13 ms·

I think this phenomenon was known a while back as the gender equality paradox[0]. It's always nice to see more data on the topic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/

I think this phenomenon was known a while back as the gender equality paradox[0]. It's always nice to see more data on the topic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

tarkin2 8y ago
It's not much of a paradox surely. Those countries introduced equality systems because the imbalance. Now of course those same countries with the imbalance have those introduced systems.
- 0x445442 8y ago
  Ah but why would those differences become greater after the introduction of the equality systems? That's the paradox.
  - classicsnoot 8y ago
    It is only a paradox if one has calcified their thinking about the desires of women _in general_ in a particular way. If one starts from the presumption that men and women are exactly the same (in terms of desires and methods), than it is indeed a paradox. If one retains the traditional perspective, a much disliked but surprisingly defensible position, of the disparate desires of men and women, these results comport well with the presumption. Why you end up where you do is either confusing or predictable based on how you start, particularly in the world of unverified assertion.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      > If one retains the traditional perspective, a much disliked but surprisingly defensible position, of the disparate desires of men and women, these results comport well with the presumption. It's odd though how so often this "traditional" viewpoint is eager to suggest, "These are the preferences of women and their outcomes," when it's suggested women result in a net disadvantage, but is a crisis when men see these outcomes. An excellent example of this is how a 6-10% wage gap is considered an acceptable outcome of biological differences and choice, but a 10% average difference in primary education among young men is a crisis, with multiple think tanks suggesting society caters too much to young women and that being a young man is "a liability." This position is so common you can find it represented internationally in both the US and several European nations. It shows up in think tank materials like PraegerU videos and on America's Fox news. In the context of the paper at hand, it seems particularly poignant how much effort goes to making one case but not the other.
      - classicsnoot 8y ago
        I feel as if you are making an apples to oranges comparison (but I don't perceive any ill will so I am responding in good faith and with no intention to politick) in terms of gender pay gap and decreasing male inclusion in higher education. I am glad you used the more accurate numbers of 7-10% in terms of male/female pay. From my perspective, the innate differences between the sexes explains this gap quite well: men are motivated from a very young age, in addition to their general biological proclivity towards competition, to seek approval through public acts to gain status; women are motivated from a very young age, in addition to their general biological proclivity towards hording value, to seek influence through private acts to gain status. There are plenty of specific examples that run contrary to my assertion, but in general, men seem adapted to the corporate system which would lead one to expect them to dominate therein. Regardless of classical dominance hierarchy, there is massive combined interest actively working to inject as many females as possible into high paying, white collar jobs. In terms of higher education, the decrease in male participation is a significant problem because male participation in higher education was tenuous at best even before female inclusion began. Though higher education was indeed a "boys club," it was a very small club. Just because it was "all" male does not extend it into being "all male." The moment the gates opened for females, they took over the majority in public universities within a decade. They continue to dominate in education to this day. Metaphor is a dangerous game, but I think one should worry more about bad students getting worse than good students getting more attention. In my opinion you make a very salient point about the difference in the reaction of people to the two problems. I see them as similar because both endeavours (more females in corporate && more males in education) are fighting both a biological tendency as well as cultural norms, no simple task in a world of consensus, and I don't have to elaborate and how very far away from that we are.
      - castlecrasher2 8y ago
        >but a 10% average difference in primary education among young men is a crisis I don't know how a PragerU video convinced you that this is considered a crisis outside the right-leaning think tanks but I haven't heard a single soul talk about it outside that sphere. It's easy to prop up what a political opponent labels important as something a lot of people care about but I certainly don't see this issue come up in entertainment or the public sphere at all yet the wage gap shows up everywhere.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    What's curious to me about this stance is no one questions if the measures taken, when coupled to there outcomes, don't suggest failed policies. "Well we made policies and they didn't do what we expected, therefore women are making choices!" seems to me (with an American bias perhaps) to be a failure in the design or implementation of the policies, rather than immediately blaming women. I'm surprised how credulously people engage these policies
    - Majestic121 8y ago
      I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" Second, I don't think anyone is blaming women here. Choosing (or being pressured by the environment) to have more 'gendered' (whatever that means) career path is not necessarily a bad thing. It can become a bad thing if it hinders opportunity, but not before
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        > I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" An awful lot of women have negative things to say about that situation, so maybe I should just quote them? I don't think I am falling back on the "other side" here. I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low according to the data. It's odd to assume that the entire effect is therefore determined uniquely by "women's choice." Is there evidence of that? It's one thing to say, "Keep an open mind." It's another to hedge off what's at least an equally likely scenario from discussion at all, which with the flood of downvotes I'm getting certainly seems like what's happening to me
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low according to the data" No ... the data shows that there is actually more equal opportunity, and yet there is gender divergence. The objective was never to 'equalize choices or outcomes' in fields - it was to provide access and opportunity, which is happening. It would be really, really hard to argue against the flood of data points indicating women have considerably greater choice, flexibility and support especially in places like Sweden ... and then to have women doing different things, highlights the apparent paradox.
  - hoaw 8y ago
    As far as I know it doesn't actually say that. The comparison is between countries, not before and after reforms. The paradox is supposedly that countries with higher equality have higher gender differences. But it isn't really a paradox since correlation isn't causation.
- atom-morgan 8y ago
  But the systems have further increased the imbalance rather than decrease it.
  - tarkin2 8y ago
    The link doesn’t say that though. And if it has happened, how would 'systems not working well' make it a paradox?

tarkin2 8y ago

It's not much of a paradox surely. Those countries introduced equality systems because the imbalance. Now of course those same countries with the imbalance have those introduced systems.

0x445442 8y ago
Ah but why would those differences become greater after the introduction of the equality systems? That's the paradox.
- classicsnoot 8y ago
  It is only a paradox if one has calcified their thinking about the desires of women _in general_ in a particular way. If one starts from the presumption that men and women are exactly the same (in terms of desires and methods), than it is indeed a paradox. If one retains the traditional perspective, a much disliked but surprisingly defensible position, of the disparate desires of men and women, these results comport well with the presumption. Why you end up where you do is either confusing or predictable based on how you start, particularly in the world of unverified assertion.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    > If one retains the traditional perspective, a much disliked but surprisingly defensible position, of the disparate desires of men and women, these results comport well with the presumption. It's odd though how so often this "traditional" viewpoint is eager to suggest, "These are the preferences of women and their outcomes," when it's suggested women result in a net disadvantage, but is a crisis when men see these outcomes. An excellent example of this is how a 6-10% wage gap is considered an acceptable outcome of biological differences and choice, but a 10% average difference in primary education among young men is a crisis, with multiple think tanks suggesting society caters too much to young women and that being a young man is "a liability." This position is so common you can find it represented internationally in both the US and several European nations. It shows up in think tank materials like PraegerU videos and on America's Fox news. In the context of the paper at hand, it seems particularly poignant how much effort goes to making one case but not the other.
    - classicsnoot 8y ago
      I feel as if you are making an apples to oranges comparison (but I don't perceive any ill will so I am responding in good faith and with no intention to politick) in terms of gender pay gap and decreasing male inclusion in higher education. I am glad you used the more accurate numbers of 7-10% in terms of male/female pay. From my perspective, the innate differences between the sexes explains this gap quite well: men are motivated from a very young age, in addition to their general biological proclivity towards competition, to seek approval through public acts to gain status; women are motivated from a very young age, in addition to their general biological proclivity towards hording value, to seek influence through private acts to gain status. There are plenty of specific examples that run contrary to my assertion, but in general, men seem adapted to the corporate system which would lead one to expect them to dominate therein. Regardless of classical dominance hierarchy, there is massive combined interest actively working to inject as many females as possible into high paying, white collar jobs. In terms of higher education, the decrease in male participation is a significant problem because male participation in higher education was tenuous at best even before female inclusion began. Though higher education was indeed a "boys club," it was a very small club. Just because it was "all" male does not extend it into being "all male." The moment the gates opened for females, they took over the majority in public universities within a decade. They continue to dominate in education to this day. Metaphor is a dangerous game, but I think one should worry more about bad students getting worse than good students getting more attention. In my opinion you make a very salient point about the difference in the reaction of people to the two problems. I see them as similar because both endeavours (more females in corporate && more males in education) are fighting both a biological tendency as well as cultural norms, no simple task in a world of consensus, and I don't have to elaborate and how very far away from that we are.
    - castlecrasher2 8y ago
      >but a 10% average difference in primary education among young men is a crisis I don't know how a PragerU video convinced you that this is considered a crisis outside the right-leaning think tanks but I haven't heard a single soul talk about it outside that sphere. It's easy to prop up what a political opponent labels important as something a lot of people care about but I certainly don't see this issue come up in entertainment or the public sphere at all yet the wage gap shows up everywhere.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  What's curious to me about this stance is no one questions if the measures taken, when coupled to there outcomes, don't suggest failed policies. "Well we made policies and they didn't do what we expected, therefore women are making choices!" seems to me (with an American bias perhaps) to be a failure in the design or implementation of the policies, rather than immediately blaming women. I'm surprised how credulously people engage these policies
  - Majestic121 8y ago
    I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" Second, I don't think anyone is blaming women here. Choosing (or being pressured by the environment) to have more 'gendered' (whatever that means) career path is not necessarily a bad thing. It can become a bad thing if it hinders opportunity, but not before
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      > I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" An awful lot of women have negative things to say about that situation, so maybe I should just quote them? I don't think I am falling back on the "other side" here. I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low according to the data. It's odd to assume that the entire effect is therefore determined uniquely by "women's choice." Is there evidence of that? It's one thing to say, "Keep an open mind." It's another to hedge off what's at least an equally likely scenario from discussion at all, which with the flood of downvotes I'm getting certainly seems like what's happening to me
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low according to the data" No ... the data shows that there is actually more equal opportunity, and yet there is gender divergence. The objective was never to 'equalize choices or outcomes' in fields - it was to provide access and opportunity, which is happening. It would be really, really hard to argue against the flood of data points indicating women have considerably greater choice, flexibility and support especially in places like Sweden ... and then to have women doing different things, highlights the apparent paradox.
- hoaw 8y ago
  As far as I know it doesn't actually say that. The comparison is between countries, not before and after reforms. The paradox is supposedly that countries with higher equality have higher gender differences. But it isn't really a paradox since correlation isn't causation.
atom-morgan 8y ago
But the systems have further increased the imbalance rather than decrease it.
- tarkin2 8y ago
  The link doesn’t say that though. And if it has happened, how would 'systems not working well' make it a paradox?