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?
> Furthermore, your comment rested on the assumption that gender roles in Eastern European countries are monolithic.
Neither is India but I feel this is splitting hairs.
> I pointed out that your argument with respect to Eastern Europe is contradicted by the data we have, and is based on the false notion that women in Eastern Europe have a similar experience with respect to gender equality.
Ok... but that's true in India, the US... they are all varied cultures. You're just pointing holes in you argument really.
I always said women equality and women participation in STEM is pretty random.
Once again, you're really arguing against yourself. There is no correlation between women in STEM and women's rights.
> Why? 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?
Again. Because we don't have matriarchies. You really don't seem to grasp the concept. Please take a minute to think about it.
> You're the one that originally brought up Eastern Europe and India. You falsely claimed that Eastern Europe has similar rates of women in tech as India, and I pointed out that this is factually incorrect - most Eastern European countries have lower rates of women in technology than India.
Oh ok, I should clarify then. Some countries in Eastern Europe have similar rates as India. It does not change my argument one bit, except you win some semantic nonsense.
I can rephrase my argument from before with "some Eastern European countries" instead. Will that change your mind?
> What do you mean by adjusting for women's labor participation rate. You say that I'm not doing this correctly, but you neglect to explain what you mean by this. If a country that has 100% female labor participation had 30% women in technology, and another country has 50% labor participation and 15% women in tech then the latter's rate of women in tech is actually the same if you account for labor participation rates.
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?
> The United States has a ratio of 0.82 female to male. Norway has 0.885 - so its share of women in tech would actually go down even further if we adjust it to match the US.
> Chile has 0.657, so its share of women in tech would rise by ~20% from 15% to 18% if we made its labor participation ratio the same as the US.
Can you stop comparing things to the US? What's wrong with you? You're supposed to compare with men's labour participation rates, in the same country.
I already told you this.
0.657 means only 65 of women work for every 100 men.
How are you not getting this?
Qatar has 0.531 so its ~23% women in tech would rise to 35%. But notice that these adjustments move these countries closer towards the trend line. In other words, adjusting for the differences in labor participation rates makes the inverse relationship between gender equality and women's participation in STEM even stronger.
> You're supposed to compare between women and men in the same country. Women's labour participation rate in the US has less than nothing to do with Vietnam.
> The more countries drift away from "patriarchy" and towards "matriarchy" the fewer women go into tech.
We literally don't have matriarchies, there's no data about it. And I also don't know why you put that in quotes, it's an actual word.
> Many of these countries are more egalitarian than the US as per the data in the original post. Perhaps you should not have assumed that all Eastern European countries are less egalitarian than the US.
Of really? Which ones? Because Hungary certainly isn't.
You just proved yourself wrong and you're not addressing what the core of the argument of what I said.
> The fact that these rates are overwhelmingly in a relatively narrow band between 20-35%.
> The overwhelming majority of countries studied had female representation in tech between 15-30%. This is indeed a fairly consistent rate.
I'm ignoring the fact that you can't even keep your numbers straight within the same comment...
It's not consistent at all, it's almost the entire range!
And given that close to 0% or 50% is unlikely to happen in any country, that's pretty much where you expect the probability distribution to land anyway. It says nothing.
It's like saying unemployment falls between 5-40% in the majority of countries. Well d'oh, it's expected. It says nothing about the health of the countries in questiom.
> I agree, the alleged correlation between Eastern Europe and rates of female representation in tech is BS and random - but that was your alleged correlation...
Wait, what exactly is your allegation then, if not that?
> Countries on the other end of the spectrum like Turkey and Indonesia have 35%. This is still barely over 1/3rd.
You're still not addressing the labour participation rates between women and men. You don't get it.
> For example, Indonesia has a female labor participation rate of 52% as compared to the United States' 56%. Vietnam has a female labor participation rate of 76%.
You're suppressed to compare bergen women and men in the same country. Women's labour participation rate has less than nothing to do with Vietnam.
You don't get it.
> Adjusting for this does not explain the difference in representation in tech.
Yes it would, you just don't know how to adjust for it.
> Furthermore, even if it were you are erroneously assuming that if more women entered the workforce those women would.
It doesn't matter if they would or not, it won't affect the statistics, you still need to adjust for it.
> We would expect to see even lower rates of women in STEM. The data shows an inverse relationship between women gaining more rights and resources and women's representation in STEM
That's just disingenuous, we literally don't have that data to make any claims on it. You're the one which said you'd expect women participation rates to be randomised, as in some countries to have more women in STEM than men. I simply counterpointed with the fact that societies aren't randomised, they are all patriarchal on some level, that's why you never see more women in tech in any country.
> In fact, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic see the same or lower rates of women in technology than in the United States.
Oh, so your correlation that stricter gender roles and women getting into STEM is not true? Did you just prove yourself wrong?!
Also, Romania, Bulgaria and Russia have higher participation rates than the US...
It's almost like your alleged correlation is BS and random, even within similar countries and cultures.
> The "problem" is that men and women have difference interests, and this difference is largely universal across different societies.
You're literally reading an article claiming the opposite (with sources) mate. Did you read it?!
> But this influence only shifts the representation of women in tech by 10-15%.
That's like gigantic. It's almost parity in the workplace. How can you dismiss it?!
The small difference is explained by the difference in labour participation rates.
We already talked about this but it's like you didn't read my comment.
> Countries with gender equality (is this what you mean by "matriarchy"?)
No... I mean the dictionary definition.
Where men didn't have the right to vote, work or own property until recently, where women are expected to own and make all the money, where men are raised to be married away, where men are expected to make the coffee and women to run the meeting. So on and so forth.
I'm afraid that entire paragraph does not address my comment because you misunderstood what matriarchy means.
> And yet, the disparity between women and men in technology exists outside of western countries
Not if you take into consideration the labour participation rate... If you do, the disparity basically disappears.
These societies with rigid gender rules tend to have less women overall working at all.
> This was the same case in Western Europe and Asia as well - I'm not sure why you chose to highlight this fact.
But they were forced to do that until the 90s under communism, I'm not talking about peasants in the middle ages.
I mention Eastern Europe because I'm trying to give you alternative explanations for women participation in STEM.
Eastern Europe and India have similar rates of participation but are vastly different societies.
What do they have in common? They are not the West.
They don't have the West's cultural norms. Ergo, one of those norms is stopping women from going into STEM.
That, to me, sounds more likely. Much easier to explain vs trying to find something in common between India and Eastern Europe, which is pretty crazy.
> I'm not sure what you're writing about here, this sentence does not make sense to me. The point is that highly unequal societies with strict gender roles see more women in technology than more egalitarian societies.
And my point is your cultural expectation do not translate to other cultures.
There might be a specific gender inequality that stops women from entering STEM. That may or may not exist in a society, independent on what gender inequality is overall.
Vastly different societies like India and Eastern Europe have similar participation rates, despite the fact that Eastern Europe is much wealthier.
If what you said is true, you'd expect Eastern Europe to have lower participation rate than India, but that's not the case.
Correlation broken.
> not at all uncommon to have fields that are >95% one gender or another
That just means the problem is beyond just STEM, not an explanation.
I would probably believe that if we weren't talking about software.
But software is, what, less than a century old? What possible evolutionary differences could have risen in that time frame?
I mean, the number zero is very unintuitive and the ancient Romans/greeks/chinese/whatever didn't discover it, despite the fact all evidence shows they were very smart in many things.
Yet you want me to believe that men understand that arrays are zero based better than women.
> But men _are_ in fact more accommodating to women nowadays than to _other men_
This is not about generic workplace disagreements. Yes, those happen all the time.
> How do we know this? _Because men told us_!
I know that's tongue in cheek and only half serious but I'll reply anyway.
Even if 99% of men are more accommodating, that 1% would still make employment unbearable. After 10 years you probably met a few dozen assholes and just want to quit the industry because it's not worth it.
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.