4 ms·

Oh, this post is gold. Albert asks: >Why are women fighting for more women to do STEM while men are not fighting for more men to be therapists? ...and Freakon

Oh, this post is gold. Albert asks: >Why are women fighting for more women to do STEM while men are not fighting for more men to be therapists? ...and Freakonomics hears: "Why don't more men pursue female-dominated professions?" Not once, but twice. Alfred writes back to clarify his meaning, yet Dubner, again, simply lifts keywords out of his sentences and writes his own question to answer. Literally failing to think outside the bounds of political tropes.

Danieru 13y ago
I'm glad another person noticed this. Most comments also missed the distinction. In their defence I think the two questions have high interrelation. Why men should go into teaching and etc is the same reasons men are not campaigning for more male participation. Programming is a good career so people are willing to fight for equality. From an emotionless stand point teaching is a mediocre career so what is the point? Men who do teach do so for the caring, but they recognize the career is not for everyone. Programming on the other hand is profitable, I imagine programming women recognize that the career would be a good match for many other women. By a similar token neither men nor women are campaigning to get more people into sanitation engineering, even if women are under represented.
- gametheoretic 13y ago
  Yes, I noticed that as well. The formula seems to be: a) identify trope, b) throw down cards, c) leave. Each of your points of evidence is true in-and-of-itself, I think. But not enough compare-and-contrast with outside situations for my taste. Programming is a good career. So is finance. So why no campaigning there? 2) You're right, Men don't campaign for teaching or sanitation careers. What do men campaign for? Further, I might compare-and-contrast with the transitions of other groups which were formerly underrepresented within their industry and ask whether it was campaigning which won that victory.
johnbm 13y ago
Answer, because women have in-group bias, and men don't: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
The final line in what Albert writes does ask that question about the specific occupation, but right before that he had stated more generally that men are not fighting for more men to study traditionally female-dominated subjects or jobs like primary-school teacher, nurse, PR officers and therapists. So it makes sense for Dubner to address the more general "female-dominated professions" than the specific "therapists" part. I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". I think in this situation the answers to either question are going to be largely related.
- gametheoretic 13y ago
  >I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". Really? The mere fact that someone would take these as different questions should suggest that they don't believe they would partake in campaigning as women do now, were they in the same position. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about myself-- people very often are-- but in this case I very much doubt it. Power, tech jobs, diamond rings. Women want none of these; they want the wanting. How to tell? That which they actually do want, they are far more goal-oriented about obtaining. Boyfriends, shoes/handbags, an appearance of not standing out, etc.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    I said I don't see that much difference. Not enough for me to make the indictment you made about the author. That was all I was getting at. Personally, I don't think the author answered either question very well. I saw very little point to the whole post. I was a little disappointed.

Danieru 13y ago

I'm glad another person noticed this. Most comments also missed the distinction. In their defence I think the two questions have high interrelation. Why men should go into teaching and etc is the same reasons men are not campaigning for more male participation. Programming is a good career so people are willing to fight for equality. From an emotionless stand point teaching is a mediocre career so what is the point? Men who do teach do so for the caring, but they recognize the career is not for everyone. Programming on the other hand is profitable, I imagine programming women recognize that the career would be a good match for many other women. By a similar token neither men nor women are campaigning to get more people into sanitation engineering, even if women are under represented.

gametheoretic 13y ago
Yes, I noticed that as well. The formula seems to be: a) identify trope, b) throw down cards, c) leave. Each of your points of evidence is true in-and-of-itself, I think. But not enough compare-and-contrast with outside situations for my taste. Programming is a good career. So is finance. So why no campaigning there? 2) You're right, Men don't campaign for teaching or sanitation careers. What do men campaign for? Further, I might compare-and-contrast with the transitions of other groups which were formerly underrepresented within their industry and ask whether it was campaigning which won that victory.

johnbm 13y ago

Answer, because women have in-group bias, and men don't: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

The final line in what Albert writes does ask that question about the specific occupation, but right before that he had stated more generally that men are not fighting for more men to study traditionally female-dominated subjects or jobs like primary-school teacher, nurse, PR officers and therapists. So it makes sense for Dubner to address the more general "female-dominated professions" than the specific "therapists" part. I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". I think in this situation the answers to either question are going to be largely related.

gametheoretic 13y ago
>I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". Really? The mere fact that someone would take these as different questions should suggest that they don't believe they would partake in campaigning as women do now, were they in the same position. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about myself-- people very often are-- but in this case I very much doubt it. Power, tech jobs, diamond rings. Women want none of these; they want the wanting. How to tell? That which they actually do want, they are far more goal-oriented about obtaining. Boyfriends, shoes/handbags, an appearance of not standing out, etc.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  I said I don't see that much difference. Not enough for me to make the indictment you made about the author. That was all I was getting at. Personally, I don't think the author answered either question very well. I saw very little point to the whole post. I was a little disappointed.