3 ms·

Why is it a problem if men and women aren't doing the exact same thing on average (i.e. professions distributed 50/50 by sex)?

_jal 9y ago
There tend to be self-reinforcing trends in human behavior. Jobs that are highly gendered frequently stay that way, making it harder for the categorically-challenged to partake for purely social reasons. So there are two easily identifiable reasons: One, we should want a society more free from constraints on individual self-realization than less[1]. And for those who lean less cuddly, two, it is economically inefficient to exclude market participants on factors unrelated to performance[2]. [1] Well, I think we should want to optimize that; if you disagree, we have a far more fundamental disconnect. [2] Ironically, this is also an argument people use to claim that sexism and racism in the work place can't exist, in that annoying way some economists do.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > One, we should want a society more free from constraints on individual self-realization than less. I don't think pushing women into a field that they overall don't want to do will help them earn self-realization. How would this work? > it is economically inefficient to exclude market participants on factors unrelated to performance The cynical side of me thinks that this is the real reason for the widespread push for diversity. A larger labor pool deleverages some of the highest paid employees in the world, thus increasing profits.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  > There tend to be self-reinforcing trends in human behavior. But we also know how quickly human behaviour changes and adapts to new circumstances. > Jobs that are highly gendered frequently stay that way, making it harder for the categorically-challenged to partake for purely social reasons. I can think of many jobs where this is true (for either sex), but software engineering doesn't seem to fit in this category. In STEM about 30-40 % of students are female; less at trade schools (=lower educational attainment). About 25 % of the IT workforce is female. > One, we should want a society more free from constraints on individual self-realization than less. Absolutely. > Ironically, this is also an argument people use to claim that sexism and racism in the work place can't exist, in that annoying way some economists do. I think the classical Friedmann argument was that there is a cost to biasing against competent people. It doesn't really say anything about what people will actually do (like much of economic theory), since they might be (1) not aware of the cost [and indeed it would be difficult to quantify] (2) valuing their *isms above that that cost. As far as classic economic theory goes, the argument seems to be correct, it's just a poor predictor for what humans will do.
  - _jal 9y ago
    > but software engineering doesn't seem to fit in this category I was casting a significantly wider net, but you're correct wrt software-related fields. Moreover, women used to be far more prevalent in early-"IT"/operations than today, a shift that happened really quickly - a generation or two, depending on where you like to start counting. Shifts like this (they've happened elsewhere, too) is one massive argument against the "women just don't like math" silliness that always pops up. > As far as classic economic theory goes, the argument seems to be correct, it's just a poor predictor for what humans will do. Absolutely agree. That's the general thrust of my point overall.
godelski 9y ago
I didn't say that it is a problem. I said you'd expect to see it (ASSUMING NO BIASES). I think you are reading more into my comment that what I wrote.

_jal 9y ago

There tend to be self-reinforcing trends in human behavior. Jobs that are highly gendered frequently stay that way, making it harder for the categorically-challenged to partake for purely social reasons. So there are two easily identifiable reasons: One, we should want a society more free from constraints on individual self-realization than less[1]. And for those who lean less cuddly, two, it is economically inefficient to exclude market participants on factors unrelated to performance[2]. [1] Well, I think we should want to optimize that; if you disagree, we have a far more fundamental disconnect. [2] Ironically, this is also an argument people use to claim that sexism and racism in the work place can't exist, in that annoying way some economists do.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> One, we should want a society more free from constraints on individual self-realization than less. I don't think pushing women into a field that they overall don't want to do will help them earn self-realization. How would this work? > it is economically inefficient to exclude market participants on factors unrelated to performance The cynical side of me thinks that this is the real reason for the widespread push for diversity. A larger labor pool deleverages some of the highest paid employees in the world, thus increasing profits.
blattimwind 9y ago
> There tend to be self-reinforcing trends in human behavior. But we also know how quickly human behaviour changes and adapts to new circumstances. > Jobs that are highly gendered frequently stay that way, making it harder for the categorically-challenged to partake for purely social reasons. I can think of many jobs where this is true (for either sex), but software engineering doesn't seem to fit in this category. In STEM about 30-40 % of students are female; less at trade schools (=lower educational attainment). About 25 % of the IT workforce is female. > One, we should want a society more free from constraints on individual self-realization than less. Absolutely. > Ironically, this is also an argument people use to claim that sexism and racism in the work place can't exist, in that annoying way some economists do. I think the classical Friedmann argument was that there is a cost to biasing against competent people. It doesn't really say anything about what people will actually do (like much of economic theory), since they might be (1) not aware of the cost [and indeed it would be difficult to quantify] (2) valuing their *isms above that that cost. As far as classic economic theory goes, the argument seems to be correct, it's just a poor predictor for what humans will do.
- _jal 9y ago
  > but software engineering doesn't seem to fit in this category I was casting a significantly wider net, but you're correct wrt software-related fields. Moreover, women used to be far more prevalent in early-"IT"/operations than today, a shift that happened really quickly - a generation or two, depending on where you like to start counting. Shifts like this (they've happened elsewhere, too) is one massive argument against the "women just don't like math" silliness that always pops up. > As far as classic economic theory goes, the argument seems to be correct, it's just a poor predictor for what humans will do. Absolutely agree. That's the general thrust of my point overall.

godelski 9y ago

I didn't say that it is a problem. I said you'd expect to see it (ASSUMING NO BIASES). I think you are reading more into my comment that what I wrote.