5 ms·

The widely unacknowledged paradox is that eradication of sexism will actually increase occupational gender imbalances. Gender equality and national wealth will

by hedgew 12y ago

The widely unacknowledged paradox is that eradication of sexism will actually increase occupational gender imbalances. Gender equality and national wealth will lead people to choose careers that most appeal to them. The likely truth is that most women would rather work as nurses and teachers than as programmers and engineers. Equal opportunity causes unequal results. Until we accept this, we'll waste most of our time fighting shadows instead of actual sexism.

innguest 12y ago
You're right, but feminism (and leftism in general) is guided by Social Marxism and Critical Theory and those are tools being used to divide and conquer the people. So it won't stop. But yes you're right, look at Sweden with their +70% female nurses and +70% male engineers in university. Also watch Hjarnevask to have an idea of the strength of the hallucination and reality-denial that SM and CT provoke on people. Also watch how many HNers will instantly downvote this upon reading it because it provokes cognitive dissonance on them (hence the lack of arguments).
cmiles74 12y ago
This desperately needs some kind of sourcing. In my opinion it is way too over-the-top to take seriously without some factual backing. Personally, it sounds like sexist male wish fulfillment and I will be very surprised if there is any factual basis for this idea.
- mpweiher 12y ago
  Yes, the result is surprising to say the least, but it is apparently well-researched, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9374516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9374516 I think one explanation for the data is that in less affluent societies, there is more economic pressure for women to go into fields that do not match their preferences.
gphil 12y ago
> The likely truth is that most women would rather work as nurses and teachers than as programmers and engineers. How could you possibly know this? Even if this is true in today's society, there's no way to know whether or not it would be true in a counterfactual society where gender equality exists.
- 2510c39011c5 12y ago
  I think the natural tendency for most women to care for other people is determined by their usually higher level of oxytocin than men... EDIT: the hormone related to care-giving behavior is oxytocin and not progesterone
  - cmiles74 12y ago
    I think this an example of the overly-simplistic logic that kept women from voting. It still happens today, CNN pulled a sexist story that attempted to link women's ovulation with the way they would vote. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/after-reader-backlash-cnn-axes-article-about-how-hormones-affect-womens-votes/ http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/after-reader-backlash-cnn-...
    - 2510c39011c5 12y ago
      I am not talking about suffrage, but in a usual scenario a woman has "higher level of progesterone" than man is a _fact_, isn't it? -- EDIT: the hormone related to care-giving behavior is oxytocin and not progesterone
      - cmiles74 12y ago
        My understanding was that you were trying to draw a causal relationship between levels of progesterone in a person's bloodstream and their tendency to care for other people. Further, I understood you to state that women have higher levels of progesterone in their system and, thusly, care more for others. It's the causal relationship between progesterone levels and how much people care for others that I find repugnant. It's reductive and simplistic and, I might add, entirely untrue. I do not believe that a side effect of progesterone ingestion is "increased caring for others".
2510c39011c5 12y ago
I agree. What's the point of fighting all the time for gender equality without knowing what it really means of "gender equality"? I mean, "gender equality" (or any other type of equality) is not correct and just by itself, and might not be manifested only through equal numbers of both gender representations...Gender equality might have some asymmetric effects to many other facades of the society...But what are those effects and how they matter? Sure, equality would be comforting to everyone's intuitive feeling, but we need to get this world work in a better way than those personal intuitive feeling alone in the end...
cmiles74 12y ago
I looked this up, it's called "gender essentialism". Here's an article on gender segregation from Wikipedia that mentions this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_segregation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_segregation This is just another way to make the gender discrimination we see today seem acceptable. There's no scientific basis for this idea, it's strikes me as clearly backward.
yuncun 12y ago
Remember the stackoverflow poll results that came up last week? One of the interesting stats I saw was that the highest percentage of women in programming came from India, at 15%. The lowest percentage was from Sweden at 2%. There was a Reddit discussion on why it seemed that countries with higher gender equality yielded less female software engineers. Personally, I think it makes sense; it seems that given more career options, women generally may prefer other fields over software. I dont think there is anything sexist about that observation (I would choose professional footballer over engineer). As an anecdote, I once had a round-table style english class in college where most of the 20 students in the class were social-justice type folks, (bunch of Gryffindors). The topic of gender inequality in STEM came up, and some of the ladies were complaining about underrepresented women. I found it ironic that all of the ladies in the class were English, Sociology, or Psychology. None had interests in engineering ("oh, it's not for me"), but they still thought there should be more women because it conformed to some imaginary principle of equality. I think that's stupid.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  A stack overflow poll isn't a reliable source of data about enginners, fwiw.
01Michael10 12y ago
What? Nobody accepts that because the trends of the last half century or so contraindicate your comment.
Tactic 12y ago
Sadly somewhere along the line Gender Balance became the same as Gender Equality. While it is easy to measure it is a foolish metric since it presumes women and men are the same. The sooner we realize that "equal but different" is OK the sooner we can address the real issues.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by hedgew 12y ago

innguest 12y ago

You're right, but feminism (and leftism in general) is guided by Social Marxism and Critical Theory and those are tools being used to divide and conquer the people. So it won't stop. But yes you're right, look at Sweden with their +70% female nurses and +70% male engineers in university. Also watch Hjarnevask to have an idea of the strength of the hallucination and reality-denial that SM and CT provoke on people. Also watch how many HNers will instantly downvote this upon reading it because it provokes cognitive dissonance on them (hence the lack of arguments).

cmiles74 12y ago

This desperately needs some kind of sourcing. In my opinion it is way too over-the-top to take seriously without some factual backing. Personally, it sounds like sexist male wish fulfillment and I will be very surprised if there is any factual basis for this idea.

mpweiher 12y ago
Yes, the result is surprising to say the least, but it is apparently well-researched, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9374516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9374516 I think one explanation for the data is that in less affluent societies, there is more economic pressure for women to go into fields that do not match their preferences.

gphil 12y ago

> The likely truth is that most women would rather work as nurses and teachers than as programmers and engineers. How could you possibly know this? Even if this is true in today's society, there's no way to know whether or not it would be true in a counterfactual society where gender equality exists.

2510c39011c5 12y ago
I think the natural tendency for most women to care for other people is determined by their usually higher level of oxytocin than men... EDIT: the hormone related to care-giving behavior is oxytocin and not progesterone
- cmiles74 12y ago
  I think this an example of the overly-simplistic logic that kept women from voting. It still happens today, CNN pulled a sexist story that attempted to link women's ovulation with the way they would vote. http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/after-reader-backlash-cnn-axes-article-about-how-hormones-affect-womens-votes/ http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/after-reader-backlash-cnn-...
  - 2510c39011c5 12y ago
    I am not talking about suffrage, but in a usual scenario a woman has "higher level of progesterone" than man is a _fact_, isn't it? -- EDIT: the hormone related to care-giving behavior is oxytocin and not progesterone
    - cmiles74 12y ago
      My understanding was that you were trying to draw a causal relationship between levels of progesterone in a person's bloodstream and their tendency to care for other people. Further, I understood you to state that women have higher levels of progesterone in their system and, thusly, care more for others. It's the causal relationship between progesterone levels and how much people care for others that I find repugnant. It's reductive and simplistic and, I might add, entirely untrue. I do not believe that a side effect of progesterone ingestion is "increased caring for others".

2510c39011c5 12y ago

I agree. What's the point of fighting all the time for gender equality without knowing what it really means of "gender equality"? I mean, "gender equality" (or any other type of equality) is not correct and just by itself, and might not be manifested only through equal numbers of both gender representations...Gender equality might have some asymmetric effects to many other facades of the society...But what are those effects and how they matter? Sure, equality would be comforting to everyone's intuitive feeling, but we need to get this world work in a better way than those personal intuitive feeling alone in the end...

cmiles74 12y ago

I looked this up, it's called "gender essentialism". Here's an article on gender segregation from Wikipedia that mentions this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_segregation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_segregation This is just another way to make the gender discrimination we see today seem acceptable. There's no scientific basis for this idea, it's strikes me as clearly backward.

yuncun 12y ago

Remember the stackoverflow poll results that came up last week? One of the interesting stats I saw was that the highest percentage of women in programming came from India, at 15%. The lowest percentage was from Sweden at 2%. There was a Reddit discussion on why it seemed that countries with higher gender equality yielded less female software engineers. Personally, I think it makes sense; it seems that given more career options, women generally may prefer other fields over software. I dont think there is anything sexist about that observation (I would choose professional footballer over engineer). As an anecdote, I once had a round-table style english class in college where most of the 20 students in the class were social-justice type folks, (bunch of Gryffindors). The topic of gender inequality in STEM came up, and some of the ladies were complaining about underrepresented women. I found it ironic that all of the ladies in the class were English, Sociology, or Psychology. None had interests in engineering ("oh, it's not for me"), but they still thought there should be more women because it conformed to some imaginary principle of equality. I think that's stupid.

WalterSear 12y ago
A stack overflow poll isn't a reliable source of data about enginners, fwiw.

01Michael10 12y ago

What? Nobody accepts that because the trends of the last half century or so contraindicate your comment.

Tactic 12y ago

Sadly somewhere along the line Gender Balance became the same as Gender Equality. While it is easy to measure it is a foolish metric since it presumes women and men are the same. The sooner we realize that "equal but different" is OK the sooner we can address the real issues.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]