3 ms·

I'm not glossing over it, it's a different point. They are implying a causal link between the 7% and the 59% when they haven't demonstrated that. They show that

I'm not glossing over it, it's a different point. They are implying a causal link between the 7% and the 59% when they haven't demonstrated that. They show that individual authors got a lot of help that wasn't awarded with authorship. You can point out that nowadays this work would be worthy of authorship, and that women were somewhat overrepresented in the acknowledgements without authorship. That doesn't demonstrate the big claims of sexism they're stating/implying. If they showed men getting authorship for only the programming help, and women not getting authorship in comparable situations, that would be a different matter. I didn't say sexism didn't (or doesn't) exist, there's plenty of other evidence that it did/does. I'm just saying it doesn't follow. And if I say something can be explained by evolutionary psychology that doesn't mean that therefore it's fine, or that it couldn't be changed given the right system of incentives.

moosey 8y ago
You made the suggestion that as programming work became a higher paying field that men suddenly looked for jobs there, due to "evolutionary psychology", without a lick of proof that it wasn't the other way around. Perhaps programming work is really well paid now because Nintendo of America decided to advertise to boys, and then those boys grew up to become men who were interested in programming, and because men pay other men more than they offer women. Or perhaps because, as the SV folks like to say "They aren't a good culture fit" when interviewing female candidates. > We used wage data and productivity data from the whole of New Zealand to look at the reasons for the gender wage gap. We found that sexism (where employers prefer to hire men rather than women, are more likely to reject equally qualified women, or offer women less) is likely to be the most important driver of the gender wage gap. This is opposed to women working in low-paying industries or firms, being less productive, or being less successful at bargaining. [1] Of course it follows. It is undeniable that many centuries of sexism are going to take a lot of work to undo, and it isn't exactly easy when most religions followed the world over, by huge swaths of humanity, also belittle their contributions to society, and actually devalue them to be below men. These beliefs and stories have a major impact on what we do. So I'm going to stick with sexism because it is most likely the correct answer. [1] - http://theconversation.com/women-paid-less-for-same-contribution-to-work-and-sexism-is-to-blame-study-83052 http://theconversation.com/women-paid-less-for-same-contribu...
- belorn 8y ago
  With the suggestion that "evolutionary psychology" isn't involved in men seeking higher income jobs, why is there an extreme correlation between income for men and having children, but not for women? Why is it that society reward rich men with larger social network, while women has on average larger social network than men that is not associated with income? perhaps, as people say, "Poor men aren't as attractive"... > So I'm going to stick with sexism because it is most likely the correct answer. Personally I am sticking to the incentive model. A woman who prioritize other aspect in their work and personal life over income does not have fewer children, has the same social network size as other women, and get similar respect in society at old age. For men the opposite is true, where a man who make the same choices would end up (statistically) at the bottom of society, alone, childless, with no respect in old age. As a result low income men also has a lower life expectancy. Pretty strong incentives if you ask me.

moosey 8y ago

You made the suggestion that as programming work became a higher paying field that men suddenly looked for jobs there, due to "evolutionary psychology", without a lick of proof that it wasn't the other way around. Perhaps programming work is really well paid now because Nintendo of America decided to advertise to boys, and then those boys grew up to become men who were interested in programming, and because men pay other men more than they offer women. Or perhaps because, as the SV folks like to say "They aren't a good culture fit" when interviewing female candidates. > We used wage data and productivity data from the whole of New Zealand to look at the reasons for the gender wage gap. We found that sexism (where employers prefer to hire men rather than women, are more likely to reject equally qualified women, or offer women less) is likely to be the most important driver of the gender wage gap. This is opposed to women working in low-paying industries or firms, being less productive, or being less successful at bargaining. [1] Of course it follows. It is undeniable that many centuries of sexism are going to take a lot of work to undo, and it isn't exactly easy when most religions followed the world over, by huge swaths of humanity, also belittle their contributions to society, and actually devalue them to be below men. These beliefs and stories have a major impact on what we do. So I'm going to stick with sexism because it is most likely the correct answer. [1] - http://theconversation.com/women-paid-less-for-same-contribution-to-work-and-sexism-is-to-blame-study-83052 http://theconversation.com/women-paid-less-for-same-contribu...

belorn 8y ago
With the suggestion that "evolutionary psychology" isn't involved in men seeking higher income jobs, why is there an extreme correlation between income for men and having children, but not for women? Why is it that society reward rich men with larger social network, while women has on average larger social network than men that is not associated with income? perhaps, as people say, "Poor men aren't as attractive"... > So I'm going to stick with sexism because it is most likely the correct answer. Personally I am sticking to the incentive model. A woman who prioritize other aspect in their work and personal life over income does not have fewer children, has the same social network size as other women, and get similar respect in society at old age. For men the opposite is true, where a man who make the same choices would end up (statistically) at the bottom of society, alone, childless, with no respect in old age. As a result low income men also has a lower life expectancy. Pretty strong incentives if you ask me.