3 ms·

Would that not argue for a more proactive policy approach? Just because something is "universal human behavior" does not mean society should accept it: violenc

Would that not argue for a more proactive policy approach? Just because something is "universal human behavior" does not mean society should accept it: violence is universal human behavior too.

belorn 8y ago
Yes, a proactive policy approach that address the underlying human behavior. Those 88.5% should preferable not reach 100%. Segregated professions is often also often severely undermanned since by limiting recruitment to only one gender effectively cuts the available pool in half. The question is what policy to apply. We could use a progressive affirmative action based on the severity of segregation, but that would mean for example a complete stop of new hire of midwifes that identify as female as that profession is the worst gender segregated profession in Sweden with over 99.9%. It is also the only higher education program currently that is 100% single gender. Last summer the government even had to cancel vacations on a national level because they could not otherwise cover minimal standard of health care. Its a professions that would greatly benefit by recruiting from the whole population, but its very unclear how to reach such goal. They could do a tax based incentive to encourage individuals to go beyond their own comfort levels and give progressive higher tax cut based on the severity of gender minority status you have in a profession. With Swedish taxes and gender segregation that would mean a male midwife could get up to 100% tax cut and increasing their wages with about 33-50%. A female programmer would get a tax cut around 25-50%, translating to a 10-25% pay raise. Alternative one can try to lower the difference in confidence between those in a majority group vs minority. Mentoring programs are great for that and has shown good results for professions that have average gender segregated. This work nicely on a per company level, but I have not seen any policy action on a national level to encourage such programs. It doesn't however address the initial choice when a individual select a higher education program, so the leaky pipe model still apply.

Would that not argue for a more proactive policy approach? Just because something is "universal human behavior" does not mean society should accept it: violence is universal human behavior too.

belorn 8y ago

Yes, a proactive policy approach that address the underlying human behavior. Those 88.5% should preferable not reach 100%. Segregated professions is often also often severely undermanned since by limiting recruitment to only one gender effectively cuts the available pool in half. The question is what policy to apply. We could use a progressive affirmative action based on the severity of segregation, but that would mean for example a complete stop of new hire of midwifes that identify as female as that profession is the worst gender segregated profession in Sweden with over 99.9%. It is also the only higher education program currently that is 100% single gender. Last summer the government even had to cancel vacations on a national level because they could not otherwise cover minimal standard of health care. Its a professions that would greatly benefit by recruiting from the whole population, but its very unclear how to reach such goal. They could do a tax based incentive to encourage individuals to go beyond their own comfort levels and give progressive higher tax cut based on the severity of gender minority status you have in a profession. With Swedish taxes and gender segregation that would mean a male midwife could get up to 100% tax cut and increasing their wages with about 33-50%. A female programmer would get a tax cut around 25-50%, translating to a 10-25% pay raise. Alternative one can try to lower the difference in confidence between those in a majority group vs minority. Mentoring programs are great for that and has shown good results for professions that have average gender segregated. This work nicely on a per company level, but I have not seen any policy action on a national level to encourage such programs. It doesn't however address the initial choice when a individual select a higher education program, so the leaky pipe model still apply.