Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries

The nurturing roles theory is kind of sexist. I think a better theory is as follows. In almost all metrics men show higher variance than women (sometimes that is attributed to because men lack a moderating effect of an extra x chromosome). As a result the "male" skillet is more varied and men seek a wider range of jobs. Another possibility is that socially men are expected to be riskier, and so are more broadly seeking in their choice of occupation.

Either way, the net effect is a diminished supply of labor relative to the varied demand. By contrast, women seek jobs that often are chock full of other women, creating an increased supply of labor and lower relative wages.

Sometimes I think about how little teachers get paid and wonder why I know so many women going in to that knowing the poor pay in advance.

Your comments are breaking the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

> All I'm saying is that biology has a great influence on the roles people take up, and you can try to fight it all you want, but if you try to claim that the influence isn't there and it's all just a whim of culture, then you are engaging in the exact same kind of willfully ignorant anti-scientific thinking that people ridicule flat earthers and climate change deniers for.

Whoa, now that's some giant leaps you're making there.

First, that biology has an influence does not mean that it has a great influence. History shows that the responsibilities of the sexes have varied significantly over time and over geography. That society is a great influence is well-known (seeing how many behaviors change over time and place); the degree of influence biology has is uncertain, and so I'd argue that making that seemingly subtle leap from "some influence" to a "great influence" is more science-denying than downplaying biology. You are making up scientific results, while the other side simply concentrates on the results we do have (i.e. that society has been found to have a great role in this issue).

Second, while it's true that women have usually been the primary carers of children, in some cultures (even in Europe) they have also been the primary breadwinners. Your leap from "affinity to children" to "role in the workplace" is completely unjustified, and also lacks imagination regarding possible social structures. Which brings me to:

Finally, and most importantly, you are associating a negative ethical value with "fighting biology" in this case, which is not only unjustified, but very biased. Evolution has not designed humans to fly, yet we've built airplanes and found them very useful. In fact, all of technology, from wheels to augmented/artificial intelligence, is about "fighting" biology. Yet you seem to associate a negative value only with the attempt to change what you see as a natural difference between the sexes, a difference that consistently allots women far less power than men in society. I think that even assuming you are right about the biology (although I see no good scientific reason to believe is the case), this is no less worthy-a-cause to "fight" with nature than any other battle we face with it. Nothing can be more scientific (and human, and generally positive) than the will and ability to "fight" nature (in fact, it is the climate change deniers who deny our society's ability to affect nature).

To summarize: 1/ there's nothing to be willfully ignorant of, as we don't have results showing biology's great influence in this area; 2/ whatever biological effects are there, they have little to do with the social structure we're fighting, and 3/ even if nature is found to play a major role somewhere in this equation, "fighting" nature is what technology and humans in general constantly do, there is hardly anything more scientific, and this is as good a cause you could come up with.

P.S

> A liberal swing in culture is trying to encourage people to abandon their traditional gender roles, is upset when the majority of people want to stick to relatively traditional roles, and is confused when the people that do buck the traditional roles usually end up unhappy about it

We are not upset -- far from it. In fact, we've expected nothing less. Society never takes change kindly, and we don't expect it to. And yet, in spite of these growing pains, society keeps changing, and often for the better.

So while we are militarizing against the idea that woman are forced into staying at home, you do need to consider whether family care being the domain of woman is something men have foisted upon them or if it's something they themselves desire.

Now I'll admit I don't have kids, but every partner I've had has had the same view that they'd want me to continue going to work whilst they were stay at home. Any argument to the contrary is often met by the simple fact that said child would have been carried to term by them.

If you accept that as a possbility then we're starting to look at mens rights issue. Is it fair that men have less parental rights? Overall, I'd say no. Are we going to get support for these issues? Probably not.

Obviously in a better world I imagine we'd share a pool of parental leave. People should have the choice but I'd still expect the pool to largely be utilised by females because they want it that way and it's hard to argue otherwise.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11220061 and marked it off-topic.