141–150 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least where I come from I do not feel that in the slightest.
I envy you. I feel weird when dealing with children for exactly that reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we know that that's the reason that more women are deciding to stay home? This looks like a big conclusion to draw when the data only _may_ correlate. Where's the survey of double-income family moms working in tech where they specified the reason why they chose to stay at home? There are a lot of reports coming out that look at numbers and say what may be the reason, but I've yet to see anyone go ask women the rea…
Oh, I've done this, let me tell you why: 1) People in tech are assholes to women. I don't think most of them realize they're doing it. Sending images of swimsuit models over slack or otherwise sexualizing your work environment is an awful idea, and you shouldn't do it even if you don't have women on your team. My partner gets asked out by coworkers regularly, even while pregnant. 2) No really, people in tech are assh…
Also, I'm a black person. All of the horror stories they say about POC in tech, I have never experienced one. I've had individual jerks but, I haven't had things like the company passing me up or ever felt that I wasn't getting a promotion, ever.
So, mapping that to what they say about women, I would say it's unlikely to be as bad as they say. Now, that's completely and utterly subjective but, attitudes concerning your perceptions of how others treat you is subjective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm arguing for equality of opportunity, not outcome. If the final split isn't 50/50, fine, as long as everyone is making free choices. The problem is that today that (equality of opportunity) is not the case -- there's immense pressure for the woman to be the one to stay home, if someone does.
But "free choices" is a tricky thing. Many would say that so long as 50/50 isn't reached, for whatever reason known or unknown, the choice is not free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm arguing for equality of opportunity, not outcome. If the final split isn't 50/50, fine, as long as everyone is making free choices. The problem is that today that (equality of opportunity) is not the case -- there's immense pressure for the woman to be the one to stay home, if someone does.
Precisely. I just want equality of opportunity, that people are free to do what they want, not necessarily that the choices are a perfect 50/50 coin toss. However, since we posit that there are no inherent biological mental differences between sexes then some people contend that if the split is not 50/50 then there is still discrimination.
It'd be nice if we could maybe admit that people work differently, without having to stack-rank it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should do all we can to support mothers and parents. They should be free to make their own choices. But nobody should be surprised if mothers make different choices than fathers. Nor should we force the matter. There is some biology here. Equality doesn't create interchangeability.
> There is some biology here. Sure. But there's also centuries of entrenched societal structure that is only slowly dissolving. And much of that structure was built up with bogus explanations of what women were biologically capable of. So at the very least, we need to carefully consider both biology and possibility when we talk about this. But if we're going to err, I think it's worth leaning the other way for a whil…
I don't think the centuries old explanations are as bogus as you imply. The differences between men and women that we can all agree on such as avg. strength, breast feeding composed a lot more constraint on the divisions of labor. Regardless of what you think about breastfeeding or formula today you can't argue that it more or less forced women to do the early child rearing in centuries past. And men's increased brute strength was far more important for much of the labor before the industrial revolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason women dominate in certain fields is that those fields were generally seen as less important, so women were pushed into them. E.g., doctors were men, women were nurses, and there was an enormous pay and prestige difference between the two. (Hint: it did not favor the nurses.) If you're interested in learning more, researching "pink ghetto" will get you started.
80% of people working in PR are women. Is that a pink ghetto as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, what is the largest # of consecutive hours you have been responsible for a young child? I love my son and watching him progress over the last 11 months has been amazing but the day-to-day of raising a child can be mind numbingly boring.
I know it's boring and very, very hard work. Which is why I believe that we should support stay at home moms (and dads) by elevating the position in society and recognizing the hard and rewarding work it is. Going back to a career and paying someone to take care of your child is quite frankly the easy way out. Women leaving the workplace to raise kids should be seen as a victory, not a "problem" that needs to be fixe…
I would be interested in the number of men or women who leave tech because the next promotion effectively is a promotion out of tech and into management. What is the record like with tech companies with engineer tracks vs normal up or out? How big is the male female divide in those cases - and is the diff significant?
Half of the women who leave (so roughly 25%) leave tech fields altogether. The numbers are fudged such that women in management are still considered as in tech. Most "women in tech" numbers that you see include PMs, POs, IT workers, Support Engineers, etc. The male female divide is actually quite large in management. Women are promoted to management disproportionately (hypotheses include "better people skills" and a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I envy you. I feel weird when dealing with children for exactly that reason.
That's very odd. I can see why parents want to be protective, but immediately shielding a kid if a male interacts playfully with them seems an overreaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you say the same about any other causal relationship? Are there any implications of it that don't perpetuate the idea that women are intellectually inferior? That don't shift the burdens of emotional labor and child rearing onto children? The idea is so obviously sexist...
How do you mean? A common stereotype is that men are aggressive while woman are kinder and gentler (the former true to some extent because of testosterone). Surely that's a good trait, so not all stereotypes disfavour women? Point being, recognizing differences between the sexes (which it exists in areas such as the aforementioned aggressiveness, or in kids where you can see boys are more restless and prone to suffer…
Boys are held to a lower standard of behavior than girls. "Boys will be boys" is a societal mantra.
It's worth noting that these "inherent" traits vary across societies. For instance Italian culture believes that girls are more violent and boys are kinder and more emotional.
Women being kinder is a sex trope not a neurological reality.
Also both of your examples are perfect fits for what I was talking about. Women being kinder means that kindness is expected of them. Also that they are available to be emotionally dumped on.
"Men being aggressive" excuses male violence. "Boys being hyperactive" means we have low standards for their behavior.