5 ms·

It's possible to both discriminate against men, yet have more men in the workforce, if women voluntarily are choosing not to enter a profession. In fact, that

It's possible to both discriminate against men, yet have more men in the workforce, if women voluntarily are choosing not to enter a profession. In fact, that seems to be the problem: no amount of discrimination against men resolves that women simply are choosing careers in a different distribution to what men do, but the only policy lever that can really be utilized is discrimination at various stages of education or employment. This has left people aiming for a fantasy, and using increasingly aggressive discrimination to try and carry it out, biology be damned.

fasdetwaew 8y ago
> that women simply are choosing careers in a different distribution to what men do Why is that, though? Are women not encouraged to pursue technology careers? Or are they being encouraged to chose other careers instead? Are they driven away from it by a toxic work place culture? Or just the perception of tech as having toxic workplace cultures? Are women moving into roles with more flexibility because they are expected to take on more domestic duties? Or my hunch... Do women just feel less comfortable entering an industry with such an unbalanced gender ratio to begin with, and it becomes a self perpetuating cycle? You say Biology be damned, but I don't think it's settled that biology is the main factor here. And I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I'm saying we don't know.
- razorunreal 8y ago
  I think you are asking the wrong questions. Why not ask: Why are there so many men in tech? To answer that I would compare it to a field like finance, where people are well paid and over worked. I think the money comes first, then the men, and with them the bro culture. So my hunch is that men will disproportionately do anything for a dollar. And no-one notices because they are busy wondering where the women are.
  - fasdetwaew 8y ago
    That's also a possibility. I think men are pressured more to earn a lot of money. The traditional mindset was that women didn't need to be breadwinners.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  Or... may I dare to suggest they simply don't like it? I used to work at school. Not for a long time, but enough to make some observations. One of them: school kids are passionate. If they're interested in something, no amount of persuasion, toxicity or whatever else will distract them.
  - fasdetwaew 8y ago
    That's certainly a possibility. In fact, maybe most people wouldn't enjoy a career in STEM. Or, like another commented suggested, maybe something about STEM appeals to men disproportionately. If I had to guess, it's probably a combination of multiple factors. STEM isn't for everyone. But at a young age, more men are encouraged to pursue it. The high salary of tech jobs might attract men more than women, if men face more pressure to make a lot of money. Now you have a male dominated industry. And that starts to self perpetuate. Young boys see role models and women don't. Women outnumbered in male dominated workplaces become subject to more harassment. STEM starts to become a "man" thing, and less women feel like pursuing the career, especially when there are so many other occupations that seem more interesting. I think that's a plausible explanation for how we got to where we are today. But nobody knows for sure. My point is, biology shouldn't be the default answer whenever we see gender gaps.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It’s perfectly reasonable to consider that maybe women are inherently drawn away from the field for whatever reason. There are biological differences between men and women and it’s possible that this is one. What I don’t understand is why so many people insist that this must be the explanation, as if the current state of things is definitely a level playing field (or biased toward women) and the fact that there are so many more men in the field must therefore be due to something innate. We’re only a few decades out from a time when women couldn’t open a bank account without their husband’s permission, and when raping a woman was perfectly legal as long as you were married to her. I think we should give it a little more time and effort before we declare that everything is now fair and any remaining discrepancies must be biological.
    - 8y ago
- esarbe 8y ago
  You might find this an interesting read. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more... Quote: The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.
fzeroracer 8y ago
Are you saying there are biological differences that are preventing women from entering the software industry? Because historically the trends of CS grads proves this is a false statement [1] so I'm curious where this statement comes from. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
- ben509 8y ago
  All the talk of discrimination against women requires that they be helpless damsels in distress in all this, when their dominance of college graduation suggests the opposite. Biology is not "preventing" women, it's directing their inclination. Women have a ton of opportunities, and it's just as likely that as CS blew up they decided they didn't want to and didn't need to take on the long hours and relative social isolation that professional engineering entails.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >Biology is not "preventing" women, it's directing their inclination. Right, absolutely, biology is what inclines women to not be programmers. And it's not at all things like lack of parental leave policies in most software firms that would allow their partners to stay at home should a child be born in their household, or a million other workplace and policy matters. It's biology, the conversation is over.
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      > lack of parental leave policies in most software firms that would allow their partners to stay at home should a child be born in their household, I've never heard of such a policy, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment. Are you suggesting that companies should have policies that affect what the spouses/partners of employees do in terms of caring for children? Why would an employer have any right to say what their employee's spouses/partners do with their time? Or are you suggesting that employers should somehow provide compensation in this situation? I also don't understand how that would work (and I don't think the lack of such policies is specific to software firms).
esarbe 8y ago
There is a very small (albeit vocal) minority on the left side of the political spectrum that thinks that equality in outcome is a worthy goal. This this is a minority, that stance does not generalize to people on the left in general.
vl 8y ago
And yet Google fired the guy who expressed this sentiment in the internal memo.

fasdetwaew 8y ago

> that women simply are choosing careers in a different distribution to what men do Why is that, though? Are women not encouraged to pursue technology careers? Or are they being encouraged to chose other careers instead? Are they driven away from it by a toxic work place culture? Or just the perception of tech as having toxic workplace cultures? Are women moving into roles with more flexibility because they are expected to take on more domestic duties? Or my hunch... Do women just feel less comfortable entering an industry with such an unbalanced gender ratio to begin with, and it becomes a self perpetuating cycle? You say Biology be damned, but I don't think it's settled that biology is the main factor here. And I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I'm saying we don't know.

razorunreal 8y ago
I think you are asking the wrong questions. Why not ask: Why are there so many men in tech? To answer that I would compare it to a field like finance, where people are well paid and over worked. I think the money comes first, then the men, and with them the bro culture. So my hunch is that men will disproportionately do anything for a dollar. And no-one notices because they are busy wondering where the women are.
- fasdetwaew 8y ago
  That's also a possibility. I think men are pressured more to earn a lot of money. The traditional mindset was that women didn't need to be breadwinners.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
Or... may I dare to suggest they simply don't like it? I used to work at school. Not for a long time, but enough to make some observations. One of them: school kids are passionate. If they're interested in something, no amount of persuasion, toxicity or whatever else will distract them.
- fasdetwaew 8y ago
  That's certainly a possibility. In fact, maybe most people wouldn't enjoy a career in STEM. Or, like another commented suggested, maybe something about STEM appeals to men disproportionately. If I had to guess, it's probably a combination of multiple factors. STEM isn't for everyone. But at a young age, more men are encouraged to pursue it. The high salary of tech jobs might attract men more than women, if men face more pressure to make a lot of money. Now you have a male dominated industry. And that starts to self perpetuate. Young boys see role models and women don't. Women outnumbered in male dominated workplaces become subject to more harassment. STEM starts to become a "man" thing, and less women feel like pursuing the career, especially when there are so many other occupations that seem more interesting. I think that's a plausible explanation for how we got to where we are today. But nobody knows for sure. My point is, biology shouldn't be the default answer whenever we see gender gaps.
- mikeash 8y ago
  It’s perfectly reasonable to consider that maybe women are inherently drawn away from the field for whatever reason. There are biological differences between men and women and it’s possible that this is one. What I don’t understand is why so many people insist that this must be the explanation, as if the current state of things is definitely a level playing field (or biased toward women) and the fact that there are so many more men in the field must therefore be due to something innate. We’re only a few decades out from a time when women couldn’t open a bank account without their husband’s permission, and when raping a woman was perfectly legal as long as you were married to her. I think we should give it a little more time and effort before we declare that everything is now fair and any remaining discrepancies must be biological.
  - 8y ago
esarbe 8y ago
You might find this an interesting read. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more... Quote: The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.

fzeroracer 8y ago

Are you saying there are biological differences that are preventing women from entering the software industry? Because historically the trends of CS grads proves this is a false statement [1] so I'm curious where this statement comes from. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...

ben509 8y ago
All the talk of discrimination against women requires that they be helpless damsels in distress in all this, when their dominance of college graduation suggests the opposite. Biology is not "preventing" women, it's directing their inclination. Women have a ton of opportunities, and it's just as likely that as CS blew up they decided they didn't want to and didn't need to take on the long hours and relative social isolation that professional engineering entails.
- romwell 8y ago
  >Biology is not "preventing" women, it's directing their inclination. Right, absolutely, biology is what inclines women to not be programmers. And it's not at all things like lack of parental leave policies in most software firms that would allow their partners to stay at home should a child be born in their household, or a million other workplace and policy matters. It's biology, the conversation is over.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    > lack of parental leave policies in most software firms that would allow their partners to stay at home should a child be born in their household, I've never heard of such a policy, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment. Are you suggesting that companies should have policies that affect what the spouses/partners of employees do in terms of caring for children? Why would an employer have any right to say what their employee's spouses/partners do with their time? Or are you suggesting that employers should somehow provide compensation in this situation? I also don't understand how that would work (and I don't think the lack of such policies is specific to software firms).

esarbe 8y ago

There is a very small (albeit vocal) minority on the left side of the political spectrum that thinks that equality in outcome is a worthy goal. This this is a minority, that stance does not generalize to people on the left in general.

vl 8y ago

And yet Google fired the guy who expressed this sentiment in the internal memo.