Why Women Choose Differently at Work(nautil.us)
nautil.us
Why Women Choose Differently at Work
http://nautil.us/issue/58/self/why-women-choose-differently-at-work
248 comments
The article makes exactly that point:
"I asked Wendy Williams, founder and director of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, what she makes of these findings. She wrote that if girls expect they can "live a good life" while working in the arts, health or sciences, then girls choose to pursue what they are best at—which could be STEM, or it could be law or psychology. She added, "However, if the environment offers limited options, and the best ones are in STEM, girls focus there...""
"I asked Wendy Williams, founder and director of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, what she makes of these findings. She wrote that if girls expect they can "live a good life" while working in the arts, health or sciences, then girls choose to pursue what they are best at—which could be STEM, or it could be law or psychology. She added, "However, if the environment offers limited options, and the best ones are in STEM, girls focus there...""
Even being a medical doctor means having a very good life, I wouldn't go for it in a million years.
I have a blog and a youtube channel that talks about raspberry pi, open source, embedded, and other programming projects that I do for fun in my spare time. I checked the youtube stats yesterday and my female audience was 0% (not rounded down, it was 0.0% according to Youtube) among about 10K people who watched them last week - globally. When I had google analytics on my site, it reported the same thing. Because my channel is new and no one knows whether I am a sexist person or not, so we can safely filter out the reputation problem. Also, I have a foreign name so people can't guess my gender by looking at my name. I think that anyone who watches my video has to be curious about what I do, not because they are used to me talking in a certain way.
Now my channel is a small sample, but I have a feeling that not many girls find tech (or at least what I do) fun and appealing the current way it is while many boys do. So it's just about an opportunity, money and job and whatnot as it is a hobby, a thing to have fun with that attracts certain demographic to a profession.
I have a blog and a youtube channel that talks about raspberry pi, open source, embedded, and other programming projects that I do for fun in my spare time. I checked the youtube stats yesterday and my female audience was 0% (not rounded down, it was 0.0% according to Youtube) among about 10K people who watched them last week - globally. When I had google analytics on my site, it reported the same thing. Because my channel is new and no one knows whether I am a sexist person or not, so we can safely filter out the reputation problem. Also, I have a foreign name so people can't guess my gender by looking at my name. I think that anyone who watches my video has to be curious about what I do, not because they are used to me talking in a certain way.
Now my channel is a small sample, but I have a feeling that not many girls find tech (or at least what I do) fun and appealing the current way it is while many boys do. So it's just about an opportunity, money and job and whatnot as it is a hobby, a thing to have fun with that attracts certain demographic to a profession.
Well... how do you think Google Analytics guesses whether or not a person is male or female? It uses a machine learning algorithm based on browsing habits, and "views Youtube videos about technology/open source/Raspberry Pi" is a feature that is strongly weighted towards maleness.
Valid point. Although tons of people have both GMAil and Youtube accounts and Google forced you to connect them a few years ago when they were pushing Google+, so they should have actual personal information on many people these days.
Sure, but in many cases it didn't have to guess. It knows. Moreover, even when it had to guess, the guess can sway both ways based on a person's watch history too: Wouldn't you think a person who watches a raspberry pi video after they watched 10 videos about handbags and jewelry and mascara can be guessed as a female? After all, Google IDs unique people and devices.
There are millions of women out there that don’t watch videos of handbags and jewelry and mascara, as there are millions of men who don’t watch sports or cars or whatever.
I'm currently running a forum where people has to select it's gender. I'd say, by the samples I've done, that most of the people don't lie.
And the stats are not surprising, I have about half females, and they participate way more in "girly" things.
The same happened in another forum I had.
And the stats are not surprising, I have about half females, and they participate way more in "girly" things.
The same happened in another forum I had.
Do you know that's how it works, or is it a guess? That's not really the standard way to do audience segmentation.
I'm a woman in tech. Google used to have a page somewhere where it told you what it assumed about you from your habits. It was 100% confident that I was male until I started searching for pregnancy stuff all the time.
If you're logged into your Google account when you watch a Youtube video, I'm guessing they don't have that much uncertainty in their assumption of your gender.
You are presuming that those stats are accurate though.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some women were miscategorised by whatever algorithmarked their gender.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some women were miscategorised by whatever algorithmarked their gender.
Of course they are. This is practically in the definition of stats. It isn’t a question of if it’s inaccurate, but of how inaccurate it is. A confidence of 95% isn’t much worse than 100% for purposes of advertising.
> The article makes exactly that point:
For everyone's reference, for some reason dang migrated this comment thread wholesale from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16510442
For everyone's reference, for some reason dang migrated this comment thread wholesale from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16510442
>>> I personally see the lack of women in STEM in Western countries as a good thing, it means that they are doing well economically and don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload.
I personally would like the same freedom applied to men.
I personally would like the same freedom applied to men.
1. Men seem to like dealing with things compared to dealing with people more than women do (on average).
2. Men know that women value their ability to provide. In other words, money/power/status/ambition makes men sexier (in the eyes of women). This doesn't apply to women (although you can make the reverse argument on why women spend more on makeup/clothing/skin- and hair-care.
2. Men know that women value their ability to provide. In other words, money/power/status/ambition makes men sexier (in the eyes of women). This doesn't apply to women (although you can make the reverse argument on why women spend more on makeup/clothing/skin- and hair-care.
Yeah, that quote seems a bit sexist when you think about it.
The article contends that women tend to focus more on communal well-being while men focus on individual success. Yet an increase in women in governance and leadership has gone hand in hand with a decrease in male success in education, lower mental health for men and a family court system entirely biased in favor of mothers. These are issues the female gender activists do not seem interested in fixing. These people have influence themselves because... they asked for it, after men built technology and infrastructure that made the traditional labor role of women in the home obsolete.
I really don't buy this notion that women look out for all. I don't doubt that they believe it, but I have yet to see women come together en masse to redress imbalances they benefit from. Unlike the entirety of civilization, built by men, many at the very bottom rungs of the ladder.
I really don't buy this notion that women look out for all. I don't doubt that they believe it, but I have yet to see women come together en masse to redress imbalances they benefit from. Unlike the entirety of civilization, built by men, many at the very bottom rungs of the ladder.
"don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload."
I wouldn't call my STEM education tedious. Demanding more like it. Tedious gives impression of rote learning and abstract concepts separated from practical considerations and lack of joy of discovery and achievement. I could call the curriculum of my MSc in physics a decade ago by many things (I was straining at several points) but not "tedious".
Perhaps there is regional variation in the curriculum, culture and method of education (my university training was in Finland).
I wouldn't call my STEM education tedious. Demanding more like it. Tedious gives impression of rote learning and abstract concepts separated from practical considerations and lack of joy of discovery and achievement. I could call the curriculum of my MSc in physics a decade ago by many things (I was straining at several points) but not "tedious".
Perhaps there is regional variation in the curriculum, culture and method of education (my university training was in Finland).
Curricula in Tunisia are taught in French (the native language being Arabic). Access to engineering schools is achieved through CPGE[0] which have an intensive workload. I am sure people who went through that will attest to how tedious it is.
0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_pr%C3%A9paratoire_aux_g...
0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_pr%C3%A9paratoire_aux_g...
My international observations completely reaffirm this. Let's consider the differences in just the Arabic world.
I have spent considerable time in Kuwait. It is interesting to see many women continuing to wear the niqab that so many western societies find repressive and possibly sexist opposed to the more western accepted hijab. This garment is not forced by society or law, but is typically a choice of the head of household and the person themselves. I can tell you from my own observations with the wealth and freedoms available women absolutely do not appear strongly repressed in Kuwait and there also does not appear to be ambitious career goals among many (certainly not all) women in Kuwait. Compared to Americans Kuwaitis are lavishly wealthy.
Contrast that with Kuwait's southern neighbor Saudi Arabia where my mother-in-law has been more than once on business. Women were given the right to drive themselves for the first time only about 6 months ago, and the niqab garment is absolutely not a choice. Compared to Kuwait and much of the rest of the world women are heavily repressed in general freedoms. Despite all the limits there appeared a very strong effort of women to wanting to join the work force and take on ambitious careers. Compared to Americans the average Saudi is in a similar place economically, but I suspect the difference is observable societal pressures cause Saudi women to more frequently question their independence and work ethic compared to US women.
What I gather from those observations is that when you have anything you want and almost no performance pressures you simply won't have the motivation to work towards ambitious objectives. On the other hand when societal pressure to perform and compete is high a person is heavily motivated to work towards ambitious objectives.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia make for good extreme examples, but I would say the stated conclusions apply universally. The US is still so far away from achieving gender parity.
In the US many women do not feel pressured to invest in career ambitions when conservative traditional social pressures say they can marry a man who does feel so pressured and still enjoy median financial results. The important thing about that statement is that it isn't claiming anything about a willingness to work, but is merely talking about investment in a future career. This thinking is largely to blame for far fewer women entering advanced careers of an abstract nature and why in many locales many women are more eager to take on menial work compared to males.
Another interesting observation is the US military. Women are a minority population in the military, but compared to US culture at large the military is generations ahead in achieving gender parity with regards to compensation, opportunities, and so forth. Pay in the military is based upon rank and years of service where subjective qualities have no influence. In about the past year and half the military eliminated its final restrictions upon women entering elite combat training. Promotions are more objective in the military compared to the corporate world (I am a military officer in the reserves and a senior developer at a fortune 50 company).
What makes the US military interesting to observe is performance of women compared to men in the force generally given that women are a minority population. My personal observation is that given a more challenging opportunity and sufficient preparation women tend to fail substantially less compared to males as ratio of sex to total population. In other words once societal pressures are normalized for individual pressures of success/failure take over and individual pressures are high given that there is already an investment in a career.
I have spent considerable time in Kuwait. It is interesting to see many women continuing to wear the niqab that so many western societies find repressive and possibly sexist opposed to the more western accepted hijab. This garment is not forced by society or law, but is typically a choice of the head of household and the person themselves. I can tell you from my own observations with the wealth and freedoms available women absolutely do not appear strongly repressed in Kuwait and there also does not appear to be ambitious career goals among many (certainly not all) women in Kuwait. Compared to Americans Kuwaitis are lavishly wealthy.
Contrast that with Kuwait's southern neighbor Saudi Arabia where my mother-in-law has been more than once on business. Women were given the right to drive themselves for the first time only about 6 months ago, and the niqab garment is absolutely not a choice. Compared to Kuwait and much of the rest of the world women are heavily repressed in general freedoms. Despite all the limits there appeared a very strong effort of women to wanting to join the work force and take on ambitious careers. Compared to Americans the average Saudi is in a similar place economically, but I suspect the difference is observable societal pressures cause Saudi women to more frequently question their independence and work ethic compared to US women.
What I gather from those observations is that when you have anything you want and almost no performance pressures you simply won't have the motivation to work towards ambitious objectives. On the other hand when societal pressure to perform and compete is high a person is heavily motivated to work towards ambitious objectives.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia make for good extreme examples, but I would say the stated conclusions apply universally. The US is still so far away from achieving gender parity.
In the US many women do not feel pressured to invest in career ambitions when conservative traditional social pressures say they can marry a man who does feel so pressured and still enjoy median financial results. The important thing about that statement is that it isn't claiming anything about a willingness to work, but is merely talking about investment in a future career. This thinking is largely to blame for far fewer women entering advanced careers of an abstract nature and why in many locales many women are more eager to take on menial work compared to males.
Another interesting observation is the US military. Women are a minority population in the military, but compared to US culture at large the military is generations ahead in achieving gender parity with regards to compensation, opportunities, and so forth. Pay in the military is based upon rank and years of service where subjective qualities have no influence. In about the past year and half the military eliminated its final restrictions upon women entering elite combat training. Promotions are more objective in the military compared to the corporate world (I am a military officer in the reserves and a senior developer at a fortune 50 company).
What makes the US military interesting to observe is performance of women compared to men in the force generally given that women are a minority population. My personal observation is that given a more challenging opportunity and sufficient preparation women tend to fail substantially less compared to males as ratio of sex to total population. In other words once societal pressures are normalized for individual pressures of success/failure take over and individual pressures are high given that there is already an investment in a career.
[deleted]
>I personally see the lack of women in STEM in Western countries as a good thing, it means that they are doing well economically and don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload.
Are you saying that there's an inherent difference between men and women regarding science/technology?
Because I didn't get into science/technology because of money. I got in because it's fucking awesome.
Are you saying that there's an inherent difference between men and women regarding science/technology?
Because I didn't get into science/technology because of money. I got in because it's fucking awesome.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Similar argument for mandatory draft.
I think what's really missing from the discussion is the simple fact that if creative jobs (artist, writer) or less technical jobs paid as well as Soft Eng jobs then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company. Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company. Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
It's kind of sad. There are jobs I'd rather do, but I've consciously chosen one that I like less because it has more status and pays more, in significant part because it has improved my dating prospects.
It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the pay gap/high status job gap comes from different sociosexual incentives, though I have a hard time imagining a good way to measure that.
It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the pay gap/high status job gap comes from different sociosexual incentives, though I have a hard time imagining a good way to measure that.
> It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the pay gap/high status job gap comes from different sociosexual incentives
Obviously this is highly speculative but for quite some time now I have the theory that the former Sowiet Union states (Russia et al) and large parts of Latin America don't progress as much simply because male financial success isn't tied as much to better dating options. At least to me as a traveler it seems that many men in those countries have a wide choice of attractive girls, regardless of how well they are off.
This would also explain the rise of the Chinese economy in the recent decades, as they have a surplus of men and I heard that they need to own at least a flat and a car to have chances on the dating market.
Obviously this is highly speculative but for quite some time now I have the theory that the former Sowiet Union states (Russia et al) and large parts of Latin America don't progress as much simply because male financial success isn't tied as much to better dating options. At least to me as a traveler it seems that many men in those countries have a wide choice of attractive girls, regardless of how well they are off.
This would also explain the rise of the Chinese economy in the recent decades, as they have a surplus of men and I heard that they need to own at least a flat and a car to have chances on the dating market.
> Sowiet Union states (Russia et al) and large parts of Latin America don't progress as much simply because male financial success isn't tied as much to better dating options. At least to me as a traveler it seems that many men in those countries have a wide choice of attractive girls, regardless of how well they are off.
I am from an ex-Soviet block country (Poland). I agree that people in here are less obsessed with success and money than the Westernerns. This also translates into dating/marriage choices of women.
Obviously, this is a huge generalization, but I think it can be justified by looking at our history. Over time, so much terrible things happened here that people learned not to create too strong attachments to material things and societial hierarchies (which disappear when you're invaded by another country). It was wiser to try to find joy in family, human connection and simple things that cannot be taken away from you so easily.
I am from an ex-Soviet block country (Poland). I agree that people in here are less obsessed with success and money than the Westernerns. This also translates into dating/marriage choices of women.
Obviously, this is a huge generalization, but I think it can be justified by looking at our history. Over time, so much terrible things happened here that people learned not to create too strong attachments to material things and societial hierarchies (which disappear when you're invaded by another country). It was wiser to try to find joy in family, human connection and simple things that cannot be taken away from you so easily.
Here in Lithuania that is true for the majority of people who don’t have money, however those that do and ‘new money’ are much more concerned with material wealth than those from more Western countries IMO.
I was working in Rome a few years ago and people there are very practical with cars, they are small and cheap.
On the other hand here they are very much status symbols. People like to drive big and powerful German cars - you would never see someone driving a Fiat Cinquecento, even though they are much more appropriate for wages here.
I was working in Rome a few years ago and people there are very practical with cars, they are small and cheap.
On the other hand here they are very much status symbols. People like to drive big and powerful German cars - you would never see someone driving a Fiat Cinquecento, even though they are much more appropriate for wages here.
> On the other hand here they are very much status symbols. People like to drive big and powerful German cars - you would never see someone driving a Fiat Cinquecento, even though they are much more appropriate for wages here.
Interesting. When I was visiting Malmo (in suposedly egalitarian Sweden) I was shocked about the amount of premium cars (Audis, BMWs etc.) on the streets. Seemed anything but egalitarian to me. I had similar impressions in Germany or the UK. It's interesting why Rome is different.
Interesting. When I was visiting Malmo (in suposedly egalitarian Sweden) I was shocked about the amount of premium cars (Audis, BMWs etc.) on the streets. Seemed anything but egalitarian to me. I had similar impressions in Germany or the UK. It's interesting why Rome is different.
Rome may be a bit of a bad example, as although it’s the capital of Italy, it isn’t that wealthy a city. However even on trips to other parts of the country (I was there for over a year) it appeared to be the same situation.
There’s definitely an advantage to having a small car in Italy (I had a Prius and it felt too big), but most people had cars that would even feel old here (where most people have 2nd or 3rd hand cars).
There’s definitely an advantage to having a small car in Italy (I had a Prius and it felt too big), but most people had cars that would even feel old here (where most people have 2nd or 3rd hand cars).
Poles often say that there is a tendency among Polish have-nots to be jealous of the haves.
...is there anywhere this is not true?
I wouldn't say exactly jealous - I'd say more often it's outrage about how a lot of those rich folks came to money - via crass worker exploitation (SE-Asia style) or stealing millions from the government. A rich person is often perceived as someone who you wouldn't want to hang round, as he/she's likely to be very morally dubious.
> At least to me as a traveler it seems that many men in those countries have a wide choice of attractive girls, regardless of how well they are off.
There are a few factors at play here.
At least in Poland women more often than men choose to leave rural areas in favor of cities and that results in city-dwelling populations dominated by women(often single) and rural population dominated by men(also single).
Also there's a social stigma connected to being a woman over 30 who is still single/childless.
Lastly in post-soviet countries men commit suicide significantly more often than women - often early in life - which further skewes the gender ratio.
Men here are still regarded as providers and status, or at least status signaling, matters - one obvious example is how much people(men) spend on cars.
There are a few factors at play here.
At least in Poland women more often than men choose to leave rural areas in favor of cities and that results in city-dwelling populations dominated by women(often single) and rural population dominated by men(also single).
Also there's a social stigma connected to being a woman over 30 who is still single/childless.
Lastly in post-soviet countries men commit suicide significantly more often than women - often early in life - which further skewes the gender ratio.
Men here are still regarded as providers and status, or at least status signaling, matters - one obvious example is how much people(men) spend on cars.
> [...] that results in city-dwelling populations dominated by women(often single) and rural population dominated by men(also single).
I'd love to live in a place where this were true. Which cities exactly have such thing going on?
> Also there's a social stigma connected to being a woman over 30 who is still single/childless.
Or is there?
Also, either there is stigma for being single woman or there are vast numbers of single women. Both at the same time cannot be true in even somewhat stable system, and it's hard to argue that Polish cities are in total chaos.
> Lastly in post-soviet countries men commit suicide significantly more often than women - often early in life - which further skewes the gender ratio.
Yes, because suicide is a primary or at least a major reason that men die (or die young).
I'd love to live in a place where this were true. Which cities exactly have such thing going on?
> Also there's a social stigma connected to being a woman over 30 who is still single/childless.
Or is there?
Also, either there is stigma for being single woman or there are vast numbers of single women. Both at the same time cannot be true in even somewhat stable system, and it's hard to argue that Polish cities are in total chaos.
> Lastly in post-soviet countries men commit suicide significantly more often than women - often early in life - which further skewes the gender ratio.
Yes, because suicide is a primary or at least a major reason that men die (or die young).
You're ignoring a lot of subtelties here.
> I'd love to live in a place where this were true. Which cities exactly have such thing going on?
Warsaw is a great example, but ironically these womens' standards are pretty high - all in all they didn't leave their 30k-something-souls towns for the Big City to marry a man who doesn't enjoy a decent social status himself.
> Or is there? Also, either there is stigma for being single woman or there are vast numbers of single women. Both at the same time cannot be true in even somewhat stable system, and it's hard to argue that Polish cities are in total chaos.
Anecdata: my sister was born in 86' and is currently single and childless, just like a few of her friends. On one hand they're pressured to do something about this, on the other there aren't many eligible bachelors available because well, they're taken. This song[0] illustrates this point beautifully.
Hell, the problem is so visible right now that a TV show dedicated to making couples out of (most of the time)well-off farmers and city-dwelling women[1] was created.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/FremantleMediaPoland
> I'd love to live in a place where this were true. Which cities exactly have such thing going on?
Warsaw is a great example, but ironically these womens' standards are pretty high - all in all they didn't leave their 30k-something-souls towns for the Big City to marry a man who doesn't enjoy a decent social status himself.
> Or is there? Also, either there is stigma for being single woman or there are vast numbers of single women. Both at the same time cannot be true in even somewhat stable system, and it's hard to argue that Polish cities are in total chaos.
Anecdata: my sister was born in 86' and is currently single and childless, just like a few of her friends. On one hand they're pressured to do something about this, on the other there aren't many eligible bachelors available because well, they're taken. This song[0] illustrates this point beautifully.
Hell, the problem is so visible right now that a TV show dedicated to making couples out of (most of the time)well-off farmers and city-dwelling women[1] was created.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/FremantleMediaPoland
> It's kind of sad. There are jobs I'd rather do, but I've consciously chosen one that I like less because it has more status and pays more, in significant part because it has improved my dating prospects.
How is that sad. You've actively decided to trade more of your effort to get more of other people's effort. Its a win win.
And you can stop at any time.
How is that sad. You've actively decided to trade more of your effort to get more of other people's effort. Its a win win.
And you can stop at any time.
Obviously that's a choice, and obviously I can choose to do otherwise at any time.
That said, it's a choice I didn't choose to have. I'd much sooner choose to live in a world where gender norms would allow me to both a) pursue the things I want to pursue and b) have as much dating success doing them as I do now (a fair amount, having led up to several successful long term relationships) instead of then (going months without a date while actively trying to date).
Additionally, I question the viewpoints of people who think that the pay gap come purely from evil men discriminating against deserving women instead of social norms that are enforced in significant part by women.
That said, it's a choice I didn't choose to have. I'd much sooner choose to live in a world where gender norms would allow me to both a) pursue the things I want to pursue and b) have as much dating success doing them as I do now (a fair amount, having led up to several successful long term relationships) instead of then (going months without a date while actively trying to date).
Additionally, I question the viewpoints of people who think that the pay gap come purely from evil men discriminating against deserving women instead of social norms that are enforced in significant part by women.
> That said, it's a choice I didn't choose to have. I'd much sooner choose to live in a world where gender norms would allow me to both a) pursue the things I want to pursue and b) have as much dating success doing them as I do now (a fair amount, having led up to several successful long term relationships) instead of then (going months without a date while actively trying to date).
I would also like to live in a world where I get to do whatever I want and get from other people whatever I want. However, we live in a world where we have to give and take, so we need to give something we dont want to give to take something we want..
I would also like to live in a world where I get to do whatever I want and get from other people whatever I want. However, we live in a world where we have to give and take, so we need to give something we dont want to give to take something we want..
Welcome to society with a million painters, sculptors, musicians, writers and scientists, but only a handful of janitors and software engineers.
You are assuming that we have few people who would actually enjoy being a janitor or plumber and I can assure you that's wrong. People don't go into those professions because of economic and societal pressures (something you are perpetuating by implying that tue aforementioned are not prestigious or 'good' professions). More over, my point is not that everyone should or would even want to become an artist. It is the fact that many people are not given a balanced choice.
You have a very weird definition of balanced choice. If I were given a choice between working or not and would receive full pay and benefits either way, I'd stop working. As much as I would like to be able to make such a choice, it's not a balanced one. The different pay and benefits are how we balance the choices to reflect not just your individual preferences but the needs of society.
I strongly disagree with the idea that pay reflects the needs of our society in any way.
"Needs" as in "need for entertainment", not "needs" as in "need for shelter".
More of a "we want this and thus we're willing to pay for it".
Do you really feel that society is equally well off whether I get a job or stay home doing nothing all day?
You are misunderstanding my position by assuming that "not working" is anywhere on the table. I believe that if people want to eat and are fully able then they should work. My lament is that the opportunity to choose one's path is not a balanced one. i.e.: I have to optimize for pay, for QOL, or hope for a balance between the two. The latter of course exists, but it's much rarer than "just" a 150k+ SoftEng job in CA.
You're not understanding my position. A choice in which you're paid equally to do whatever you most want to do or whatever society most needs you to do is not a balanced choice. There needs to be some weight toward the needs of society for a true balance. I was just using not working as an extreme example of this problem.
I'm sure you'd be much happier sculpting, but the consequences would be similar to you getting paid for doing nothing.
I'm sure you'd be much happier sculpting, but the consequences would be similar to you getting paid for doing nothing.
>the consequences would be similar to you getting paid for doing nothing
You're right in that I'm having trouble seeing your point because what you write doesn't follow at all. If I'm a sculptor I'm producing something. Arguably something that people want and are willing to pay at least some money for. I would even disagree that society needs me to do anything. Certainly it doesn't need me to be a software engineer - a large corporation needs me to do that so they can sell more features.
If I want to maintain a certain standard of living then in many cases I have a limited set of paths on how to achieve that. The balance comes in having more ways of reaching the same goal.
You're right in that I'm having trouble seeing your point because what you write doesn't follow at all. If I'm a sculptor I'm producing something. Arguably something that people want and are willing to pay at least some money for. I would even disagree that society needs me to do anything. Certainly it doesn't need me to be a software engineer - a large corporation needs me to do that so they can sell more features.
If I want to maintain a certain standard of living then in many cases I have a limited set of paths on how to achieve that. The balance comes in having more ways of reaching the same goal.
The large corporation needs you to be a software engineer so it can sell things that people want and are willing to pay money for. If you can sell your sculptures for as much as your software engineering job pays, you should do that. Otherwise, you're asking for society to subsidize your hobby in the same way that society would be subsidizing my hobbies if I were paid to stay home all day. I'd probably even sculpt sometimes if that were the case.
> I would even disagree that society needs me to do anything.
Then why shouldn't you receive a salary without doing anything?
Then why shouldn't you receive a salary without doing anything?
I don’t know about you specifically, but I’ve met enough people who would contribute more to society if they just stayed home. I think there is very little correlation between salary and use to society.
Do you agree that on average, society needs people to work? Do you agree that on average, society needs new software engineers more than it needs new sculptors?
A while back I used to say that I'd rather be a janitor (for offices, anyway) than do tech support for non-technical end users.
When I unexpectedly found myself presented with those two options, wouldn't you know it, I chose exactly how I said I would. I was happy with my choice, and if I found myself in the same situation I would make it again.
When I unexpectedly found myself presented with those two options, wouldn't you know it, I chose exactly how I said I would. I was happy with my choice, and if I found myself in the same situation I would make it again.
I'd love to be a janitor. You can clock out after 8 hours of work, and if you don't someone is paying you time and a half. Being a software engineer is a shit job because people expect you to "give it your all" which usually means spending all your time in the office.
I'm leaving my current company because they expected me to cancel planned trips, vacations, and time with friends simply because they can't plan anything. And management was openly resentful when I wouldn't. My twenties and thirties are the best years of my life and if you won't let me have them I'll find someone who will.
I'm leaving my current company because they expected me to cancel planned trips, vacations, and time with friends simply because they can't plan anything. And management was openly resentful when I wouldn't. My twenties and thirties are the best years of my life and if you won't let me have them I'll find someone who will.
From an n=2 sample size, both our office cleaners come in after their day jobs because they want to earn a bit of cash on the side. Absent a reward of some kind, it's hard to imagine why anyone would bother cleaning someone else's floor.
Absent a reward of some kind, it's hard to imagine why anyone would bother working in a lot of jobs
Sounds wonderful.
Only sounds wonderful until your toilet clogs up.
And gets worse when you try to use an app to report the clog, only to find that the internet pipes are also clogged.
> I think what's really missing from the discussion is the simple fact that if creative jobs (artist, writer) or less technical jobs paid as well as Soft Eng jobs then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That's largely a function of markets. You make it sound like it's a policy of some kind, or some kind of social problem that needs fixing. Also, you yourself are guilty of exaggerating the value of money.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
Who's judging you? Some people might, but what do you care? Associate with people that value similar things, not with people whose highest values are cars and money.
> I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company.
Again with the money. If you want to be a sculptor, be a sculptor.
> Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
Set up? Nothing is "set up". You seem to be living under the impression that there's this abstract looming thing called "society" that lords over the affairs of man, and that you are this lone ego occupying its center. Society is the set of individual human beings in a network of a variety of relationships. Money doesn't fall from the sky. Who's going to pay you for your sculptures? Are people supposed to pay you just so you can do what you want, market demand be damned?
(Btw, some sculptors make ludicrous amounts of money. Many probably make okay money, though apparently the avg. salary for sculptors, painters and illustrators in Delaware is the same as the average for software engineers.)
That's largely a function of markets. You make it sound like it's a policy of some kind, or some kind of social problem that needs fixing. Also, you yourself are guilty of exaggerating the value of money.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
Who's judging you? Some people might, but what do you care? Associate with people that value similar things, not with people whose highest values are cars and money.
> I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company.
Again with the money. If you want to be a sculptor, be a sculptor.
> Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
Set up? Nothing is "set up". You seem to be living under the impression that there's this abstract looming thing called "society" that lords over the affairs of man, and that you are this lone ego occupying its center. Society is the set of individual human beings in a network of a variety of relationships. Money doesn't fall from the sky. Who's going to pay you for your sculptures? Are people supposed to pay you just so you can do what you want, market demand be damned?
(Btw, some sculptors make ludicrous amounts of money. Many probably make okay money, though apparently the avg. salary for sculptors, painters and illustrators in Delaware is the same as the average for software engineers.)
> Who's judging you?
Women.
https://mobile.twitter.com/simonsarris/status/95977643265320...
I know lots of men who would love a simple extremely frugal lifestyle with early retirement, but work stressful (and well paying jobs) to secure a date.
Women.
https://mobile.twitter.com/simonsarris/status/95977643265320...
I know lots of men who would love a simple extremely frugal lifestyle with early retirement, but work stressful (and well paying jobs) to secure a date.
Your friends really should be looking to date people whose values are more inline with their own then.
It doesn't work that way.
Then it's also probably not going to work out anyway.
Look around your female friends: how many of them haven't "fallen" into vocational/traditional roles, being bankrolled by their husband?
Unlike you, how many of them 'failed' to plan a lucrative career, who conveniently married a husband who didn't fail to plan? Or does the number of women outearning their SOs in your social group approach 50%?
I'd wager the attitudes about men's and their resources that you state to abhor, are quietly shared by a lot more of your female friends than you care to accept, to a greater or lesser extent.
Unlike you, how many of them 'failed' to plan a lucrative career, who conveniently married a husband who didn't fail to plan? Or does the number of women outearning their SOs in your social group approach 50%?
I'd wager the attitudes about men's and their resources that you state to abhor, are quietly shared by a lot more of your female friends than you care to accept, to a greater or lesser extent.
>how many of them haven't "fallen" into vocational/traditional roles, being bankrolled by their husband?
One. Also my only religious friend and I think her religion is the factor here.
(You're also assuming all my friends are into the "husband" thing, I have proudly single by choice friends and queer friends too)
>how many of them 'failed' to plan a lucrative career, who conveniently married a husband who didn't fail to plan?
None had zero career planning. Some of them their plans haven't quite worked out for them as they would have hoped though. Same with some of my male friends too though. It's pretty 50/50 among couples that I am friends which person has more of a "career" vs "job." I even had a female friend nearing 40 who just started college. One of my friends who works low paying jobs but is married to a doctor paid the bills for 8 years so he could go to college then medical school.
In my own marriage I (female) am the "simple extremely frugal lifestyle with early retirement" one and my husband much more of a spender. He also earns less money than me.
So, yes, it does "work that way," but first you must realize that women are humans too and not just fuckholes you pay for.
One. Also my only religious friend and I think her religion is the factor here.
(You're also assuming all my friends are into the "husband" thing, I have proudly single by choice friends and queer friends too)
>how many of them 'failed' to plan a lucrative career, who conveniently married a husband who didn't fail to plan?
None had zero career planning. Some of them their plans haven't quite worked out for them as they would have hoped though. Same with some of my male friends too though. It's pretty 50/50 among couples that I am friends which person has more of a "career" vs "job." I even had a female friend nearing 40 who just started college. One of my friends who works low paying jobs but is married to a doctor paid the bills for 8 years so he could go to college then medical school.
In my own marriage I (female) am the "simple extremely frugal lifestyle with early retirement" one and my husband much more of a spender. He also earns less money than me.
So, yes, it does "work that way," but first you must realize that women are humans too and not just fuckholes you pay for.
It seems you've really gone down the rabbit hole with your reply and I'm not sure why.
Money is incredibly important and valuable in our society. We've largely arranged our society around acquiring it, spending it, saving it and (sometimes to a sickening degree) glorifying it. Please see the fact that most people spend roughly 4,000 hours a year in their pursuit for money.
The rest of your post seems a bit incoherent to me. My original post was not a demand or a policy prescription; just wistful thinking. If pressed for something even more specific I would say: "It would be great if there was a more concrete path coupled with high demand for creative careers as there is for writing more code."
Out of curiosity I did look up average sculptor salaries in CA, but they are more than half that of an average software engineer so I guess I'll still be heading in to work on Monday ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Money is incredibly important and valuable in our society. We've largely arranged our society around acquiring it, spending it, saving it and (sometimes to a sickening degree) glorifying it. Please see the fact that most people spend roughly 4,000 hours a year in their pursuit for money.
The rest of your post seems a bit incoherent to me. My original post was not a demand or a policy prescription; just wistful thinking. If pressed for something even more specific I would say: "It would be great if there was a more concrete path coupled with high demand for creative careers as there is for writing more code."
Out of curiosity I did look up average sculptor salaries in CA, but they are more than half that of an average software engineer so I guess I'll still be heading in to work on Monday ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Who's judging you? Some people might, but what do you care?
Women do and I care because I like sex. When you have a luxury downtown apartment with a view and a sports car, it's playing the game on easy mode.
Women do and I care because I like sex. When you have a luxury downtown apartment with a view and a sports car, it's playing the game on easy mode.
Why do you want to waste your time with the kind of woman who would only speak to you if you have a luxury downtown apartment and sports car if you don't want those things for yourself? Sounds like a recipe for resentment and unhappiness. Why not aim to have sex with women whose values more align with your own?
- A woman who earns more than her husband
- A woman who earns more than her husband
The type of women I attracted tend to be type A and career oriented. I think they are the ones who want to be with someone with aligned values. Maybe they see material wealth as a signal for career success?
I do, but it's a lot easier to pick from a non-empty set. Just because they're initially attracted by superficial things (and probably subconsciously) doesn't make them bad people, any more than I'm a bad person for noticing a woman's chest size before learning about her values.
It feels like you're making the assumption that women who would be attracted/impressed by/enjoy luxury things are somehow shallow or maybe gold diggers. The truth is that status (or the potential for it) factors very highly into how humans pick mates. Luxury things are an easy proxy for status, your personal ambitions, and success. And yes, status can be displayed via other means if a person has social standing or does something our society considers cool (ex: rockstar).
I guess what I'm saying is that, whatever personal situation, I doubt you would be interested in a man who just lazed around the couch all day watching Netflix, playing video games, and having little ambition beyond that.
I guess what I'm saying is that, whatever personal situation, I doubt you would be interested in a man who just lazed around the couch all day watching Netflix, playing video games, and having little ambition beyond that.
[deleted]
I think you are reading too much in the parent. Maybe the parent meant that the debate around various gender gaps are not that much about equality and more focused on the high levels status.
just an interpretation
just an interpretation
Same here. I’d have a hard time making half as much doing anything else. If I could, I would program as a hobby instead of the other way around. I consider software development low QOL as a full time job.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
They don't. They judge the success by the succession of success. Money is just a byproduct and used as proxy. Perhaps that's more pronounced where-ever you are. But boasting about money increases the chances that it will be lost soon.
They don't. They judge the success by the succession of success. Money is just a byproduct and used as proxy. Perhaps that's more pronounced where-ever you are. But boasting about money increases the chances that it will be lost soon.
I would disagree that our society (presumably, North American society) judges a man's success solely by his wealth. Our society values men who are responsible - who can provide the best life for their family and protect them. I imagine if you had a ton of wealth but spent it only on yourself and didn't take care of your family, society would not deem you a success.
I'm pretty sure as long as you drove around in the right car and lived in the right house while you neglected your family, society would still see you as successful.
I wish it weren't the case but it seems to be reality.
I wish it weren't the case but it seems to be reality.
At a superficial level you would appear to be successful, as anyone who doesn't know you just sees the house and the car. As soon as anyone heard that you spend all your money on yourself and let your family eat scraps, I think most people would hate you. So the question is, do you care more about what some random stranger thinks about you or what people who actually know you think about you?
If your family ate foie gras from golden plates, people would hate you, too. Success and approval are two different things. Someone may think that you are successful, but using that success in an irresponsible manner.
I think it is just OPs wording that got me arguing this point: "a man's success in life". Not a man's success in gaining material wealth. The argument I was trying to make (rather poorly it seems) is that people don't normally measure life success solely by the number in your bank account when you die, there are other measures as well.
why don't you have a choice?
Everybody gets paid the same, without any consideration to their productivity, or the level and scarcity of their skills.
Congratulations, you’ve invented communism.
Congratulations, you’ve invented communism.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Market forces decide what people get paid. The poster I replied to is suggesting that instead people should just do what ever jobs they enjoy, and should be paid some amorphous idea of what they ‘deserve’. That’s exactly what communism is.
Generic ideological tangents are off topic on HN.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=generic%20ideological&sort=byD...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=generic%20ideological&sort=byD...
Dang, while perhaps the poster could have crafted their comment more carefully, I'm having a hard time understanding the line you are drawing. It seems a bit arbitrary.
I very much appreciate all the hard work you do here, btw. HN is my favorite place to discuss things online. I also understand the difficulty of not letting the place get overrun with unproductive political debates. I just think we have to be careful to not unreasonably single out certain topics in a way that may seem confusing or arbitrary.
If it was solely the unnecessary snark and lack of good faith, then I think I understand. But by referring specific content in the comment, it becomes less clear.
I very much appreciate all the hard work you do here, btw. HN is my favorite place to discuss things online. I also understand the difficulty of not letting the place get overrun with unproductive political debates. I just think we have to be careful to not unreasonably single out certain topics in a way that may seem confusing or arbitrary.
If it was solely the unnecessary snark and lack of good faith, then I think I understand. But by referring specific content in the comment, it becomes less clear.
"Generic ideological tangent" isn't an arbitrary construct; it's as well-defined as the other moderation concepts we work with (e.g. "civility", "substantiveness"). If not more so.
Such discussions are off topic for a reason: they are repetitive. Worse, they turn into flamewars (case in point, see the replies to my comment downthread). This is emphatically not what HN is for. The value of this site—intellectual curiosity—withers under repetition and dies under attack.
Take a look at the comments through the search link I posted. There's a long history there. If you then still don't understand why we're doing this, I'd be happy to discuss it further (but you'll probably need to email [email protected]).
Such discussions are off topic for a reason: they are repetitive. Worse, they turn into flamewars (case in point, see the replies to my comment downthread). This is emphatically not what HN is for. The value of this site—intellectual curiosity—withers under repetition and dies under attack.
Take a look at the comments through the search link I posted. There's a long history there. If you then still don't understand why we're doing this, I'd be happy to discuss it further (but you'll probably need to email [email protected]).
Thanks for the response. I see where you are coming from.
We don't really need to discuss it further, but, to clarify, I think the thing that caught my eye is when a reasonable discussion naturally starts to veer towards these more difficult, ideological topics.
Those topics aren't meaningless. It is just very hard to discuss them productively on a public internet forum, as you noted. However, it is also not unexpected for productive, intellectual discussions of other issues to meaningfully brush up against these "ideological tangents" on occasion.
The part that seems a little arbitrary to me is to say that the discussion can't proceed further purely based on content alone, as opposed to instead drawing the line based on content-neutral criteria such as civility, substantiveness, novelty, etc.
But I understand that this desire may be overly idealistic in a public internet forum, and certain pragmatic lines may need to be drawn. It sounds like might be the case on HN. Again, thanks for engaging with me on this.
We don't really need to discuss it further, but, to clarify, I think the thing that caught my eye is when a reasonable discussion naturally starts to veer towards these more difficult, ideological topics.
Those topics aren't meaningless. It is just very hard to discuss them productively on a public internet forum, as you noted. However, it is also not unexpected for productive, intellectual discussions of other issues to meaningfully brush up against these "ideological tangents" on occasion.
The part that seems a little arbitrary to me is to say that the discussion can't proceed further purely based on content alone, as opposed to instead drawing the line based on content-neutral criteria such as civility, substantiveness, novelty, etc.
But I understand that this desire may be overly idealistic in a public internet forum, and certain pragmatic lines may need to be drawn. It sounds like might be the case on HN. Again, thanks for engaging with me on this.
I’ve made an entirely valid and civil criticism of another posters utopian musings, and all you’re interested in is trying to figure out how you could twist it into being against the rules. Why don’t you contribute something to the conversation instead?
You posted a well-worn ideological trope. HN is no place for those. If it helps, that's not because we're communists. We moderate the same way when people want to drag in "property is theft" or any of the other dead horses.
Such arguments are always the same and only interest a small minority of HN users who want to yell at each other while calling it "ideas". These threads get dumber and nastier as they grow, and drown out the quieter, thoughtful things we actually do want here. Therefore we have to moderate them. Intellectual curiosity is a fragile thing, like a garden that needs protecting from off-road vehicles.
Perhaps you're the rare person who really has something original to say about political ideologies, and I missed that in your HN comments. In that case I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. Nevertheless an internet forum is not the medium for such ideas—even if you're deep and original, others won't be, and the space is too constrained for all but shallow comments on grand topics. So if that's the case, you should write a book instead.
Such arguments are always the same and only interest a small minority of HN users who want to yell at each other while calling it "ideas". These threads get dumber and nastier as they grow, and drown out the quieter, thoughtful things we actually do want here. Therefore we have to moderate them. Intellectual curiosity is a fragile thing, like a garden that needs protecting from off-road vehicles.
Perhaps you're the rare person who really has something original to say about political ideologies, and I missed that in your HN comments. In that case I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. Nevertheless an internet forum is not the medium for such ideas—even if you're deep and original, others won't be, and the space is too constrained for all but shallow comments on grand topics. So if that's the case, you should write a book instead.
> Why don’t you contribute something to the conversation instead?
It seems that you might be unaware that the user 'dang' is a moderator.
It seems that you might be unaware that the user 'dang' is a moderator.
I know who Daniel is. We’re all free to disagree with the moderators, you know?
Your comment is close to being right (or maybe is right), but this was not the point of the parent poster.
The poster was asserting that market forces don’t determine remuneration according to their satisfaction, and that instead people should be remunerated according to what the poster thinks they deserve. How is criticising this as communism not valid?
> The poster was asserting that market forces don’t determine remuneration according to their satisfaction, and that instead people should be remunerated according to what the poster thinks they deserve.
No. lobotryas was saying that we're only discussing shortage of women writing software because it's a well-paying office job. If anything else was kept intact, but either the job was low wage or other jobs that women currently choose much more often were paid as highly, we wouldn't have the discussion about too little women writing software.
> How is criticising this as communism not valid?
Because it was not the lobotryas' point.
No. lobotryas was saying that we're only discussing shortage of women writing software because it's a well-paying office job. If anything else was kept intact, but either the job was low wage or other jobs that women currently choose much more often were paid as highly, we wouldn't have the discussion about too little women writing software.
> How is criticising this as communism not valid?
Because it was not the lobotryas' point.
You are reading much too deeply into my comment and thereby missing the point entirely. Dozzie's reply covers my intended point very well. Mine was not a post saying "things should be a certain way" or even "our society's values are misaligned". No, I just observed that if we want a certain standard of living in a certain location then the path for us is all but predetermined and that this is a bummer.
Congratulations, you don't know what communism is.
Please don't reply to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. This one breaks at least three.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Lots of artists and writers get paid far more than software engineers.
> I, as a software engineer, demand to be paid as much as writer J.K. Rowling.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
probably about the same number of basketball players, and boxers, and CEO's.
The point is, it is uncommon to reach that level in those given fields because the average person gets average pay.
The point is, it is uncommon to reach that level in those given fields because the average person gets average pay.
In a way it is. Look at what some actors/musicians and athletes get paid, it depends on what people want to buy the most/what entertains them the most. The fact that society doesn't pay more for sculpture, writing (unless you get really famous) or whatever speaks to our preferences. Or speaks to what has already been established as profitable.
Another way to look at the same question: Why are there so many males in these fields?
My one data point: I'm basically in it for the money. In fact the state, through child support enforcement, made it very clear that at least in my case, the meaning of my life is and shall be, to earn as much money as possible to support the children. If I had a spouse supporting me, I would probably be doing something fun and artistic. (Not that there aren't fun and artistic elements in my work sometimes. And not that there aren't elements of methodical discipline required to be a good artist.)
My one data point: I'm basically in it for the money. In fact the state, through child support enforcement, made it very clear that at least in my case, the meaning of my life is and shall be, to earn as much money as possible to support the children. If I had a spouse supporting me, I would probably be doing something fun and artistic. (Not that there aren't fun and artistic elements in my work sometimes. And not that there aren't elements of methodical discipline required to be a good artist.)
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I wanted to ask your opinion since you're in a similar state to me. For my first marriage I felt like my wife was with me and part of building my career. So I felt no pause whatsoever about our differing pay scale. Now that I've been divorced 6-ish years differential income is one of my biggest hurdles. I feel like virtually any long term relationship I'm in will mean significantly subsidizing someone. From an economic standpoint there's so very few options where we're on an even footing. And frankly, women who make the same as me are likely going to be looking for mates who make even more. It's made it very difficult to find a relationship I feel is equitable and/or equally beneficial to us both. I've tried to "get over it" but haven't been able to. Women are fine, but women + the state is terrifying to me. Now I have a daughter to protect my assets for. Have you struggled with any of the same things?
Well it sounds like you were traumatized by the experience a bit. Me too! But do I struggle with it still? I'd say yes and no. Shit I hate mobile. Hang on I'll move to a real keyboard, BRB
OK. When I met my current wife, who is much more supportive than the first one, I didn't even have a bank account and was living paycheck to paycheck, and literally cashing them at the check-cash place. She also was just scraping by, as a student. So that put us on a more even footing economically I guess. We're also neither one, especially materialistic in the first place. So I think that allowed us to not put money concerns first & foremost in our evaluation of each other. Which I would say might be a prerequisite or at least a help, for that mysterious and random-ass thing called love to take hold.
(On the other hand we probably both could tell that both of us were smart & discerning enough to know how to get money and what to do, and not do, with it if we had it. And we were probably both giving off innumerable small cues that we each came from the same socioeconomic class, which might be more important than anybody wants to admit, especially after the previous paragraph.)
Anyway we just went with it. Over time I continued on my technical path until I was making decent money, while she continued on her non-technical one and basically... isn't. So now, strictly speaking, I'm "subsidizing" her. So am I struggling with it? Kind of. But she helps me too in a lot of ways that are both practical and intangible. I dunno at some point you have to make the decision to be generous. If you find someone you can trust, that is a lot easier. But then again trusting is kind of up to you too. I mean there's a certain level of basic trustworthiness needed on their end obviously, but you do sort of have to decide to trust someone. Or don't, but it sounds like you do want to. Anyway bottom line, you can't live your life in fear of what might happen, that's too shitty!
So I guess the TL;DR from all this nonsense is: find someone from your own socioeconomic class but otherwise ignore money. Make sure you share important values, and establish trust. Don't let money fears make you lonely.
Final note: Those who want money from you, that's all they can get from you is money. Which at the end of the day is not much.
OK. When I met my current wife, who is much more supportive than the first one, I didn't even have a bank account and was living paycheck to paycheck, and literally cashing them at the check-cash place. She also was just scraping by, as a student. So that put us on a more even footing economically I guess. We're also neither one, especially materialistic in the first place. So I think that allowed us to not put money concerns first & foremost in our evaluation of each other. Which I would say might be a prerequisite or at least a help, for that mysterious and random-ass thing called love to take hold.
(On the other hand we probably both could tell that both of us were smart & discerning enough to know how to get money and what to do, and not do, with it if we had it. And we were probably both giving off innumerable small cues that we each came from the same socioeconomic class, which might be more important than anybody wants to admit, especially after the previous paragraph.)
Anyway we just went with it. Over time I continued on my technical path until I was making decent money, while she continued on her non-technical one and basically... isn't. So now, strictly speaking, I'm "subsidizing" her. So am I struggling with it? Kind of. But she helps me too in a lot of ways that are both practical and intangible. I dunno at some point you have to make the decision to be generous. If you find someone you can trust, that is a lot easier. But then again trusting is kind of up to you too. I mean there's a certain level of basic trustworthiness needed on their end obviously, but you do sort of have to decide to trust someone. Or don't, but it sounds like you do want to. Anyway bottom line, you can't live your life in fear of what might happen, that's too shitty!
So I guess the TL;DR from all this nonsense is: find someone from your own socioeconomic class but otherwise ignore money. Make sure you share important values, and establish trust. Don't let money fears make you lonely.
Final note: Those who want money from you, that's all they can get from you is money. Which at the end of the day is not much.
Non-US here. How is it that you are subsidizing here? Don't you share expenses?
Not OP but sharing expenses is not the same as splitting them down the middle. If one person makes $30k and the other makes $200k you're really not going to be able to split expenses unless the $200k person takes a major cut to their standard of living.
Her income is highly irregular and fairly scant, so my income is paying most of the expenses.
> I feel like virtually any long term relationship I'm in will mean significantly subsidizing someone.
I'm not divorced, but I had similar questions before my own marriage. In the end we moved forward on a more traditional basis, where we both acknowledge that we bring different things to the table, and we're OK with that (i.e. "equitable" as in "fair", but not "equitable" as in "equal").
I'm not divorced, but I had similar questions before my own marriage. In the end we moved forward on a more traditional basis, where we both acknowledge that we bring different things to the table, and we're OK with that (i.e. "equitable" as in "fair", but not "equitable" as in "equal").
In the unfortunate event that you get divorced you will find that only one of you will be expected to continue to provide value to the other.
I'm aware; it was probably the most dangerous decision I've made thus far in my life.
>women who make the same as me are likely going to be looking for mates who make even more
I'm wondering why you make that assumption? I'm asking as a woman who earns more than her husband. This hasn't matched my experience AT ALL from talking to other women either.
I'm wondering why you make that assumption? I'm asking as a woman who earns more than her husband. This hasn't matched my experience AT ALL from talking to other women either.
As a male in his early thirties, who have been to several OKCupid dates, I can tell you that you are in a minority because you seem not to care much about your partner's earning power. Among the women I've met in those dates, at least 1 out of 3 will start conversation to find out how much I make in the first two or three dates; almost all of them will ask that question by the fifth date. I already wrote in my profile that I'm a programmer, so they could guess I make a decent amount of money. Still, they seem to be interested in finding out more about my income.
I, on the other hand, start to become very self-conscious about my income level and wonder whether it is too low sometimes. I also have a close friend whose girlfriend broke up with him after dating for >5 years because he was just a mere accountant (making just about 70k at the time) and she, after grad school, got a six-figure job as a risk analyst at a big bank. She said to him that she wanted a more ambitious man who can support her and make sure they can afford a nice house with a yard and a nice car. That's the reality most men have to deal with.
I, on the other hand, start to become very self-conscious about my income level and wonder whether it is too low sometimes. I also have a close friend whose girlfriend broke up with him after dating for >5 years because he was just a mere accountant (making just about 70k at the time) and she, after grad school, got a six-figure job as a risk analyst at a big bank. She said to him that she wanted a more ambitious man who can support her and make sure they can afford a nice house with a yard and a nice car. That's the reality most men have to deal with.
I had a very similar problem with an abusive ex-. She tried to bully me into starting a business in an area I was (am) totally unsuited for (when I was too young to be doing anything like that anyway), as well as studying for a career that she felt would earn "enough" money, all while helping herself to my bank account. She also spent up big on several occasions, and then came crying to me when the debt collectors came knocking. I was young and naive, so I think you can see how that ended up.
She eventually left me because I wasn't trying hard enough to please her; I was studying from 8am to 5pm, then working until 9pm, and she wanted me to stop eating lunch for several months so I could smother her with roses. I suggested that she should go fk herself because I was working 13 hours a day plus catching up on study at weekends while she did four hours on a Sunday if she felt like it, so she wandered off with .. well, a pile of my furniture and equipment, plus a few grand from my bank account and my one (emergencies only) credit card, as well as my overdraft, all of which took me a few years to pay back.
I sure that not all women are like this, and I wonder if the masculine version of this is the trophy wife. Most of the women I've known have been the opposite. Maybe you could adjust your profile in some way to discourage that sort of approach?
She eventually left me because I wasn't trying hard enough to please her; I was studying from 8am to 5pm, then working until 9pm, and she wanted me to stop eating lunch for several months so I could smother her with roses. I suggested that she should go fk herself because I was working 13 hours a day plus catching up on study at weekends while she did four hours on a Sunday if she felt like it, so she wandered off with .. well, a pile of my furniture and equipment, plus a few grand from my bank account and my one (emergencies only) credit card, as well as my overdraft, all of which took me a few years to pay back.
I sure that not all women are like this, and I wonder if the masculine version of this is the trophy wife. Most of the women I've known have been the opposite. Maybe you could adjust your profile in some way to discourage that sort of approach?
Maybe I should amend my advice to include a warning not to look for someone who's looking for someone. Thinking about criteria and whatnot, trying to control or assert rationality on the process never leads to anyplace good, in my experience.
> She said to him that she wanted a more ambitious man
Most likely that was not the only reason why she dumped him. May be she wanted to have children and he was against it. May be he was not intellectually challenging enough.
Most likely that was not the only reason why she dumped him. May be she wanted to have children and he was against it. May be he was not intellectually challenging enough.
Women tend not to like to admit it, but the reality is that marrying a rich man is a common "career" ambition for many women globally.
Heterosexual men do not have that same option.
As for why an already wealthy woman would likely choose an even wealther man: I'm not sure how prevalent this is. If this does happen, I think it's an effect of the culture where men are expected to be the "provider", pay for everything, etc.
Men are expected to pay more for everything even in modern, progressive/feminist countries like Sweden. Last time I lived in Sweden, my girfriend at the time — well educated and quite progressive — expected me to pay more than my fair share even though she earned more than me. This is something you must do as a "gentleman".
Come to think of it, I had a girlfriend in California and she was the same.
Thinking more about it, dozens of examples are flooding into memory of wealthier women expecting me to pay more.
Heterosexual men do not have that same option.
As for why an already wealthy woman would likely choose an even wealther man: I'm not sure how prevalent this is. If this does happen, I think it's an effect of the culture where men are expected to be the "provider", pay for everything, etc.
Men are expected to pay more for everything even in modern, progressive/feminist countries like Sweden. Last time I lived in Sweden, my girfriend at the time — well educated and quite progressive — expected me to pay more than my fair share even though she earned more than me. This is something you must do as a "gentleman".
Come to think of it, I had a girlfriend in California and she was the same.
Thinking more about it, dozens of examples are flooding into memory of wealthier women expecting me to pay more.
>Heterosexual men do not have that same option.
Not true, I know a bunch of men who dropped out of the workforce due to laziness once they got married and had kids.
Not true, I know a bunch of men who dropped out of the workforce due to laziness once they got married and had kids.
Yes, this can happen. It doesn't invalidate my point though.
I am not accusing women of laziness, which is what you seem to be reading into this.
In the general case, societal expectation is that the man provides. It is an accepted and common "career option" for a woman (especially a good looking one) to simply meet a wealthy man.
The same is not true in reverse.
I am not accusing women of laziness, which is what you seem to be reading into this.
In the general case, societal expectation is that the man provides. It is an accepted and common "career option" for a woman (especially a good looking one) to simply meet a wealthy man.
The same is not true in reverse.
Admittedly I've never met a potentially dateable person that makes what I make. So I'm extrapolating from the rest of the data set. The stats say nearly 40% of households have women being the primary breadwinner. I personally do not know any of those 40% of households. Every single friend, extended family, etc. the woman has married up financially. I've personally heard at least a half dozen women make a derogatory comment about men they went on a date with because he made less money than them. Perhaps it's just my generation and this is really old news for younger people, but the culture does not seem to have caught up to rationality in my experience.
I presume that a big part of these 40% are single or single-parent households.
I'd wager (a little) that if you only consider (heterosexual) couples, then you will have mostly men making more money...
Not saying that that's good or bad...
I'd wager (a little) that if you only consider (heterosexual) couples, then you will have mostly men making more money...
Not saying that that's good or bad...
Well your personal experience doesn't at all match mine. Family, friends, coworkers, most of them are fairly 50/50 on which partner earns more. I don't know exact earnings, of course, but I have a fairly good idea - I know job titles, experience level, and places of employment. In my experience women looking to marry "into money" are very, very rare and people don't respect them very much. I'm in my mid-30s and live on the East Coast.
I knew going into the dating world that I would probably make more than most of my potential partners due to just numbers, I was unlikely to meet someone who I got along with that makes more than me because I make more money than most people. Since I already have/had all the money I need that didn't bother me in the least, either way I was looking for human companionship not a bank account.
I ended up marrying someone who has a good career but still earns less than I do.
I knew going into the dating world that I would probably make more than most of my potential partners due to just numbers, I was unlikely to meet someone who I got along with that makes more than me because I make more money than most people. Since I already have/had all the money I need that didn't bother me in the least, either way I was looking for human companionship not a bank account.
I ended up marrying someone who has a good career but still earns less than I do.
This is one of those areas where anecdata is misleading.
http://www.firstmet.com/dating-blog/online-dating-money-fact...
And this stays true after finding someone:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/articl...
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-inside-job/2008/05/...
http://www.firstmet.com/dating-blog/online-dating-money-fact...
And this stays true after finding someone:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/articl...
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-inside-job/2008/05/...
Both the second and the third link paint a much more balanced picture than I think you imply.
They both make the important point that there is no F to M wealth gap resentment in partnerships where the man takes on additional domestic responsibilities that are traditionally reserved for women. That makes intuitive sense both practically (bandwidth) and symbolically (fairness/partnership). The HBR/Herald thing goes into detail.
And the US News article points out the status quo has already grown to 20% female breadwinner households. If it wasn't a successful model, it probably wouldn't be growing in share.
They both make the important point that there is no F to M wealth gap resentment in partnerships where the man takes on additional domestic responsibilities that are traditionally reserved for women. That makes intuitive sense both practically (bandwidth) and symbolically (fairness/partnership). The HBR/Herald thing goes into detail.
And the US News article points out the status quo has already grown to 20% female breadwinner households. If it wasn't a successful model, it probably wouldn't be growing in share.
Hypergamy exists virtually across all cultures. Women date up.
[deleted]
My data point: I suspected that I'd work in software when I was about 10, and knew that it's what I'd go to college for when I was 15. If my wife was the breadwinner, it's what I'd still be doing (granted, less software that's useful for business, more emulation, game modding software, and reverse-engineering game engines). The money's a definite bonus, and it has made our lives much easier, but it's not why I chose my career.
I had a quick read of the actual paper (after seeing it covered much more thoroughly in The Atlantic last month). Two things that leapt out at my fairly untrained eyes are that the correlations are really weak, and there was no attempt to account for other factors which vary across the world.
If you look at the scatter plots and (visually, unscientifically!) pull out subsets of countries in the same region (southeast Asia, the nordics, mediterranean Europe, southeast Europe, etc), there appears to be no correlation between general equality and STEM bias. For example, Vietnam has about the same level of inequality as Thailand, but 50% more women STEM graduates. That makes me suspect that there's some other factor at play. I could be completely wrong about that - but i didn't see anything in the paper which rules it out. Please do correct me if i missed it - it was a quick read, i'm not a social scientist, and i have a cold.
If you look at the scatter plots and (visually, unscientifically!) pull out subsets of countries in the same region (southeast Asia, the nordics, mediterranean Europe, southeast Europe, etc), there appears to be no correlation between general equality and STEM bias. For example, Vietnam has about the same level of inequality as Thailand, but 50% more women STEM graduates. That makes me suspect that there's some other factor at play. I could be completely wrong about that - but i didn't see anything in the paper which rules it out. Please do correct me if i missed it - it was a quick read, i'm not a social scientist, and i have a cold.
> That makes me suspect that there's some other factor at play.
That gender preferences explain much of the STEM gender gap is worth reporting on, as the article does, because it's not well known. That doesn't mean there aren't other factors, which of course there are.
Susan Pinker even addresses the larger issue very specifically:
> Q: Are these differences the result of biological or cultural differences? A: I think that both play a role. It’s simplistic and scientifically untrue to say it’s one or the other.
That gender preferences explain much of the STEM gender gap is worth reporting on, as the article does, because it's not well known. That doesn't mean there aren't other factors, which of course there are.
Susan Pinker even addresses the larger issue very specifically:
> Q: Are these differences the result of biological or cultural differences? A: I think that both play a role. It’s simplistic and scientifically untrue to say it’s one or the other.
”If we focus our telescope on what men have traditionally valued, which is high-income and STEM jobs and long work-hours, say over 60 or 70 hours a week, then yes, women are not there, at 50/50, and I don’t think they will ever be—even if we had the most gender-neutral society possible. But if we aim our lens on lifespan, career satisfaction, and close personal relationships nurtured over decades—relationships that have been shown to protect cognition, resilience, and immunity—then men, on average, trail well behind women. If men want to live longer, happier lives, they have a lot of catching up to do. It all depends on the outcomes you value most.”
It’s extremely refreshing to see this discussed. It seems intersectional feminism is laser focused on prioritizing career and monetary success and nothing else. There’s so much more to life than spending your life earning a paycheck. Raising a healthy family, building a community and many other non-career based objectives seem entirely missing from the conversation. Instead the goal seems to be everyone becoming an office worker and mass consumer. I’d love to see other dimensions recognized as success.
It’s extremely refreshing to see this discussed. It seems intersectional feminism is laser focused on prioritizing career and monetary success and nothing else. There’s so much more to life than spending your life earning a paycheck. Raising a healthy family, building a community and many other non-career based objectives seem entirely missing from the conversation. Instead the goal seems to be everyone becoming an office worker and mass consumer. I’d love to see other dimensions recognized as success.
i dunno, i would argue that people generally do see these other things as successes. its just that paychecks are much more easily quantifiable/comparable that leads to a skew in emphasis.
If given the choice people will usually pick the field they find interesting. If however you live in an impoverished country where getting a job in a STEM field could be the ticket out, you are way more likely to consider picking those fields. My (original) country is rather poor for example, but the education is free and a lot of people in college that were studying with me picked EE & CS just because it could give them a good paying job, they didn't care about the field nor did they in most cases enjoy it all that much, those who didn't change their mindset usually didn't graduate or it took them more because they were forcing themselves, anyhow in those living conditions the male to female ratio in STEM fields was always close to 1 : 1. But that might not be the case were OP lives, because in a rich country people get to choose with far less pressure and in the end it still holds true that most girls just don't find those fields to be interesting.
I came here prepared to rant on the ridiculousness of typical modern journalistic attempts at explaining gender gaps while avoiding the taboo of biological influence.
This was a refreshing, relatively balanced perspective. I'm glad to see an article acknowledging both nature and nurture, and not blindly insisting that all differences are purely social constructs.
This was a refreshing, relatively balanced perspective. I'm glad to see an article acknowledging both nature and nurture, and not blindly insisting that all differences are purely social constructs.
Whenever people want to discuss nature along with nurture, I'm reminded of what Neil Degrasse Tyson said about biological influence on gender roles in science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Mwtkod_VM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Mwtkod_VM
All: some comments below were originally replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16510442, a WSJ op-ed by the same author. We merged the two threads.
So, for example, if you see quotes that aren't in the OP, it's because they came from the other OP.
So, for example, if you see quotes that aren't in the OP, it's because they came from the other OP.
"Given that there’s an overall female advantage in school—one largest in language courses, smallest in math courses, according to the paper—why isn’t there a corresponding advantage, in terms of pay and high-powered positions, for females later, at work?"
Maybe simply because the workplace has nothing to do with how school is organized?
Maybe simply because the workplace has nothing to do with how school is organized?
There’s definitely some truth to this. In my experience sales and negotiation skills play a huge part in compensation. I don’t recall those ever being taught in school. Also basic financial management is sorely lacking.
Also priorities and context/time. The benefits of doing well in school is different from the benefits of high pay and power positions and people have different goals in their teens/early 20s compared to their mid 20s-50s.
"But when they examined individual students’ strengths more closely, they found that the girls, though successful in STEM, had even higher scores in reading. The boys’ strengths were more likely to be in STEM areas. The skills of the boys, in other words, were more lopsided—a finding that confirms several previous studies.
If boys chose careers based on their own strengths—the approach usually suggested by parents and guidance counselors—they would be most likely to land in a STEM discipline or another field drawing on the same sorts of skills. Girls could choose more widely, based on their own strengths."
If boys chose careers based on their own strengths—the approach usually suggested by parents and guidance counselors—they would be most likely to land in a STEM discipline or another field drawing on the same sorts of skills. Girls could choose more widely, based on their own strengths."
And for a decade I had to swallow the "explanation" that men CONSPIRED to put women out of STEAM jobs... Who's gonna reimburse me?
What's more infuriating is that this explanation persisted in spite of women's gains in the fields of psychology, law, and medicine, just to name a few. The idea that computer science men perpetrated some special and successful conspiracy against women in their field that doctors and lawyers were unable to do in their field is so patently ridiculous as to be on the level of flat earthers.
Take it as a learning experience to never blindly listen to the proponents of the turbocharged game of gender politics. Like most things, ask who benefits from pushing a narrative and do your own independent research.
What does the income to children ratio look like for men and women? E.g. how does each extra dollar earned effect the number of children that men versus women can expect to have?
If you use education as a proxy for salary, more education for the man predicts slightly fewer children, but more education for the woman predicts _significantly_ fewer children. https://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/01/educational-attainmen...
I don’t think educational attainment would be a good proxy. A lot of the best jobs, like CEO or hedge fund manager, don’t require even a college degree.
For the same reason why there are more female kindergarten teachers than male ones. Equal distribution of gender across jobs is nonsense, equal opportunity is welcome though (see Scandinavian countries)
The bias against male early education teachers is strong. My girlfriend worked at bright horizons temporarily and most of parents would look at the male teachers as if they were a pedophil which really drives them out.
Yup. Even volunteering in the kids classroom (elementary) was an eye opening experience. It would be nuts to be under that much suspicion day in and out.
This is so sad to me, but my experiences volunteering as a male have been the same. Even though women are statistically more likely to be a child murderer, it's fine for women to be alone with children, where men are viewed as a liability any time they are alone with kids.
Not looking forward to that part of fatherhood once I have kids of my own.
Not looking forward to that part of fatherhood once I have kids of my own.
Yeah, because a child is much more likely to get molested than murdered. And that’s before taking into account that most child murders are probably committed by the child’s parents, not by teachers.
And most child molestations also happen from family, not teachers. Do you see his point now?
The only thing that matters is whether molestation by non-family members is common enough to not be a freak occurrence (which is what a non-family member murdering your child would be).
Speech Therapy also comes to mind. It’s almost exclusively female.
When I was at college, in a mainly male course (Mech Eng) our professors had already solved all social issues by establishing links with the Speech Therapy department (or maybe they made their first move, I don't know). Therefore all parties and social events were joint Mech Eng/Speech Therapy. It worked really well! Tho' I guess this is only really possible at a college that makes an effort to be 50:50 across its entire student population.
Did you mean "kindergarten teachers"?
What is the reason?
What is the reason?
And what is a reason that also accounts for the fact that in India, 80% of teachers are men (more than the overall proportion of men in the work force)?
because women in India dont have equality of opportunity? so not many get higher education and those who do probably go into tech or some high paying jobs and/or leave the country alltogether
[deleted]
Its cultural as well, in India specially the older generation it was expected that women stay at home and take care of the kids while the men work.
Huh That is weird, As an Indian I have to ask you to cite a source. My mom is a middle school teacher and I studied in the same school I remember the ratio of female to male teachers at around 7:1 and similar ratios were through out schools in the city
yes, fixed, actually kindergartners was autosuggested by Firefox autocorrect
Do you really mean “equality of opportunity?” It seems self-evident that the term requires substitutability: someone would have the same experience going into STEM if you switched around the gender.
My recollection of engineering school was that the experience was not substitutable. The five women in a class did not have the same experience as the 45 men. For example, as a man I never tried to make a professional connection with someone, but then realized that they wanted a date instead.
My recollection of engineering school was that the experience was not substitutable. The five women in a class did not have the same experience as the 45 men. For example, as a man I never tried to make a professional connection with someone, but then realized that they wanted a date instead.
It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Surely, we need to optimize for population-level happiness or something like it, and it hardly seems evident that this is compatible with optimizing for identical experiences. Besides, who is to say that "professional loneliness" is worse than the "personal loneliness" that your male cohorts experience? Do women generally want to trade easy access to optimal partners to avoid the tedium of negotiating relationship ambiguity? Even if they do want that, are they taking for granted the current balance (all groups are prone to think the grass on the other side is greener, after all). Are women even worse off overall in the first world? Men are more likely to be victims of almost every kind of violence, to be falsely convicted, to die younger, to die at the workplace, to lose child custody battles, to pay more in divorces, drafted into war, etc. Are these issues overall better than the issues women have to deal with? Is it safe to assume that the epistemological institutions charged with answering these questions (the media and social sciences) are trustworthy, given that they skew hard to one side of the political spectrum?
I really don't know the answer, but I'm disappointed that these questions are so rarely broached in national debate. It seems like the epistemological institutions (universities, newsrooms, etc) responsible for addressing these questions prefer to ignore these questions and impugn the moral credentials of anyone who tries to answer them (if indeed these questions are invalid, surely an explanation would be more effective and expedient than an inquisition).
I really don't know the answer, but I'm disappointed that these questions are so rarely broached in national debate. It seems like the epistemological institutions (universities, newsrooms, etc) responsible for addressing these questions prefer to ignore these questions and impugn the moral credentials of anyone who tries to answer them (if indeed these questions are invalid, surely an explanation would be more effective and expedient than an inquisition).
When it comes to happiness, it is really interesting the choices people make.
Thought experiment: in an ideal world, what is the preference that leads to 100/0 split in career choice? By that I mean in an ideal world, by how much does someone have to prefer career A over career B before there is a 100% chance people choose A? At an 80-20 preference for A, surely 100% of people choose A - why would you choose B when you overwhelmingly prefer A? But what about 60-40? Of even 51-49?
Unlike say eating lunch, where you have 300 odd per year, which means you can have Thai 200 times, Italian 100 and other things the rest, given how costly most careers are to establish - University is time AND money, and progressing the career ladder is time - I think a rather small preference, closer to 51-49 than than 60-40, is going to lead, in an ideal world, to 100-0 A over B. Because why would anyone choose a lesser preference?
In an unideal world, where the cost of in income over a lifetime is large, job prospects limited and risks of failing large, preference will be negated, muted or reversed. In an ideal world, that tiny preference is going to really matter.
TL;DR Happiness is as much a measure of what you can reasonably choose from as what you actually choose.
Thought experiment: in an ideal world, what is the preference that leads to 100/0 split in career choice? By that I mean in an ideal world, by how much does someone have to prefer career A over career B before there is a 100% chance people choose A? At an 80-20 preference for A, surely 100% of people choose A - why would you choose B when you overwhelmingly prefer A? But what about 60-40? Of even 51-49?
Unlike say eating lunch, where you have 300 odd per year, which means you can have Thai 200 times, Italian 100 and other things the rest, given how costly most careers are to establish - University is time AND money, and progressing the career ladder is time - I think a rather small preference, closer to 51-49 than than 60-40, is going to lead, in an ideal world, to 100-0 A over B. Because why would anyone choose a lesser preference?
In an unideal world, where the cost of in income over a lifetime is large, job prospects limited and risks of failing large, preference will be negated, muted or reversed. In an ideal world, that tiny preference is going to really matter.
TL;DR Happiness is as much a measure of what you can reasonably choose from as what you actually choose.
The experiences or feelings of individuals are not what define equal opportunity. Are the entrance examinations (if any) the same for everyone? Are the tuition fees (if any) the same for both genders? Are the curriculum and facility access the same for everyone? If yes to all theses questions, equal opportunity is already implemented.
The fact that feelings are subjective doesn’t mean that you can’t draw objective conclusions about things that affect peoples’ feelings.
For example, kids who feel ostracized won’t do well in school. By your definition, we could have schools where, say, left handed people are systematically ostracized, but those kids would still have equality of opportunity.
You’re just arbitrarily defining “equality” based on the degree of equal treatment that you think society should have to provide to people. But your definition defies “equality” as a mathematical concept.
For example, kids who feel ostracized won’t do well in school. By your definition, we could have schools where, say, left handed people are systematically ostracized, but those kids would still have equality of opportunity.
You’re just arbitrarily defining “equality” based on the degree of equal treatment that you think society should have to provide to people. But your definition defies “equality” as a mathematical concept.
Equality as a mathematical construct doesn't have a place in this debate; there are too many variables affecting lifestyle that are geographic, temporal, genetic and random. You'd need more than a personsworth of resources to achieve that sort of equality for every person.
Feelings and experiences are very real and can be evidence of a problem. However to act on them we need some sort of evidence that is present in the observable world, otherwise we are setting people up to give up quickly and report they feel bad rather than trying to solve their own problems.
It is a tightrope to walk, but feelings need to be treated simultaneously with respect and cynicism. Biasing the world in favour of strongly emotioned people at the expense of stoics is not an improvement.
Feelings and experiences are very real and can be evidence of a problem. However to act on them we need some sort of evidence that is present in the observable world, otherwise we are setting people up to give up quickly and report they feel bad rather than trying to solve their own problems.
It is a tightrope to walk, but feelings need to be treated simultaneously with respect and cynicism. Biasing the world in favour of strongly emotioned people at the expense of stoics is not an improvement.
It's funny that you chose the ostracized example as I was bullied myself in high school. This did not prevent me for succeeding way more than any of them at university, nor make me hate a very general and large group of people. The dice were piped way before by the both the cultural capital of my parents and by the genetics lottery. If you want a total outcome of equality and behavior of people, you need bio-engineering to lower differences from the start. Maybe even clones, so you are sure people are 100% equal at the starting line. This is of course not the society I want.
And if you put the reasoning even further, you need to actually suppress sexes as well. They are at the source of the problem after all. And this is technically feasible with assisted reproductive technics. Of course, the unneeded sex is the male one, you just keep one or two at hand. Then it will be 100% female everywhere at every jobs, isn't that wonderful? But again, not the future I want.
But then, not every job is equal, right? Why a doctor earn more than a nurse? Why does some work 70+ hours and other 35? It's inequal and injust. But as all these jobs are needed but different to keep the system running, the only solution is to suppress jobs altogether. Then we back at a pre-pre-historic stage. And then maybe we will live in the bliss of the True Equality Attained (albeit without Internet to congratulate ourselves).
Back to reality. Your comment also shows how you put the blame on "society". You can pass laws and regulations to influence the society, but reengineering it totally from the micro-level of individuals is not realistic at all. However, it was tested for 4 decades in USSR and China and the results are telling.
And if you put the reasoning even further, you need to actually suppress sexes as well. They are at the source of the problem after all. And this is technically feasible with assisted reproductive technics. Of course, the unneeded sex is the male one, you just keep one or two at hand. Then it will be 100% female everywhere at every jobs, isn't that wonderful? But again, not the future I want.
But then, not every job is equal, right? Why a doctor earn more than a nurse? Why does some work 70+ hours and other 35? It's inequal and injust. But as all these jobs are needed but different to keep the system running, the only solution is to suppress jobs altogether. Then we back at a pre-pre-historic stage. And then maybe we will live in the bliss of the True Equality Attained (albeit without Internet to congratulate ourselves).
Back to reality. Your comment also shows how you put the blame on "society". You can pass laws and regulations to influence the society, but reengineering it totally from the micro-level of individuals is not realistic at all. However, it was tested for 4 decades in USSR and China and the results are telling.
The obsession with equality is disturbing and, ironically, shows a hatred for diversity. The fact that we're not all the same is what makes the market possible. The obsession with income equality across occupations is also grotesquely rooted in a worship of money.
Differences in income are not a problem per se. If there is a problem, the biggest one is poverty, another is the way in which the ultra-rich use their money to gain power over lots of people. The former is not unrelated to the latter. The discussion should shift away from the self-indulgent paranoia and petty jealousies of upper middle class navel-gazers and focus on these more pressing issues.
Differences in income are not a problem per se. If there is a problem, the biggest one is poverty, another is the way in which the ultra-rich use their money to gain power over lots of people. The former is not unrelated to the latter. The discussion should shift away from the self-indulgent paranoia and petty jealousies of upper middle class navel-gazers and focus on these more pressing issues.
Your claim doesn't pass my smell test because every individual will have a unique experience. You may have wanted to add the term "on average", but I understand that's a problematic expression presently.
Maybe my English is off there, I meant that there should be no restrictions based on gender for jobs/studies etc. I think you get my point. Everybody should have the same options to choose from
“We won’t formally discriminate against you” is a pretty watered definition of “equality.” It’s like saying everyone has an equal chance to win the race” because the rules allow anyone to win. But there could still be rocks in one of the lanes and not in the others. For a race, nobody would say each racer had an equal chance unless there was substitutability: your race experience is the same no matter which lane you start in.
But that is not only about gender, discrimination is everywhere...male as female suffer from that
Its not evenly distributed by field. I wouldn’t say men have “equality of opportunity” when it comes to say being kindergarten teachers.
Equal lanes is impossible to accomplish, the're just too many variables.
What makes more sense is focusing on the best possible path forward for everybody, or creating the opportunity for the racer to be as fast as he can be, independent of the speed of other racers.
What makes more sense is focusing on the best possible path forward for everybody, or creating the opportunity for the racer to be as fast as he can be, independent of the speed of other racers.
> “We won’t formally discriminate against you” is a pretty watered definition of “equality.”
Disagree.
> It’s like saying everyone has an equal chance to win the race” because the rules allow anyone to win
That's pretty much the definition of equal chance.
> But there could still be rocks in one of the lanes and not in the others.
Could. Maybe. But, staying in the metaphor: it's both exceedingly rare for there to be rocks in one lane and not another, and exceedingly obvious if it is the case.
And nobody assumes that there are rocks because there are clear winners and losers in races. Everybody assumes that the person who won was fastest.
But for some bizarre reason in other fields, we not just assume that there being winners means there must be rocks, we absolutely insist that that is the only possible explanation and vilify people who say "well, maybe the person who won was fastest?"
Disagree.
> It’s like saying everyone has an equal chance to win the race” because the rules allow anyone to win
That's pretty much the definition of equal chance.
> But there could still be rocks in one of the lanes and not in the others.
Could. Maybe. But, staying in the metaphor: it's both exceedingly rare for there to be rocks in one lane and not another, and exceedingly obvious if it is the case.
And nobody assumes that there are rocks because there are clear winners and losers in races. Everybody assumes that the person who won was fastest.
But for some bizarre reason in other fields, we not just assume that there being winners means there must be rocks, we absolutely insist that that is the only possible explanation and vilify people who say "well, maybe the person who won was fastest?"
> Could. Maybe. But, staying in the metaphor: it's both exceedingly rare for there to be rocks in one lane and not another, and exceedingly obvious if it is the case.
It is obvious if you’re not willfully blind. How many women have to tell stories of, e.g., trying to make professional connections only to have a coworker make a sexual advance on them instead before you’ll believe that there’s rocks in their lane?
It is obvious if you’re not willfully blind. How many women have to tell stories of, e.g., trying to make professional connections only to have a coworker make a sexual advance on them instead before you’ll believe that there’s rocks in their lane?
Well yes, you are being willfully blind
(a) Anecdotes != data
(b) You cannot assume that a man in the same situation would have made a successful professional connection
(c) In fact, the woman, if she isn't entirely daft, will have additional levers to pull
(d) You might have noticed "staying in the metaphor"
(a) Anecdotes != data
(b) You cannot assume that a man in the same situation would have made a successful professional connection
(c) In fact, the woman, if she isn't entirely daft, will have additional levers to pull
(d) You might have noticed "staying in the metaphor"
(a) Ah yes, the conversation-stopping killer of thousands upon thousands of Hacker News threads. Can I get a published study on whether this is a good cultural norm for a discussion forum?
One thing that bothers me is that fact that STEM degrees are consistently more difficult. Sure, there's a lot to learn, and the amount has increased as we've moved forward, but the same should be true of an English major. There has been an explosion of writing and more than ever to learn about.
It feels like we must be letting the liberal arts majors down by setting lower expectations.
It feels like we must be letting the liberal arts majors down by setting lower expectations.
Expectations are in relation with the money involved.
Even in engineering for instance, mechanical engineering was way more strict and difficult than CS, as screwing up industrial machines or physical artifacts (at school and on the job) had a bigger impact than bugs in a CRUD app.
I think as long as the English course is not directly linked to an activity that costs to screw up, (like law school for instance) expectations won’t change.
Even in engineering for instance, mechanical engineering was way more strict and difficult than CS, as screwing up industrial machines or physical artifacts (at school and on the job) had a bigger impact than bugs in a CRUD app.
I think as long as the English course is not directly linked to an activity that costs to screw up, (like law school for instance) expectations won’t change.
That's true in the case of English, but some of the "easy" majors tend to include things like business and teaching, where you directly get responsibility for other people. If the knowledge has value, we should be trying to cram it in, but we don't.
I wonder if Google would ever bring the author of this book on to their campus for a talk about some of the biological differences between the sexes? I'd love to be in the audience for that presentation.
This is an interview with Susan Pinker. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16510442 is an op-ed by Susan Pinker. I'm going to merge these threads as soon as I've eaten breakfast. Which article is better?
Edit: the Nautilus article wins. We moved most comments from the other thread hither.
Edit: the Nautilus article wins. We moved most comments from the other thread hither.
WSJ article can be read at https://outline.com/7vHrgS
My impression is that in the West, there used to be more women in computer science (than there are now) at least until sometime in the 80s, if not a bit later.
In the current climate, I'd suggest approaching such data with a pinch of salt. Historically, computer work originated in Electrical Engineering field. Dedicated Computer Science departments appeared later on. It is entirely possible that focusing on "people with Computer Science degrees in the '70s" to give a skewed perspective of the period workplace demographics.
There are a number of articles on this theme from 2014. Here's one: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
Pinch of salt. The data for electrical engineering is conspicuously missing. Furthermore, the article mentions two universities, Carnegie Mellon University and Johns Hopkins University. The CMU CS department was founded in 1988 [0] and JHU CS was founded in 1986 [1]. The article claims peak female ratio of enrollment in CS in 1984, before at least two prestigious CS departments were even founded.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_School_of_Comp...
[1] https://www.facebook.com/pg/jhuengineering/about/
Edit. The NPR article [2] links to the raw NSF data [3].
We can also observe a decline in CS BS female enrollment, from 12k in 1984 [peaking at 15k in 1986, 2003, 2004] to 7k in 2010. Unclear what the causes are, but we can't dismiss the shifts in CS meaning itself that happens during this period. Alas, in the current climate, it is unlikely we can have an unbiased public analysis of this trend.
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
[3] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/content.cfm?pub_id=4...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_School_of_Comp...
[1] https://www.facebook.com/pg/jhuengineering/about/
Edit. The NPR article [2] links to the raw NSF data [3].
EE gender data for 1984:
BS, M: 19,252 F: 2,289
MS, M: 5,081 F: 438
PhD, M: 579 F: 14
CS gender data for 1984:
BS, M: 20,369 F: 12,066
MS, M: 4,379 F: 1,811
PhD, M: 258 F: 37
We can also observe a decline in CS BS female enrollment, from 12k in 1984 [peaking at 15k in 1986, 2003, 2004] to 7k in 2010. Unclear what the causes are, but we can't dismiss the shifts in CS meaning itself that happens during this period. Alas, in the current climate, it is unlikely we can have an unbiased public analysis of this trend.
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
[3] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/content.cfm?pub_id=4...
> Alas, in the current climate, it is unlikely we can have an unbiased public analysis of this trend.
Presumably, like most phenomena, it involves a variety of factors.
Presumably, like most phenomena, it involves a variety of factors.
Because "programming" back in the 60s and 70s was considered data entry and part of secretarial work.
Do we really have to discuss this every single week? It's the same thing over and over.
The best theory is based on the fact that males can have an unlimited number of children while females can only have one every nine months.
Hence, being an extremely sexually successful male is much more rewarding for the propagation of their genes than being an extremely sexually successful female.
Thus, males evolved to take more risks than females since there is a much bigger payoff for them: if a male can become an "omnipotent king" he can father children with every woman and spread his genes a lot, while a female "omnipotent queen" still can only make one child for every nine months.
Hence, males have more variance, meaning that the top in any field are very likely to be males, but also there are going to be much more men who are extremely unsuccessful.
This also means that women are probably better off on average, since psychological (as opposed to genetic-propagation-related) utility is logarithmic and thus reducing variance is advantageous for the individual.
Hence, being an extremely sexually successful male is much more rewarding for the propagation of their genes than being an extremely sexually successful female.
Thus, males evolved to take more risks than females since there is a much bigger payoff for them: if a male can become an "omnipotent king" he can father children with every woman and spread his genes a lot, while a female "omnipotent queen" still can only make one child for every nine months.
Hence, males have more variance, meaning that the top in any field are very likely to be males, but also there are going to be much more men who are extremely unsuccessful.
This also means that women are probably better off on average, since psychological (as opposed to genetic-propagation-related) utility is logarithmic and thus reducing variance is advantageous for the individual.
Even though the stereotype of STEM is single men who cannot get dates? That does not sound like "omnipotent king", but it does sound like a story we might tell ourselves.
As someone who grabbed coffee with women who churned through a lot of coffee dates with dudes from Amazon, I concur. My current partner had 3-4 coffee dates lined back to back every weekend. Other girls told me similar stories. I could tell when someone tried to slot me into one of her slots and I didn't appreciate it. My buddy in SF went through the same thing. Single women are so efficient in tech dominated areas like the Silicon Valley and Seattle.
PS one of the most entertaining things to do is grab the girl's phone and read through the messages on her dating app. We men write some hilariously shitty messages. None of us are becoming an omnipotent king anytime soon.
PS one of the most entertaining things to do is grab the girl's phone and read through the messages on her dating app. We men write some hilariously shitty messages. None of us are becoming an omnipotent king anytime soon.
Here's an idea: Don't invade someone's privacy like that.
Lol we are laughing about it together. Or do you mean the poor omnipotent Kings? In all fairness there is probably some poor gal out there mocking my bad tinder lines too. One even sent me a reply asking if my stupid line ever worked on anyone. That may have happened more than once.
A lady engineer told me something similar, that she got into CS because as the only female she immediately became cool. Seems like a smart move. A sizable portion of the CS class will go on to become reasonably wealthy, and a female engineer will have her pick due to the lack of competition.
How does this comment relate to any issue raised in the article?
I can't read the article (paywall), so in classic HN style I'll just comment on the title.
The NSF keeps track of "Science and Engineering Degrees" in higher-education in the US, which basically translates to STEM degrees [0]. Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, 50% of STEM bachelor's degrees are awarded to women [1], and 40% of STEM phds are awarded to women [2]. However, CS and engineering stand out: they are closer to 20% (for both bachelors and phds). So this isn't really a STEM issue, it's a CS and engineering issue.
[0] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/#chp2
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/tab11.pdf
[2] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/tab25.pdf
(For some reason, these tables group CS and math together. There's a separate table that breaks them down, and shows that most of the gender imbalance comes from CS; math is closer to balanced.)
The NSF keeps track of "Science and Engineering Degrees" in higher-education in the US, which basically translates to STEM degrees [0]. Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, 50% of STEM bachelor's degrees are awarded to women [1], and 40% of STEM phds are awarded to women [2]. However, CS and engineering stand out: they are closer to 20% (for both bachelors and phds). So this isn't really a STEM issue, it's a CS and engineering issue.
[0] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/#chp2
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/tab11.pdf
[2] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/tab25.pdf
(For some reason, these tables group CS and math together. There's a separate table that breaks them down, and shows that most of the gender imbalance comes from CS; math is closer to balanced.)
> in classic HN style I'll just comment on the title.
Please don't! That makes HN worse. It leads to the sort of generic, predictable threads that sink discussion into mediocrity and which we're most trying to avoid here. Plenty of explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... if anyone wants more.
(People generally post workarounds to paywalls in the threads, which means that it's ok to submit such articles, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 and in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.)
Please don't! That makes HN worse. It leads to the sort of generic, predictable threads that sink discussion into mediocrity and which we're most trying to avoid here. Plenty of explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... if anyone wants more.
(People generally post workarounds to paywalls in the threads, which means that it's ok to submit such articles, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 and in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.)
Someone ping this over to YouTube's recruiters
Note that "Women naturally choose STEM less" and "The women who choose STEM are eventually driven out due to it's culture" are not mutually exclusive processes.
I know four women with CS degrees who all realized that they hated programming for a living less than two years into their careers. Two of them were done after their first internship, before they'd graduated and started looking for their first full-time job.
All four of them switched to design, and they're all Photoshop/Sketch experts now. They're extremely happy with their decisions. They stayed in tech, and still work/interact with the "culture" on a daily basis.
I wonder how many people just assume they were driven out when they find out that they did CS but didn't pursue a career in software development/engineering, when in reality they just didn't like it and wanted to do something else.
All four of them switched to design, and they're all Photoshop/Sketch experts now. They're extremely happy with their decisions. They stayed in tech, and still work/interact with the "culture" on a daily basis.
I wonder how many people just assume they were driven out when they find out that they did CS but didn't pursue a career in software development/engineering, when in reality they just didn't like it and wanted to do something else.
I wonder how much of it is how they were managed. I'm a man working in a technical field, but I tend to be more emotional/intuitive than other people I find in Engineering roles(yes, even women). But other engineers tend to assume that I'm motivated by the same things they are when that's patently false. I gravitate to the kinds of roles that your four examples gravitate to because there's more room for intuition and more opportunities to connect with people there than in software engineering.
The best manager I ever had was a woman, because she managed by connecting and by learning about me. Contrast this with the male engineer managers that I've had, who've all been average or sub-par because they assume that the only correct way to motivate me is to give me more money, and they assume that all I want to do is work on "interesting" problems. In short, they don't take the time to actually learn who I am or to connect with me, they just assume that I work exactly like them. It's a very cookie-cutter approach to management that fails to create diversity.
If your friends' management is similar then it doesn't surprise me that they left the field. The job I'm leaving made me question on a weekly basis whether I belonged in software engineering despite management telling me I was a good engineer repeatedly. And I'm a lot more interested in the types of problems UI/UX designers solve than I am in solving traditional software problems.
Luckily I'm moving to a company where management is less "technical" and more intuitive/connected. If it pans out I'll stay in the field.
The best manager I ever had was a woman, because she managed by connecting and by learning about me. Contrast this with the male engineer managers that I've had, who've all been average or sub-par because they assume that the only correct way to motivate me is to give me more money, and they assume that all I want to do is work on "interesting" problems. In short, they don't take the time to actually learn who I am or to connect with me, they just assume that I work exactly like them. It's a very cookie-cutter approach to management that fails to create diversity.
If your friends' management is similar then it doesn't surprise me that they left the field. The job I'm leaving made me question on a weekly basis whether I belonged in software engineering despite management telling me I was a good engineer repeatedly. And I'm a lot more interested in the types of problems UI/UX designers solve than I am in solving traditional software problems.
Luckily I'm moving to a company where management is less "technical" and more intuitive/connected. If it pans out I'll stay in the field.
Except there’s plenty of evidence for the former, and close to none for the latter. STEM is a field that has embraced diversity and equality of outcomes, with a genuine sense of desperation. STEM and especially technology companies are completely dominated by liberal and feminist thought. Sure you can point to a couple of ‘bad apples’, but you can point to far more examples where those ideologies drive organisations decision making from the top down. Not only is the culture argument weak to begin with (any competitive environment is going to be hostile on some level, to everybody), but it’s entirely laughable to say this applies in STEM, an industry that has embraced ‘diversity’ above all else.
>Except there’s plenty of evidence for the former, and close to none for the latter
> Sure you can point to a couple of ‘bad apples’
> you can point to a couple of ‘bad apples’, but you can point to far more examples where those ideologies drive organisations decision making from the top down.
I sure would love to see some citations for those opinions.
> Sure you can point to a couple of ‘bad apples’
> you can point to a couple of ‘bad apples’, but you can point to far more examples where those ideologies drive organisations decision making from the top down.
I sure would love to see some citations for those opinions.
The evidence is clear in the choices people make. There are very clear gender differences in what people choose to study, and the jobs they subsequently pursue. You can’t simply blame ‘systemic oppression’ or ‘hostile environments’ for this, as our universities and tech giants all embrace liberalism and feminism to an extreme degree. How can environments that implement ‘safe spaces’, that provide systemic advantages to women, and that have 0 tolerance policies for anything that could be perceived as sexism possibly be perceived as hostile? Yet those environments are the norm now, and women are still far less interested in STEM than men.
Hmmm, not even anecdotal evidence.
Yes, decades of enrolment data is what we would call ‘empirical’.
>universities and tech giants all embrace liberalism and feminism to an extreme degree
I would say that's a bit...extreme. lol.
I would say that's a bit...extreme. lol.
Ya got me. “All” is a hyperbole. But it is undeniable that contemporary feminism dominates universities, you really have to be quite blind to miss that. It is also the dominant culture in Silicon Valley, of which Alphabet and Amazon are major proponents. Google pushes diversity so hard that it’s currently facing lawsuits claimings it’s diversity practices are illegal and discriminatory. Yet even after years of such practices taking place at google, it’s engineering workforce is still 80% male.
I would say it's reality.
I prefer my reality to be based on facts. But hey to each his own!
"Sure you can point to a couple of ‘bad apples’" - Literally every female colleague I know well enough to be comfortable talking about it has encountered more than a couple "bad apples".
I was referring to companies that are perceived to have ‘cultural issues’, like uber. Not companies that have a few dickheads working for them, which is going to be just about every company over a certain size. The presupposition is that there’s systemic oppression (which there isn’t), not that some people at work aren’t very nice.
And nearly every man I talk to has encountered terrible managers, working conditions etc.
This article still assumes that the preferences themselves are inherent rather than the result of gender socialization.
Even where you see girls excel more at verbal and arts and boys at STEM, how much of that is due to what they were encouraged to be interested in and spend their time on when younger?
I don't remember exactly which study it was, but there's evidence that in some cultures (IIRC China?) girls do better than boys at math. That suggests there's a significant cultural/social element at play.
Even where you see girls excel more at verbal and arts and boys at STEM, how much of that is due to what they were encouraged to be interested in and spend their time on when younger?
I don't remember exactly which study it was, but there's evidence that in some cultures (IIRC China?) girls do better than boys at math. That suggests there's a significant cultural/social element at play.
IIRC, boys and girls have similar overall mental abilities. There are a few specific abilities where boys are slightly better and a few specific abilities where girls are slightly better. But abilities are not the same as preferences.
Regarding preferences: boys and girls show distinct preferences for toys and style of play from an early age (basically, before they could possibly be socialized). Even chimpanzee children show distinct toy preferences by sex (and they match human toy preferences).
Speaking anecdotally: I often speculate that the only people who could possibly believe that boys and girls do not have fundamentally different preferences are the childless. I live in Portland, OR. This is one of the most liberal, politically correct subcultures in the entire world. My kids are enrolled in a program at the local park and the person administering the program made sure to specify their gender pronouns. They had a discussion about the gender of a species of worm that is a hermaphrodite. And yet, everywhere I go, the boys are into monster trucks and super heroes and the girls are into dolls and princesses.
As the culture wars have heated up over the last few years, I have started asking parents we encounter about how they socialized their kids. Basically ever single one tells the same story: we went out of our way to make everything as non-gendered as possible, but our boy wanted to play with trucks and our girl wanted to play with dolls.
Regarding preferences: boys and girls show distinct preferences for toys and style of play from an early age (basically, before they could possibly be socialized). Even chimpanzee children show distinct toy preferences by sex (and they match human toy preferences).
Speaking anecdotally: I often speculate that the only people who could possibly believe that boys and girls do not have fundamentally different preferences are the childless. I live in Portland, OR. This is one of the most liberal, politically correct subcultures in the entire world. My kids are enrolled in a program at the local park and the person administering the program made sure to specify their gender pronouns. They had a discussion about the gender of a species of worm that is a hermaphrodite. And yet, everywhere I go, the boys are into monster trucks and super heroes and the girls are into dolls and princesses.
As the culture wars have heated up over the last few years, I have started asking parents we encounter about how they socialized their kids. Basically ever single one tells the same story: we went out of our way to make everything as non-gendered as possible, but our boy wanted to play with trucks and our girl wanted to play with dolls.
Even boy and girl _monkeys_ display the same truck vs doll preference that human boys and girls display. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-pr...
A sample size of 11 males? With over 14 choices? Actually codifying 15 different possible behaviours from which an "interactions" score is determined by researchers? not blind, let alone double blind? It reminds me of the chocolate paper [1]
Come on! If you actually open the paper, https://michaelfergusonphd.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/sex-d...
You will see that the "total interactions" with boy toys is the same for male and female. You might say: No, the women's one is lower. Well, that's what error bars are for. Error bars tell you: Be honest, you actually don't know. So for all intents and purposes they are equal. It's also surprising that they are comparing humans and monkeys, but the don't use the same metric. The paper for humans uses "Mean seconds of play-time", but the study for monkeys had to come up with a new metric "total interactions" to achieve a similar looking graph. Why?
For the plush toy, the female result was 1.5 minutes, ... but the standard deviation was 3.8 minutes ... so ... what does that tell us? It tells me, design a better experiment!
Here's a better methodology: Take 2 "gendered" toys with accelerometers and take 200 monkeys one-by-one, with trackers. Then automatically measure (in a fully blind study) how long each monkey spends which each type of toy presented. I'm not saying the effect does not exist. But this paper does not show it does.
[1] https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choc...
Come on! If you actually open the paper, https://michaelfergusonphd.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/sex-d...
You will see that the "total interactions" with boy toys is the same for male and female. You might say: No, the women's one is lower. Well, that's what error bars are for. Error bars tell you: Be honest, you actually don't know. So for all intents and purposes they are equal. It's also surprising that they are comparing humans and monkeys, but the don't use the same metric. The paper for humans uses "Mean seconds of play-time", but the study for monkeys had to come up with a new metric "total interactions" to achieve a similar looking graph. Why?
For the plush toy, the female result was 1.5 minutes, ... but the standard deviation was 3.8 minutes ... so ... what does that tell us? It tells me, design a better experiment!
Here's a better methodology: Take 2 "gendered" toys with accelerometers and take 200 monkeys one-by-one, with trackers. Then automatically measure (in a fully blind study) how long each monkey spends which each type of toy presented. I'm not saying the effect does not exist. But this paper does not show it does.
[1] https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-choc...
I still laugh at the argument that there are fewer women in tech because computers were marketed as a toy for boys. The thing is: when I started with the computers (some thirty years ago) almost nobody had them at home in my country, and they sure were not advertised as any kind of toy for anyone. Actually, back then even the concept of advertising was new to us. Yet the computers at the university computer labs were all occupied by guys.
Interestingly enough my computer science teacher at the school was a woman. I am grateful to her, because she tught me to program without even having access to computer (the course was about basics: variables, algorithms, control flow, etc. By the time I was able to access the computer all I needed was syntax for that particular language).
My computer science teacher in the university was also a woman. And one of the best known computer science educator in my country, author of many books was also a woman.
And nobody thought that was somehow peculiar or strange.
My degree was in hard science (BS in chemistry and physics, then MS in physics and astronomy). I think the had about an equal split between men and women as our professors. Once again, nobody thought twice about that.
But it was still exclusively guys spending their free time in the computer labs.
But it was still exclusively guys spending their free time in the computer labs.
Everyone's preferences are going to have some social element. Why is this a bad thing? The only thing that should matter is that people are free to pursue whatever life they are interested in, whatever the reason.
In practice it's a problem because there are so many people who the the difference in numbers as an indicator of an inherent (i.e. biological) lack of aptitude. See also: Google Memo.
Socially influenced preferences aren't necessarily a bad thing in theory. Personally, as a woman in software, I loathe that we socialize our children to have different interests based on gender even when their aptitudes are the same. It means that a lot of girls who might find STEM careers fulfilling don't even consider investigating let alone pursuing them, because they think of STEM as being "not for me".
Socially influenced preferences aren't necessarily a bad thing in theory. Personally, as a woman in software, I loathe that we socialize our children to have different interests based on gender even when their aptitudes are the same. It means that a lot of girls who might find STEM careers fulfilling don't even consider investigating let alone pursuing them, because they think of STEM as being "not for me".
The fact that you currently understand that lower aptitude is not the reason there are fewer women in STEM, in spite of the numbers, tells me that this problem could be solved by giving people the correct facts regarding the situation and showing how the arguments for aptitude being the reason for the imbalance are flawed.
Secondly, there could very well be some evolutionary basis for differences in preferences between men and women when it comes to liking "things" vs "people" (in addition to culture being a factor - just want to note I'm not trying to argue there is no cultural factor here). I am currently reading a book called "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky that in one part discusses a study where they put chimps in a room full of toys and observed which type of toy the male and female chimps went for. If my memory is correct, the female chimps more often went for the dolls and the male chimps went for the cars (I don't have the name/authors of the study handy, but I can dig it up. The fact that Sapolsky, a respected primatologist from Stanford, thinks this study is legitimate enough to mention in his book indicates to me that the study doesn't have any serious flaws). Clearly the female chimps were never culturally predisposed to prefer playing with dolls, so there is something else going on here.
Secondly, there could very well be some evolutionary basis for differences in preferences between men and women when it comes to liking "things" vs "people" (in addition to culture being a factor - just want to note I'm not trying to argue there is no cultural factor here). I am currently reading a book called "Behave" by Robert Sapolsky that in one part discusses a study where they put chimps in a room full of toys and observed which type of toy the male and female chimps went for. If my memory is correct, the female chimps more often went for the dolls and the male chimps went for the cars (I don't have the name/authors of the study handy, but I can dig it up. The fact that Sapolsky, a respected primatologist from Stanford, thinks this study is legitimate enough to mention in his book indicates to me that the study doesn't have any serious flaws). Clearly the female chimps were never culturally predisposed to prefer playing with dolls, so there is something else going on here.
> I don't remember exactly which study it was, but there's evidence that in some cultures (IIRC China?) girls do better than boys at math.
Nothing special about China there: girls do better than boys at math pretty much everywhere. But the difference (in girls' favor) is even bigger at verbal tasks. The article talks about this specifically, and the implications from it.
Aside from that, sure, preferences are influenced by both society and by biology. The article states that directly:
> "It’s simplistic and scientifically untrue to say it’s one or the other."
Nothing special about China there: girls do better than boys at math pretty much everywhere. But the difference (in girls' favor) is even bigger at verbal tasks. The article talks about this specifically, and the implications from it.
Aside from that, sure, preferences are influenced by both society and by biology. The article states that directly:
> "It’s simplistic and scientifically untrue to say it’s one or the other."
Cordola Fine's Delusions of Gender is an excellent counter to Pinker's naturalist essentialism.
Pinker tends to lean to the side of nature rather than nuture in debate around gender influence. The article assumes the readers believe the same. Perhaps Pinker's prior research justifies this language. But after reading Cordola Fine's works, which I think definitely throws salt on nature assumptions, id call assuming this language are held by most to be very bold of Pinker.
Pinker tends to lean to the side of nature rather than nuture in debate around gender influence. The article assumes the readers believe the same. Perhaps Pinker's prior research justifies this language. But after reading Cordola Fine's works, which I think definitely throws salt on nature assumptions, id call assuming this language are held by most to be very bold of Pinker.
Susan Pinker Vs Cordelia Fine:
"... educated women’s career trajectories often have a different shape—based on their wider interests and a common desire to have flexible or part-time work when their families are young—and an accelerated pace later on."
She's getting to a point I'd like to emphasize. A new pregnancy changes a woman into what's almost a third kind of biological human: a mother. A father? Meh.
But meanwhile, our economic paymasters can only promise a new mother "If you take an unpaid 6 mos absence, we'll probably hire you back for a full-time (only) position". This seems unfair at best, and diabolical at worst. But that's the US.
I'm struggling to get across my true thoughts on this, but I think we should pay more attention to the mother-child dynamic.
She's getting to a point I'd like to emphasize. A new pregnancy changes a woman into what's almost a third kind of biological human: a mother. A father? Meh.
But meanwhile, our economic paymasters can only promise a new mother "If you take an unpaid 6 mos absence, we'll probably hire you back for a full-time (only) position". This seems unfair at best, and diabolical at worst. But that's the US.
I'm struggling to get across my true thoughts on this, but I think we should pay more attention to the mother-child dynamic.
My knee jerk to the headline, "because they are taught to." More than just them, we teach each other that there has to be a reason. Often that it has to be a singular one.
It is tough, because headlines and short articles like this are easy to twist into misguided views. Too easy. And yet, I definitely want these fields researched. I can't imagine anyone doesn't want it. Having the patience to get real answers is not easy. :(
It is tough, because headlines and short articles like this are easy to twist into misguided views. Too easy. And yet, I definitely want these fields researched. I can't imagine anyone doesn't want it. Having the patience to get real answers is not easy. :(
>My knee jerk to the headline, "because they are taught to." More than just them, we teach each other that there has to be a reason.
More often than not, today, we teach each other that there can't possibly be a reason -- other than "taught to".
More often than not, today, we teach each other that there can't possibly be a reason -- other than "taught to".
Do we? I see more justifications on intrinsic differences than I see otherwise.
Back in the day or today? Because today you can even be fired for talking about intrinsic differences.
Let's put it this way: such talk wont make you very popular in the mainstream media and progressive urban folks. At best you have a chance on FOX and in the Bible Belt.
Let's put it this way: such talk wont make you very popular in the mainstream media and progressive urban folks. At best you have a chance on FOX and in the Bible Belt.
The problem, I think, is that you are phrasing it such that the intrinsic differences are assumed.
Could there be intrinsic differences? I don't know anything that precludes them. The evidence seems fairly strong otherwise, though. Lots of it. More, most of the people rhetorically asking about the differences, do so in a way that is clearly not in good faith.
Now, I am a little worried about the damage for people looking in good faith. But, by and large, the evidence doesn't appear to support this actually being a problem. Most of the complaints about not being "very popular" with these sorts of views are fairly weak when put into perspective of actual persecution.
Edit: Forgot to explicitly answer. I meant today. I have seen a lot of search for intrinsic differences. I'll try and pay more attention for a bit. I realize confirmation bias can easily paint what I see.
Could there be intrinsic differences? I don't know anything that precludes them. The evidence seems fairly strong otherwise, though. Lots of it. More, most of the people rhetorically asking about the differences, do so in a way that is clearly not in good faith.
Now, I am a little worried about the damage for people looking in good faith. But, by and large, the evidence doesn't appear to support this actually being a problem. Most of the complaints about not being "very popular" with these sorts of views are fairly weak when put into perspective of actual persecution.
Edit: Forgot to explicitly answer. I meant today. I have seen a lot of search for intrinsic differences. I'll try and pay more attention for a bit. I realize confirmation bias can easily paint what I see.
>The problem, I think, is that you are phrasing it such that the intrinsic differences are assumed.
I happen to assume them, based on everything we know about biology and various species, and how human life on earth developed for several thousands of years.
I also know that it's difficult to take any grants and have any sort of career outside of fringe right-wing sponsored institutions if your research is to chance upon any of such "intristic differences" today, so I take modern findings in soft-sciences on the matter with a grain of salt.
I happen to assume them, based on everything we know about biology and various species, and how human life on earth developed for several thousands of years.
I also know that it's difficult to take any grants and have any sort of career outside of fringe right-wing sponsored institutions if your research is to chance upon any of such "intristic differences" today, so I take modern findings in soft-sciences on the matter with a grain of salt.
And I assume they are grossly exaggerated, for much the same reason. :)
That is, even assuming there are differences, I'd imagine they would be slight and barely noticeable except at the extremes. Think Olympic running. Obvious differences, but rather close. Especially when measured against what most people can do.
That is, even assuming there are differences, I'd imagine they would be slight and barely noticeable except at the extremes. Think Olympic running. Obvious differences, but rather close. Especially when measured against what most people can do.
I personally see the lack of women in STEM in Western countries as a good thing, it means that they are doing well economically and don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload.