4 ms·

Do you have any citations to back up this “fact”?

rsanek 2y ago
take a look at the gender breakdowns for employment in the Nordics. probably the best social support structures / 'equality' in the world, and yet the ratios are among the most extreme anywhere. when you're taken care of, you do what you like. when you have an economic need, you'll take the job that pays and will pull you out of poverty, even if you don't care for it.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  This argument is pretty common, but blaming the victim is wrong. It is not like Nordics solved the problem but women still choose different jobs. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of...
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    The bigger question is whether there actually is a "victim". Imagine governments started a lottery, where a random selection of women were forced to work in STEM regardless of their preferences. That'd solve the gender disparity overnight! But is that a good thing for women? The reality is that most people want men and women both to be able to freely choose their profession. The underlying debate is whether the disparity is due to choices or some sort of discrimination. Many people - including some in this comment section [1] - insist that anything other than parity is proof of some sort of discrimination. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40929639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40929639
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      >The underlying debate is whether the disparity is due to choices or some sort of discrimination. It doesn’t look like a debate though. Pro-choice exclusively male crowd pulls the same argument with the stats from nordics again and again without going deeper into what do those numbers mean. There’s no plausible theory explaining why there’s no victim. On pro-discrimination side there’s plenty of arguments (usually coming from people who actually study the subject).
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        > Pro-choice exclusively male crowd It is by no means exclusively male. This is a completely baseless claim on your part. > There’s no plausible theory explaining why there’s no victim. Why is "women enjoy things other than technology" not a plausible theory? The percentage of women working in tech matches the percentage of women who major in it. The percentage of women who major in it matches the percentage of high schoolers and middle schoolers who say they're interested in technology. > On pro-discrimination side there’s plenty of arguments (usually coming from people who actually study the subject). It's always entertaining to see people who insist that there's plenty of arguments, but aren't bothered to make any. What do people who study the subject find? When researchers send out resumes and measure differences in call-backs, women are called back sooner and more frequently than men: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 Studies measuring hiring preferences in universities found a 2:1 preference in favor of women: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 The pro-discrimination side has to cite non-existent studies: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18232762/gender-diversity-tech-bad-research-recruiting-new-york-times https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18232762/gender-diversity-tech...
        ivan_gammel 2y ago
        > Why is "women enjoy things other than technology" not a plausible theory? Because it doesn’t explain anything, stopping at that conclusion. It’s just “it is the way it is” sort of argument. When you quote the statistics you are simply looking in the wrong direction. Thanks to anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action problem in recruiting isn’t that big as before. It was the most obvious and the easiest to fix. Imagine a thought experiment: a group of people since childhood is taught that cats are better for them than dogs. They learn to love cats and stay away from dogs which are “for others”. In adulthood they are presented the opportunity to own a dog. There exist dog lover meetups and you can even get a puppy for free. How many people from that group will try to have a dog? Not many probably, because they just enjoy cats more. This is what happens with gender inequality. Girls get dolls and join cheerleading teams. Social pressure requires them to learn about makeup and fashion, to socialize and to participate in housekeeping. Popular culture maintains stereotypes, social media define the acceptable behavior and punish those who don’t fit. Same happens to boys, of course. Not everyone who is subject to such pressure can grow as a person able to make a free choice. If we deprive children of the free choice, what is it if not gender discrimination? And then there exists also drop-off possibility. Just today I learned about yet another case of harassment on the workplace in some big company. The victim complained to her manager about the behavior of their D-level superior but nothing happened, despite all the laws etc. Many women are subject to this regularly. How many of them will remain in the workforce for long despite such experience? How many will get promoted if they complain about such things? #metoo was a good start, but we are far from workplace being fixed. This naturally reduces the share of women on senior and management positions. (Edit) necessary note: please do not expect me to explain it in full detail and with references. It is a huge topic, there exist books and numerous resources about it. I won’t be able to cover everything I know from learning or personal experience in a comment. Do your own research and try to dig deeper.
jimbokun 2y ago
I believe affinity of boys for interacting with "things" and affinity for girls for interacting with "people" has been demonstrated pretty well in studies. (This falls into category of "something I read on the Internet")
Manuel_D 2y ago
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... It's conjecture as far as what's actually driving this trend, though. Some posit that STEM is "nerdy" in Western countries but not in Asia and the Middle East. Others speculate that gender-egalitarian countries tend to be wealthier, and the disparity in living standards between STEM and non-STEM professions are lower. Basically there's equal interests, but practical necessity is pushing more women into STEM. But both of these are just speculation based on the observed negative correlation between gender-egalitarianism and STEM representation.

take a look at the gender breakdowns for employment in the Nordics. probably the best social support structures / 'equality' in the world, and yet the ratios are among the most extreme anywhere. when you're taken care of, you do what you like. when you have an economic need, you'll take the job that pays and will pull you out of poverty, even if you don't care for it.

ivan_gammel 2y ago
This argument is pretty common, but blaming the victim is wrong. It is not like Nordics solved the problem but women still choose different jobs. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of...
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  The bigger question is whether there actually is a "victim". Imagine governments started a lottery, where a random selection of women were forced to work in STEM regardless of their preferences. That'd solve the gender disparity overnight! But is that a good thing for women? The reality is that most people want men and women both to be able to freely choose their profession. The underlying debate is whether the disparity is due to choices or some sort of discrimination. Many people - including some in this comment section [1] - insist that anything other than parity is proof of some sort of discrimination. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40929639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40929639
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    >The underlying debate is whether the disparity is due to choices or some sort of discrimination. It doesn’t look like a debate though. Pro-choice exclusively male crowd pulls the same argument with the stats from nordics again and again without going deeper into what do those numbers mean. There’s no plausible theory explaining why there’s no victim. On pro-discrimination side there’s plenty of arguments (usually coming from people who actually study the subject).
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      > Pro-choice exclusively male crowd It is by no means exclusively male. This is a completely baseless claim on your part. > There’s no plausible theory explaining why there’s no victim. Why is "women enjoy things other than technology" not a plausible theory? The percentage of women working in tech matches the percentage of women who major in it. The percentage of women who major in it matches the percentage of high schoolers and middle schoolers who say they're interested in technology. > On pro-discrimination side there’s plenty of arguments (usually coming from people who actually study the subject). It's always entertaining to see people who insist that there's plenty of arguments, but aren't bothered to make any. What do people who study the subject find? When researchers send out resumes and measure differences in call-backs, women are called back sooner and more frequently than men: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484 Studies measuring hiring preferences in universities found a 2:1 preference in favor of women: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 The pro-discrimination side has to cite non-existent studies: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18232762/gender-diversity-tech-bad-research-recruiting-new-york-times https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18232762/gender-diversity-tech...
      - ivan_gammel 2y ago
        > Why is "women enjoy things other than technology" not a plausible theory? Because it doesn’t explain anything, stopping at that conclusion. It’s just “it is the way it is” sort of argument. When you quote the statistics you are simply looking in the wrong direction. Thanks to anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action problem in recruiting isn’t that big as before. It was the most obvious and the easiest to fix. Imagine a thought experiment: a group of people since childhood is taught that cats are better for them than dogs. They learn to love cats and stay away from dogs which are “for others”. In adulthood they are presented the opportunity to own a dog. There exist dog lover meetups and you can even get a puppy for free. How many people from that group will try to have a dog? Not many probably, because they just enjoy cats more. This is what happens with gender inequality. Girls get dolls and join cheerleading teams. Social pressure requires them to learn about makeup and fashion, to socialize and to participate in housekeeping. Popular culture maintains stereotypes, social media define the acceptable behavior and punish those who don’t fit. Same happens to boys, of course. Not everyone who is subject to such pressure can grow as a person able to make a free choice. If we deprive children of the free choice, what is it if not gender discrimination? And then there exists also drop-off possibility. Just today I learned about yet another case of harassment on the workplace in some big company. The victim complained to her manager about the behavior of their D-level superior but nothing happened, despite all the laws etc. Many women are subject to this regularly. How many of them will remain in the workforce for long despite such experience? How many will get promoted if they complain about such things? #metoo was a good start, but we are far from workplace being fixed. This naturally reduces the share of women on senior and management positions. (Edit) necessary note: please do not expect me to explain it in full detail and with references. It is a huge topic, there exist books and numerous resources about it. I won’t be able to cover everything I know from learning or personal experience in a comment. Do your own research and try to dig deeper.

jimbokun 2y ago

I believe affinity of boys for interacting with "things" and affinity for girls for interacting with "people" has been demonstrated pretty well in studies. (This falls into category of "something I read on the Internet")

Manuel_D 2y ago

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... It's conjecture as far as what's actually driving this trend, though. Some posit that STEM is "nerdy" in Western countries but not in Asia and the Middle East. Others speculate that gender-egalitarian countries tend to be wealthier, and the disparity in living standards between STEM and non-STEM professions are lower. Basically there's equal interests, but practical necessity is pushing more women into STEM. But both of these are just speculation based on the observed negative correlation between gender-egalitarianism and STEM representation.