3 ms·

> This hinges on how you define a matriarchy. Dictionary definition. There's no opinion about it. > Spain, as I pointed out earlier, has a majority female nat

> This hinges on how you define a matriarchy. Dictionary definition. There's no opinion about it. > Spain, as I pointed out earlier, has a majority female national leadership. Not what defined a matriarchy. > If it isn't a matriarchy, one could still argue that's closer to a matriarchy than a patriarchy. Not how it works. It's a gradient, yes. Spain being a matriarchy? No. > You insist that we don't have any matriarchies, yet my request for you to explain how you're choosing to define matriarchy remains unfulfilled. I gave several examples... Like, have any modern countries denied men to vote before women? No. > And why would we think that a matriarchy would have over 50% women in technology? You. You f-ing asked that. You expected some countries to have over 50% representation, which is stupid since every country is patriarchal on some level. We don't have matriarchies. I can't stress this enough. You can't make claims on what we can't observe. > As countries move away from patriarchy and towards gender equality the percentage of tech worker that are women go down. You yourself told me of several countries where that's not true. How are you not getting this?! > Why would one conclude from this that a matriarchy would see a majority of women in technology? I don't, matriarchies don't exist. > Sure, some Eastern European countries have similar rates as India. And most do not. Population wise, they do. >> Than why are you comparing these countries with the US's women participation rate in the workforce?! What does the US have to do with this? > You adjust for labor participation by selecting a baseline, and adjusting the other countries to match this baseline. Sure, I could have used any country for the baseline. No... My point was about how many women were in that country's workforce... Do you not get maths? > I am very confused as to what you're saying here. Yes, you clearly are. > By comparison the US has 82 women in the workforce for every 100 men. Nobody cares. It does not matter. > Why do you think that I'm not comparing women's labor participation rates with men? Because you're not? You keep bringing up the US for some reason. > You do realize that the ratio of female to male labor participation is, fundamentally, comparing women and men's labor participation rates? Yeah, I told you that. Yet, still, you bring up the US. Why, ffs, why? > 0.657 means only 65 of women work for every 100 men. How are you not getting this? I told you that, thanks.

manfredo 7y ago
> Dictionary definition. There's no opinion about it. There are a variety of dictionaries with different definitions. Some of them define it as a country where the majority of political rulers are women. As explained above, some countries can fit that definition. > You. You f-ing asked that. You expected some countries to have over 50% representation, which is stupid since every country is patriarchal on some level. We don't have matriarchies. I can't stress this enough. You can't make claims on what we can't observe. In a previous comment I wrote, "Why wouldn't we expect countries to be 60% women in tech, or 70%, or 80% women in technology? Why do you take it for granted that there won't be any countries with majority women in technology?" To which you responded, "Again. Because we don't have matriarchies. You really don't seem to grasp the concept. Please take a minute to think about it." I asked why we wouldn't expect some countries to have majority women in tech and your response was that this was because there are no matriarchies. This definitely seems to indicate that you believe matriarchies would have majority women in tech. If not, then this response doesn't make sense. If one does not suspect that matriarchies would have majority women in tech, then what does the absence of matriarchies justify your claim that it's unreasonable to expect any country to have over 50% women in technology? I agree that such an expectation is unreasonable - but not because of the absence of any matriarchies. Quite the opposite, when look at the women's representation in technology patriarchal societies that are repressive towards women have the highest representation of women in tech and egalitarian countries have the least. The world, overall, is trending towards gender equality (though some regions are progressing considerably slower than others). > > As countries move away from patriarchy and towards gender equality the percentage of tech worker that are women go down. > You yourself told me of several countries where that's not true. How are you not getting this?! I have re-read my comments and have not found any instance where I wrote such a thing. I believe I have been consistent in my two core claims: 1) The overall distribution of women's representation in technology is fairly narrow, occupying a total range of 15-41% and with 20-30% accounting for the majority of countries. 20-35% accounts for effectively all save for some outliers on either end. 2) What variation does exist shows that women's representation in technology is inversely associated with gender equality. The more equal countries are, the lower the representation of women in technology on average. Your rest of your comments about my failure to compare men's labor participation and women's labor participation seem to reveal fundamental misunderstandings of what a ratio is. A female/male ratio of X means that for every man there are X women in the workforce. So when I say that the US has a female to male labor participation ratio of 0.82 it means that there are .82 women in the workforce for every man. Or 82 women for every 100 men. Comparing ratios is comparing the women's labor participation rates to men's labor participation rates. Let me use a an example to put this in practice: If one country has a female/male labor participation ratio of 0.75 and has 30% tech workers that are women, and another country has a female/male labor participation ratio of 0.5 and 20% of its tech workers are women then one could argue that these countries actually have the same rate of women going into tech. Although women's share in the latter is smaller, the labor participation rate is lower. If we used the former as the baseline, and adjusted the latter's female/male labor participation ratio to match it then the latter country would see it's representation of women in tech go up by 50%, rising from 20% to 30%. You seem to be fixated on the choice of the US as the baseline. But the choice of baseline does not matter. I could have gone about it in the opposite direction in the above example. I could have taken the first country with a female/male labor participation ratio of 0.75 and adjusted it down to have a female/male labor ratio of 0.5 and its female representation in tech would have dropped to 20%. The conclusion is the same: when adjusted for female/male labor participation the two countries have identical rates of women in tech. So the fact that you're pointing towards choice of the US as the baseline and erroneously saying that I'm not comparing men's and women's labor participation rates reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how this normalization works. I am indeed comparing the men and women's labor participation rates. To say otherwise is factually incorrect.

manfredo 7y ago

> Dictionary definition. There's no opinion about it. There are a variety of dictionaries with different definitions. Some of them define it as a country where the majority of political rulers are women. As explained above, some countries can fit that definition. > You. You f-ing asked that. You expected some countries to have over 50% representation, which is stupid since every country is patriarchal on some level. We don't have matriarchies. I can't stress this enough. You can't make claims on what we can't observe. In a previous comment I wrote, "Why wouldn't we expect countries to be 60% women in tech, or 70%, or 80% women in technology? Why do you take it for granted that there won't be any countries with majority women in technology?" To which you responded, "Again. Because we don't have matriarchies. You really don't seem to grasp the concept. Please take a minute to think about it." I asked why we wouldn't expect some countries to have majority women in tech and your response was that this was because there are no matriarchies. This definitely seems to indicate that you believe matriarchies would have majority women in tech. If not, then this response doesn't make sense. If one does not suspect that matriarchies would have majority women in tech, then what does the absence of matriarchies justify your claim that it's unreasonable to expect any country to have over 50% women in technology? I agree that such an expectation is unreasonable - but not because of the absence of any matriarchies. Quite the opposite, when look at the women's representation in technology patriarchal societies that are repressive towards women have the highest representation of women in tech and egalitarian countries have the least. The world, overall, is trending towards gender equality (though some regions are progressing considerably slower than others). > > As countries move away from patriarchy and towards gender equality the percentage of tech worker that are women go down. > You yourself told me of several countries where that's not true. How are you not getting this?! I have re-read my comments and have not found any instance where I wrote such a thing. I believe I have been consistent in my two core claims: 1) The overall distribution of women's representation in technology is fairly narrow, occupying a total range of 15-41% and with 20-30% accounting for the majority of countries. 20-35% accounts for effectively all save for some outliers on either end. 2) What variation does exist shows that women's representation in technology is inversely associated with gender equality. The more equal countries are, the lower the representation of women in technology on average. Your rest of your comments about my failure to compare men's labor participation and women's labor participation seem to reveal fundamental misunderstandings of what a ratio is. A female/male ratio of X means that for every man there are X women in the workforce. So when I say that the US has a female to male labor participation ratio of 0.82 it means that there are .82 women in the workforce for every man. Or 82 women for every 100 men. Comparing ratios is comparing the women's labor participation rates to men's labor participation rates. Let me use a an example to put this in practice: If one country has a female/male labor participation ratio of 0.75 and has 30% tech workers that are women, and another country has a female/male labor participation ratio of 0.5 and 20% of its tech workers are women then one could argue that these countries actually have the same rate of women going into tech. Although women's share in the latter is smaller, the labor participation rate is lower. If we used the former as the baseline, and adjusted the latter's female/male labor participation ratio to match it then the latter country would see it's representation of women in tech go up by 50%, rising from 20% to 30%. You seem to be fixated on the choice of the US as the baseline. But the choice of baseline does not matter. I could have gone about it in the opposite direction in the above example. I could have taken the first country with a female/male labor participation ratio of 0.75 and adjusted it down to have a female/male labor ratio of 0.5 and its female representation in tech would have dropped to 20%. The conclusion is the same: when adjusted for female/male labor participation the two countries have identical rates of women in tech. So the fact that you're pointing towards choice of the US as the baseline and erroneously saying that I'm not comparing men's and women's labor participation rates reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how this normalization works. I am indeed comparing the men and women's labor participation rates. To say otherwise is factually incorrect.