4 ms·

Generally speaking the problem isn't that individuals get paid less. It's systemic issues - which are harder to fix. For example: women as a whole are less li

Generally speaking the problem isn't that individuals get paid less. It's systemic issues - which are harder to fix. For example: women as a whole are less likely to be in higher paying jobs in STEM roles. Or CEOs. Or high level Politicians. Why? Multiple reasons but the overall point is there is institutional and social pressure (mostly unconscious or learned) for women to avoid those fields. So the average gets lowered. This is also true of socially acceptable behaviors causing issues: women are usually less comfortable pushing for raises for example. Or negotiating for a higher initial salary after an interview. So the average gets lower. Then we get to what is the more contentious issue (at least… in places like HN) - community behavior. It's inarguable that many STEM fields have a very hostile default behavior that women (even if it's not directed at them) find unpleasant enough to avoid. The level of drop outs of women in tech due to this is very high. This is the point that usually is the "sexism in tech" conversation. But arguably that's just a symptom of the previous problems.

rch 9y ago
You should at least consider the possibility that intelligent, charismatic women may not be as willing to pursue 'STEM roles' as equivalently advantaged men. If someone is able to teach occasional yoga classes, do little PR work, and still travel internationally 3 months out of the year... who is to say that is less desirable than a full-time, higher paying job?
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  I did consider that. It’s directly addressed in my comment.
  - rch 9y ago
    I read your comment as supporting the idea that women forgo STEM roles due to gender-specific negative pressure (certainly true in some cases), while I'm suggesting (also) that some may be choosing different career paths to achieve more fulfilling lifestyles than STEM offers at its best. Apologies if I'm interpreting you incorrectly.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      I think you're sort of agreeing with me. I'm saying that if women are doing that and not men then the gender-specific pressure (on both genders) is a part of that.
titanix2 9y ago
Why should the differences in attraction for jobs with a stronger or weaker human communication component necessarily be institutional and social ? It might be genetic as well. In that case, good luck "fixing" the situation because it requires tweaking the human genome. That's could explain why even decades of public policy in countries like Sweden didn't even come close to a situation of near 50% STEM workers.
greenshackle2 9y ago
About 20% of the workforce in tech is women. Less than 20% of students who take the AP Computer Science test are female. [1] So whatever makes women uninterested in programming happens before college. Men are much more thing-oriented than women, who are more people-oriented. The size of the effect is "very large", larger than any other difference in personality [2]. Programming is obviously a thing-oriented activity. Anecdotally, this split seems to happen at a young age - little boys play with cars, little girls play house, etc. Anecdotally, kids are far more sexist than any adult I know. Try being a 5 year old boy who likes to play with dolls. (EDIT: maybe not 5 year old. I don't have kids of my own, I forget exactly when kids start thinking the other sex is gross, maybe a bit older) I don't know how to even begin to fix this, as far as I know children learn most of their culture from each other and older peers, not from their parents or teachers [3]. I'm willing to bet that most of the problem comes way upstream of the workplace. The tech industry can do as much hand-wringing as they want over sexism in the workplace, it's not gonna fix the fact that adolescent girls are choosing to not take the AP Comp Sci test. [1] https://thinkprogress.org/not-a-single-female-student-took-the-ap-computer-science-test-in-two-states-d54ca3475ee6 https://thinkprogress.org/not-a-single-female-student-took-t... [2] http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  I agree. I said basically that? The culture problem in tech is not the cause, it’s just the end symptom of many things - including what you’re taking about.
  - greenshackle2 9y ago
    You said that: > The level of drop outs of women in tech due to this is very high. But if that were true I'd expect women would be underrepresented in tech compared to AP Comp Sci. As it is they are slightly over-represented. If you have clearer evidence on that point I'd like to see it. I've heard convincing anecdotes of women dropping out because of sexism but I find it hard to reconcile with the data.
KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
the overall point is there is institutional and social pressure (mostly unconscious or learned) for women to avoid those fields. Is it wise to assign a heavy weighting to an unmeasurable, unverifiable, ethereal sense of discouragement? What is measurable are character traits that tend to exhibit themselves more strongly in one sex over the other (of course, this varies from individual to individual), and this could help to explain why men and women tend to choose different career paths. If you believe that women, as a whole, tend to possess the qualities of caring, empathy, and compassion more than men (the cause of which could be biological), it stands to reason that careers which allow them to actualise these qualities would be more attractive, at the expense of monetary gain. The result of this is, on average, more women occupy a subset of jobs that are difficult, worthwhile, but ultimately of lower economic value in our version of capitalism. While this does and could not account for the entire issue, it offers one plausible reason that's worthy of some merit.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  > unmeasurable, unverifiable It would be if it was either of those things. It's really not. The accuracy of the measurements you can debate but it's certainly verifiable.
arkh 9y ago
There are even less women in construction or waste management. But we don't hear as many complains there. My guess? Those jobs are known to be hard. STEM seem like a breeze from outside (that's just office work) but when you work there you realize it may not be physicaly hard but the stress is there. So people who value a better work-life balance decide to get out. People who have the option to decide to not work will do it. The flip-side of the gender role is the number of articles lately shaming young males who decide to work part-time and enjoy life instead of working for a family. Also, the number of high achieving women who complain about the lack of available good men. Marrying down? That's for the males.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Yes, the gender roles discussion is important - feminist literature for 30 years has been talking about how patriarchal social roles affect women and men. This isn't news to me - or anyone with any interest in this area.

rch 9y ago

You should at least consider the possibility that intelligent, charismatic women may not be as willing to pursue 'STEM roles' as equivalently advantaged men. If someone is able to teach occasional yoga classes, do little PR work, and still travel internationally 3 months out of the year... who is to say that is less desirable than a full-time, higher paying job?

abritinthebay 9y ago
I did consider that. It’s directly addressed in my comment.
- rch 9y ago
  I read your comment as supporting the idea that women forgo STEM roles due to gender-specific negative pressure (certainly true in some cases), while I'm suggesting (also) that some may be choosing different career paths to achieve more fulfilling lifestyles than STEM offers at its best. Apologies if I'm interpreting you incorrectly.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    I think you're sort of agreeing with me. I'm saying that if women are doing that and not men then the gender-specific pressure (on both genders) is a part of that.

titanix2 9y ago

Why should the differences in attraction for jobs with a stronger or weaker human communication component necessarily be institutional and social ? It might be genetic as well. In that case, good luck "fixing" the situation because it requires tweaking the human genome. That's could explain why even decades of public policy in countries like Sweden didn't even come close to a situation of near 50% STEM workers.

greenshackle2 9y ago

About 20% of the workforce in tech is women. Less than 20% of students who take the AP Computer Science test are female. [1] So whatever makes women uninterested in programming happens before college. Men are much more thing-oriented than women, who are more people-oriented. The size of the effect is "very large", larger than any other difference in personality [2]. Programming is obviously a thing-oriented activity. Anecdotally, this split seems to happen at a young age - little boys play with cars, little girls play house, etc. Anecdotally, kids are far more sexist than any adult I know. Try being a 5 year old boy who likes to play with dolls. (EDIT: maybe not 5 year old. I don't have kids of my own, I forget exactly when kids start thinking the other sex is gross, maybe a bit older) I don't know how to even begin to fix this, as far as I know children learn most of their culture from each other and older peers, not from their parents or teachers [3]. I'm willing to bet that most of the problem comes way upstream of the workplace. The tech industry can do as much hand-wringing as they want over sexism in the workplace, it's not gonna fix the fact that adolescent girls are choosing to not take the AP Comp Sci test. [1] https://thinkprogress.org/not-a-single-female-student-took-the-ap-computer-science-test-in-two-states-d54ca3475ee6 https://thinkprogress.org/not-a-single-female-student-took-t... [2] http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nurture_Assumption

abritinthebay 9y ago
I agree. I said basically that? The culture problem in tech is not the cause, it’s just the end symptom of many things - including what you’re taking about.
- greenshackle2 9y ago
  You said that: > The level of drop outs of women in tech due to this is very high. But if that were true I'd expect women would be underrepresented in tech compared to AP Comp Sci. As it is they are slightly over-represented. If you have clearer evidence on that point I'd like to see it. I've heard convincing anecdotes of women dropping out because of sexism but I find it hard to reconcile with the data.

KhanMahGretsch 9y ago

the overall point is there is institutional and social pressure (mostly unconscious or learned) for women to avoid those fields. Is it wise to assign a heavy weighting to an unmeasurable, unverifiable, ethereal sense of discouragement? What is measurable are character traits that tend to exhibit themselves more strongly in one sex over the other (of course, this varies from individual to individual), and this could help to explain why men and women tend to choose different career paths. If you believe that women, as a whole, tend to possess the qualities of caring, empathy, and compassion more than men (the cause of which could be biological), it stands to reason that careers which allow them to actualise these qualities would be more attractive, at the expense of monetary gain. The result of this is, on average, more women occupy a subset of jobs that are difficult, worthwhile, but ultimately of lower economic value in our version of capitalism. While this does and could not account for the entire issue, it offers one plausible reason that's worthy of some merit.

abritinthebay 9y ago
> unmeasurable, unverifiable It would be if it was either of those things. It's really not. The accuracy of the measurements you can debate but it's certainly verifiable.

arkh 9y ago

There are even less women in construction or waste management. But we don't hear as many complains there. My guess? Those jobs are known to be hard. STEM seem like a breeze from outside (that's just office work) but when you work there you realize it may not be physicaly hard but the stress is there. So people who value a better work-life balance decide to get out. People who have the option to decide to not work will do it. The flip-side of the gender role is the number of articles lately shaming young males who decide to work part-time and enjoy life instead of working for a family. Also, the number of high achieving women who complain about the lack of available good men. Marrying down? That's for the males.

abritinthebay 9y ago
Yes, the gender roles discussion is important - feminist literature for 30 years has been talking about how patriarchal social roles affect women and men. This isn't news to me - or anyone with any interest in this area.