4 ms·

Putting aside the sheer absurdity of that argument -- women pursue biology PhDs because they expect to be supported by a man? -- it still wouldn't explain why w

by abalone 10y ago

Putting aside the sheer absurdity of that argument -- women pursue biology PhDs because they expect to be supported by a man? -- it still wouldn't explain why women are under represented in higher paying fields.

bluecalm 10y ago
Maybe they are more competitive and significant percentage of women might not want enter competitive field because they plan to have families and know they will not be able to devote as much time to the rat race as men would.
RyanZAG 10y ago
How is there any absurdity? If a person is expected to only choose a high paying field, but has two options open: 1. High paying field they don't really like. 2. Low paying field they'd love to do. Then if there are social expectations that someone must make a lot of money, they will generally be forced to choose option 1. The argument that men are forced by social expectations to choose option 1, and women are more freely able to choose option 2 is not 'absurd'. It may be correct or incorrect and would need some evidence to back it up, but please don't go around labeling positions you don't like as 'absurd'.
- abalone 10y ago
  You ignored my explicit spelling out of the absurdity: that it assumes women pursuing certain advanced STEM degrees do so expecting to be financially supported by a man.
  - RyanZAG 10y ago
    They're not going to need support for themselves with either STEM degree - but they're not going to be able to support a husband and children on a low paying STEM. And nobody would expect them to support a husband. Meanwhile a man would be expected to support a wife and children off his salary. This is the expectations difference you are calling absurd.
    - abalone 10y ago
      It is not the "expectations difference" that is absurd. It is the notion that highly educated women freely choose to opt out of high paying engineering/CS fields and pursue lower-paying PhDs because they plan on men supporting them. Is there a single shred of evidence to support this? Interviews with female grad students where they spell out this plan of theirs, etc.? Of course not. Meanwhile, tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS. [1] [1] see for example Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (MIT Press) http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-Press/dp/0262632691 http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-Pr...
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > because they plan on men supporting them You added the idea of conscious planning. Replace "plan on supporting them" with "higher probability of getting support". > tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS This has no bearing on the above claim though, does it? That men have a higher risk of being able to find a partner capable and willing on supporting them financially.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    That's not necessarily true. It could just be that a woman's expectations are a potential husband earns above a certain amount of money, while men don't place the same value on a woman's earnings.
reitzensteinm 10y ago
Even if Colin's argument is wrong, it's not "absurd", and it's this kind of toxic rhetoric that invariably makes these discussions fall off a cliff into a cesspool. Could we once do without it?
- mafribe 10y ago
  invariably makes these discussions fall off a cliff That is of course the political purpose of such remarks. Demonise the other side, brand them as beyond the pale, as not even worthy a reply. This is a well-known rhetorical device to protect one's own position from criticism. Alas it's difficult to defend against.
cperciva 10y ago
women pursue biology PhDs because they expect to be supported by a man? Not at all what I said. Rather, women have the freedom to pursue their interests because they know that their ability to have children will not be determined by whether they can support a spouse.

by abalone 10y ago

bluecalm 10y ago

Maybe they are more competitive and significant percentage of women might not want enter competitive field because they plan to have families and know they will not be able to devote as much time to the rat race as men would.

RyanZAG 10y ago

How is there any absurdity? If a person is expected to only choose a high paying field, but has two options open: 1. High paying field they don't really like. 2. Low paying field they'd love to do. Then if there are social expectations that someone must make a lot of money, they will generally be forced to choose option 1. The argument that men are forced by social expectations to choose option 1, and women are more freely able to choose option 2 is not 'absurd'. It may be correct or incorrect and would need some evidence to back it up, but please don't go around labeling positions you don't like as 'absurd'.

abalone 10y ago
You ignored my explicit spelling out of the absurdity: that it assumes women pursuing certain advanced STEM degrees do so expecting to be financially supported by a man.
- RyanZAG 10y ago
  They're not going to need support for themselves with either STEM degree - but they're not going to be able to support a husband and children on a low paying STEM. And nobody would expect them to support a husband. Meanwhile a man would be expected to support a wife and children off his salary. This is the expectations difference you are calling absurd.
  - abalone 10y ago
    It is not the "expectations difference" that is absurd. It is the notion that highly educated women freely choose to opt out of high paying engineering/CS fields and pursue lower-paying PhDs because they plan on men supporting them. Is there a single shred of evidence to support this? Interviews with female grad students where they spell out this plan of theirs, etc.? Of course not. Meanwhile, tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS. [1] [1] see for example Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing (MIT Press) http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-Press/dp/0262632691 http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing-Pr...
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > because they plan on men supporting them You added the idea of conscious planning. Replace "plan on supporting them" with "higher probability of getting support". > tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS This has no bearing on the above claim though, does it? That men have a higher risk of being able to find a partner capable and willing on supporting them financially.
- gozur88 10y ago
  That's not necessarily true. It could just be that a woman's expectations are a potential husband earns above a certain amount of money, while men don't place the same value on a woman's earnings.

reitzensteinm 10y ago

Even if Colin's argument is wrong, it's not "absurd", and it's this kind of toxic rhetoric that invariably makes these discussions fall off a cliff into a cesspool. Could we once do without it?

mafribe 10y ago
invariably makes these discussions fall off a cliff That is of course the political purpose of such remarks. Demonise the other side, brand them as beyond the pale, as not even worthy a reply. This is a well-known rhetorical device to protect one's own position from criticism. Alas it's difficult to defend against.

cperciva 10y ago

women pursue biology PhDs because they expect to be supported by a man? Not at all what I said. Rather, women have the freedom to pursue their interests because they know that their ability to have children will not be determined by whether they can support a spouse.