmatic about there being no biological basis instead of some mixed approach. Well worth a look. Does it matter? Is there some (testosterone related) difference in empathy that means jobs with more human to human basis (nursing, pre-school teaching) attract women / reject men and vice versa for construction / IT? Well, yes. Does this mean that you and I and every hiring manager and departmental culture is perfect, balanced, diversity friendly,. No of course not. The biological basis for our geneder differences is valid and (not being an expert) probably unassailable. However if there is some scientifically determined geneder ratio for each industry (or even individual job!) is the firm you work in showing that ratio - or is it biased towards some other ratio? That's my point - no matter if biology says 50/50 or 80/20 , I refuse to believe every tech firm out there is perfectly gender balanced and has nothing to learn. Oddly enough, one thing that shines through is that in "poorer countries" (India, Eastern Europe) gender preferences are over-ridden by the simple desire to get lucrative jobs. And anecdotally, there are more non- western women in my Fortune 500 workplace than western. And this leaves the last question - what should be the ratio of men/women in software? 10% like construction firms? 50/50 like medicine? I doubt this is a simple or solvable question - but Inwoukd always suggest that if you think you are doing it all right and have nothing to learn - you are wrong.

pdex 11y ago
I like how the documentary investigated studies on nature vs. nurture. One thing I do admit is that it's very difficult to measure how much of it is genetics alone, since we can't raise kids in a lab isolated from the outside world to ensure 100% that there is no outside cultural or parental influence that may skew the results. That steps on some ethical toes as well. While it's gotten much better, there is still a great deal of culture, advertising, parenting, etc that can subconsciously influence gender roles. Although it looks as though you can only influence people so much, at innate genetic/biologic nature seems to want to resist. I don't think there's an answer to it either, but to me it looks like while biology and genetics do have some sway, so does environment and culture- enough where the current gender percentages probably shouldn't be quite so divergent. We're still a society in transition, and it wasn't very long ago where women weren't allowed to have career opportunities at all, it will be interesting to see how the numbers change in another generation or two.

pdex 11y ago

I, too, must also thank you for that link. That is a very interesting documentary, I watched all 7 episodes. I do have to say that while it brings up a lot of good points, research and the validity of it is very difficult to verify at times. I was disappointed in some of the closed-mindedness that some of the "experts" seemed to have, although they may have been correct about some of the research being on shaky ground in terms of proof. A lot of research offers up correlations and anecdotal observations, but no actual scientific proof. However if you find a lot of anecdotal correlations pointing in the same direction it's begs for scientific study to see if there is proof or mere coincidence. Sadly many of those scientists didn't seem the least bit curious to find out if there was any scientific cause behind anecdotal evidence, especially if it conflicted with their political views. That was so disappointing! I would have expected a much different attitude from scientists and experts. But if political opinion is what funds research and determines which scientists get promoted, I suppose I shouldn't be quite so shocked. I do wish they looked into why non-western females had a higher rate of interest in STEM, they seemed to gloss over it and attributed it to "It motivates them because it's more lucrative", I don't buy that and I wish they investigated it more.