4 ms·

It all starts with the dubious (to say the least) premise that men and women are exactly the same. Both sexes on average want the same things, like the same thi

It all starts with the dubious (to say the least) premise that men and women are exactly the same. Both sexes on average want the same things, like the same things, are interested in the same things, and have the same priorities and proclivities. Therefore, in a just world, we'd see an exact 50/50 ratio of men and women in every possible occupation, because there are no differences between men and women, therefore the only possible explanation for non-parity anywhere is because some kind of "systemic" factor is unfairly preventing one of the sexes from achieving the career results that they obviously want. And if men and women don't want the same things on average, then that itself is a symptom of some kind of systemic problem. Because biology plays no role in human psychology; we're the only species in the animal kingdom to come into this world with no pre-programming and absolutely everything that we do is the result of cultural conditioning. So men and women could be exactly the same if only more parents would let their sons play with Barbie and their daughters play with GI Joe.

obelos 5y ago
There are some extreme but isolated examples of people who are disposed to this opinion, but more commonly the objection to fields being dominated by one gender or the other is because those workplaces, as this study points out, can't seem to stop themselves from discriminating and gatekeeping against those of the other gender. While it should in theory be no problem that a workplace is 90% men and 10% women because they live in a platonic ideal where they've been free to attain to their true ambition that is influenced by biological traits related to sex, in reality, once one gender gains enough dominance in a field or workplace, sexual discrimination, harassment, and gatekeeping end up deepening the imbalance. This feedback loop ends up pushing out people of the non-dominant gender who want nothing more than to work in that field but are constantly and systemically met with prejudice and disenfranchisement. It would be nice to deftly and precisely ameliorate this issue by just being able to say “stop acting in a sexually discriminating way because you're impeding someone's will,” and have it be so. But there are still far too many people who are willing to abet the discrimination either silently or willfully, writing the disparity off as a “natural outcome of biology.” So the alternative way to establish justice is the sledgehammer approach that equates the unequal representation with inequity. Because that is _also_ true.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > While it should in theory be no problem that a workplace is 90% men and 10% women because they live in a platonic ideal where they've been free to attain to their true ambition that is influenced by biological traits related to sex, in reality, once one gender gains enough dominance in a field or workplace, sexual discrimination, harassment, and gatekeeping end up deepening the imbalance. The assumption that an industry that has a large gender imbalance will inevitably end up discriminating against the minority gender is incorrect. Plenty of studies have shown tech companies to actually favor women in hiring: Tech companies were more likely to give callbacks to female applicants: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 Modulating people to sound like the opposite gender in coding interviews actually hurts women and helps men: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-ma... There are policies that can eliminate bias: Strip names and identifying information out of resumes before recruiters see them. Modulate voices in interviews to eliminate ability to infer gender or foreign accents, and use no video so as to prevent people from identifying races. The problem is that this often doesn't produce the results people are expecting.
  - wiether 5y ago
    Why focusing on hiring? The comment you're answering to is talking about harassment and gatekeeping. Hiring is one gate, but if you're hired just to reach gender goals or to satisfy the lust of your new manager, you will not have the same experience at the company than someone from the other gender. Like getting raises or being promoted. Things are complicated.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      How do we quantify "discrimination and gatekeeping"? Focusing on hiring makes sense because it's the gate that you need to pass through to join the company. It's by far the most important form of gatekeeping, and the one with the most influence over the representation of the company. It's also where I see the most focus on attempting to "fix" the imbalance, but introducing policies to favor underrepresented groups. I've worked at multiple companies with overt affirmative action programs in favor of women. Other factors like harassment are important, but again the evidence doesn't seem to suggest it's responsible for gender imbalances. Engineering has one of the lower rates of harassment among professional industries (32%) less than plenty of industries with more balanced gender representation like healthcare (35%) and media (41%) [1]. And this is just among white-collar industries, service industries and blue collar industries are by far even worse [2]. 1. https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/media-industry-sexual-harassment-survey-1202884052/ https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/media-industry-sexual-hara... 2. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/21/16685942/sexual-harassment-industry-service-retail https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/21/16685942/sexual-ha...
throwaway894345 5y ago
> Because biology plays no role in human psychology; we're the only species in the animal kingdom to come into this world with no pre-programming and absolutely everything that we do is the result of cultural conditioning. I suspect when these people finally cede on biological differences between the genders, they will just argue that these biological differences themselves are a product of our sinful and fallen world. Don't underestimate the incredible portability of these folks' goalposts.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Nope. All evidence shows that human psychology is a mix of biology and culture. That’s why you often see sisters and brothers being very different even though they were brought up the same way. Also, you can’t make somebody have a high IQ through culture. It is a biological trait. And your IQ has a high impact on how you perceived the world and learn.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Nope. All evidence shows that human psychology is a mix of biology and culture. Who are you nope-ing? Because your comment aligns to my beliefs just fine…
    - sizzle 5y ago
      I thought the same thing, if you used quotation marks it would have been a little clearer you were quoting someone my 2 cents
      - sundvor 5y ago
        Re read that post with the quotes too, it aligns with yours as well. Might not get that impression just from the selected quote, but initial part makes it clear.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Block quotes (>) are standard practice on HN. Never had anyone get confused by them before…

obelos 5y ago

There are some extreme but isolated examples of people who are disposed to this opinion, but more commonly the objection to fields being dominated by one gender or the other is because those workplaces, as this study points out, can't seem to stop themselves from discriminating and gatekeeping against those of the other gender. While it should in theory be no problem that a workplace is 90% men and 10% women because they live in a platonic ideal where they've been free to attain to their true ambition that is influenced by biological traits related to sex, in reality, once one gender gains enough dominance in a field or workplace, sexual discrimination, harassment, and gatekeeping end up deepening the imbalance. This feedback loop ends up pushing out people of the non-dominant gender who want nothing more than to work in that field but are constantly and systemically met with prejudice and disenfranchisement. It would be nice to deftly and precisely ameliorate this issue by just being able to say “stop acting in a sexually discriminating way because you're impeding someone's will,” and have it be so. But there are still far too many people who are willing to abet the discrimination either silently or willfully, writing the disparity off as a “natural outcome of biology.” So the alternative way to establish justice is the sledgehammer approach that equates the unequal representation with inequity. Because that is _also_ true.

Manuel_D 5y ago
> While it should in theory be no problem that a workplace is 90% men and 10% women because they live in a platonic ideal where they've been free to attain to their true ambition that is influenced by biological traits related to sex, in reality, once one gender gains enough dominance in a field or workplace, sexual discrimination, harassment, and gatekeeping end up deepening the imbalance. The assumption that an industry that has a large gender imbalance will inevitably end up discriminating against the minority gender is incorrect. Plenty of studies have shown tech companies to actually favor women in hiring: Tech companies were more likely to give callbacks to female applicants: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 Modulating people to sound like the opposite gender in coding interviews actually hurts women and helps men: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-ma... There are policies that can eliminate bias: Strip names and identifying information out of resumes before recruiters see them. Modulate voices in interviews to eliminate ability to infer gender or foreign accents, and use no video so as to prevent people from identifying races. The problem is that this often doesn't produce the results people are expecting.
- wiether 5y ago
  Why focusing on hiring? The comment you're answering to is talking about harassment and gatekeeping. Hiring is one gate, but if you're hired just to reach gender goals or to satisfy the lust of your new manager, you will not have the same experience at the company than someone from the other gender. Like getting raises or being promoted. Things are complicated.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    How do we quantify "discrimination and gatekeeping"? Focusing on hiring makes sense because it's the gate that you need to pass through to join the company. It's by far the most important form of gatekeeping, and the one with the most influence over the representation of the company. It's also where I see the most focus on attempting to "fix" the imbalance, but introducing policies to favor underrepresented groups. I've worked at multiple companies with overt affirmative action programs in favor of women. Other factors like harassment are important, but again the evidence doesn't seem to suggest it's responsible for gender imbalances. Engineering has one of the lower rates of harassment among professional industries (32%) less than plenty of industries with more balanced gender representation like healthcare (35%) and media (41%) [1]. And this is just among white-collar industries, service industries and blue collar industries are by far even worse [2]. 1. https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/media-industry-sexual-harassment-survey-1202884052/ https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/media-industry-sexual-hara... 2. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/21/16685942/sexual-harassment-industry-service-retail https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/21/16685942/sexual-ha...

throwaway894345 5y ago

> Because biology plays no role in human psychology; we're the only species in the animal kingdom to come into this world with no pre-programming and absolutely everything that we do is the result of cultural conditioning. I suspect when these people finally cede on biological differences between the genders, they will just argue that these biological differences themselves are a product of our sinful and fallen world. Don't underestimate the incredible portability of these folks' goalposts.

mbrodersen 5y ago
Nope. All evidence shows that human psychology is a mix of biology and culture. That’s why you often see sisters and brothers being very different even though they were brought up the same way. Also, you can’t make somebody have a high IQ through culture. It is a biological trait. And your IQ has a high impact on how you perceived the world and learn.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Nope. All evidence shows that human psychology is a mix of biology and culture. Who are you nope-ing? Because your comment aligns to my beliefs just fine…
  - sizzle 5y ago
    I thought the same thing, if you used quotation marks it would have been a little clearer you were quoting someone my 2 cents
    - sundvor 5y ago
      Re read that post with the quotes too, it aligns with yours as well. Might not get that impression just from the selected quote, but initial part makes it clear.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Block quotes (>) are standard practice on HN. Never had anyone get confused by them before…