5 ms·

From what I understand the issue is more complicated. Women are pursuing more college degrees than men, but also men still occupy the a disproportionate number

From what I understand the issue is more complicated. Women are pursuing more college degrees than men, but also men still occupy the a disproportionate number of of administative, leadership, and professor positions. The overall story comes that women pursue higher education because they need to acquire more education/accolades to achieve the positions of male peers.

otaviokz 7y ago
Answering to a "male problem" (e.g. men pursuing less education) by stating it's actually another example of bias agains women ("that's because women need more education to get the same job") is not really a constructive position, is it?
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I don't actually know if it is another example of bias against women. I only know that the picture might be more complicated- men may pursue less education but also men can advance faster with less education comparatively. The overall picture is probably not so simple as that men pursue less education therefore men are systematically disadvantaged. Arguably, it shows that men are disadvantaged in one axis and not necessarily the whole axis, which is why I'm bringing up that there are other spaces along this axis where men are not systematically disadvantaged. I do firmly believe that men are disadvantaged in several fields and spaces which require addressing, but not that that means men are disadvantaged overall.
mytherin 7y ago
Couldn't that also be explained by the fact that more women attending college than men is a relatively new development, and most administrative/leadership/professor positions are held by older people, hence the gender ratio will take time (>20-30 years) to reflect the new gender balance? After all, the people that are professors now were studying in the 1980s-1990s, hence the current ratio of male/female professors should logically represent the gender ratio of the field in the 1980s-1990s if there is no inherent gender bias, not the gender ratio of the field in 2019.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  From what I understand new professorships, NSF CAREER awards, and similar are still majority male. There is an observed phenomenon that when men enter a female-dominanted field they still gain leadership positions faster than women do. This happens in nursing and schooling, for example.
apta 7y ago
> but also men still occupy the a disproportionate number of of administative, leadership, and professor positions. Men are (scientifically speaking) generally more dominant and more competitive. They will take on more risk to reach higher and more powerful positions, and are willing to sacrifice family life to do so. Women (again in general) will sacrifice professional development in order to stay and care for their family. No amount of political/SJW pushing is going to change biology.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  The claim here is that men don't pursue higher education at the rates women do. Does this mean PhD and graduate school programs are not competitive? Or that a PhD is staying home and taking care of family? I'm very confused where this is coming from.
  - apta 7y ago
    Could be due to several reasons. Maybe men are more eager to start working quicker to make money, or maybe they have dependents whom they have to support, and thus they need to start making money quicker. Maybe women who are pursuing PhDs already have husbands who are working bringing in money, so they are able to pursue higher studies, not to mention the grants that are specific to women to encourage them to pursue academia. Plus, my point was referring to the disproportionate percentage of men in higher and more dominant positions (C-level, etc.). These positions require a significant amount of work and time sacrifice, which more men are willing to put themselves through.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      "Could be due to several reasons. Maybe men are more eager to start working quicker to make money, or maybe they have dependents whom they have to support, and thus they need to start making money quicker." Therefore, the claim that there is a gap between women and men in education level reflecting a male disadvantage is untrue, by your claim. And I am also claiming that the discrepancy might be conflated by other factors, like that it is possible men don't pursue higher education because they may not need to in order to reach high status. Which is something you also confirm by stating that men achieve higher and more dominant positions despite the lack of education because they're more competitive and more risk friendly. Aren't we speaking on the same page? I'm very confused.

otaviokz 7y ago

Answering to a "male problem" (e.g. men pursuing less education) by stating it's actually another example of bias agains women ("that's because women need more education to get the same job") is not really a constructive position, is it?

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I don't actually know if it is another example of bias against women. I only know that the picture might be more complicated- men may pursue less education but also men can advance faster with less education comparatively. The overall picture is probably not so simple as that men pursue less education therefore men are systematically disadvantaged. Arguably, it shows that men are disadvantaged in one axis and not necessarily the whole axis, which is why I'm bringing up that there are other spaces along this axis where men are not systematically disadvantaged. I do firmly believe that men are disadvantaged in several fields and spaces which require addressing, but not that that means men are disadvantaged overall.

mytherin 7y ago

Couldn't that also be explained by the fact that more women attending college than men is a relatively new development, and most administrative/leadership/professor positions are held by older people, hence the gender ratio will take time (>20-30 years) to reflect the new gender balance? After all, the people that are professors now were studying in the 1980s-1990s, hence the current ratio of male/female professors should logically represent the gender ratio of the field in the 1980s-1990s if there is no inherent gender bias, not the gender ratio of the field in 2019.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
From what I understand new professorships, NSF CAREER awards, and similar are still majority male. There is an observed phenomenon that when men enter a female-dominanted field they still gain leadership positions faster than women do. This happens in nursing and schooling, for example.

apta 7y ago

> but also men still occupy the a disproportionate number of of administative, leadership, and professor positions. Men are (scientifically speaking) generally more dominant and more competitive. They will take on more risk to reach higher and more powerful positions, and are willing to sacrifice family life to do so. Women (again in general) will sacrifice professional development in order to stay and care for their family. No amount of political/SJW pushing is going to change biology.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
The claim here is that men don't pursue higher education at the rates women do. Does this mean PhD and graduate school programs are not competitive? Or that a PhD is staying home and taking care of family? I'm very confused where this is coming from.
- apta 7y ago
  Could be due to several reasons. Maybe men are more eager to start working quicker to make money, or maybe they have dependents whom they have to support, and thus they need to start making money quicker. Maybe women who are pursuing PhDs already have husbands who are working bringing in money, so they are able to pursue higher studies, not to mention the grants that are specific to women to encourage them to pursue academia. Plus, my point was referring to the disproportionate percentage of men in higher and more dominant positions (C-level, etc.). These positions require a significant amount of work and time sacrifice, which more men are willing to put themselves through.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "Could be due to several reasons. Maybe men are more eager to start working quicker to make money, or maybe they have dependents whom they have to support, and thus they need to start making money quicker." Therefore, the claim that there is a gap between women and men in education level reflecting a male disadvantage is untrue, by your claim. And I am also claiming that the discrepancy might be conflated by other factors, like that it is possible men don't pursue higher education because they may not need to in order to reach high status. Which is something you also confirm by stating that men achieve higher and more dominant positions despite the lack of education because they're more competitive and more risk friendly. Aren't we speaking on the same page? I'm very confused.