Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

flowingdata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 232 posts

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#181

Post by heartbreak »

khawkins wrote: post #34
heartbreak wrote: post #17

The story behind AVMA's push to become more inclusive for women is an interesting one. You can see the results in the profession lookup under "Veterinarians" on the page. The tech community could certainly learn lessons from that campaign, both what to do and what not to do in order to try to balance out gender disparity in tech.

Went to a graduation at NC State, one of the top veterinarian schools, and one of the takeaways was that we're not going to to see gender parity any time soon. This profession will be dominated by women over the next few decades.

The story here is that it was 100% male a generation ago.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#182

Post by heartbreak »

russdill wrote: post #36
heartbreak wrote: post #17

The story behind AVMA's push to become more inclusive for women is an interesting one. You can see the results in the profession lookup under "Veterinarians" on the page. The tech community could certainly learn lessons from that campaign, both what to do and what not to do in order to try to balance out gender disparity in tech.

I think the Veterinarian one shows that some of these numbers are seriously lagging. It'd be interesting to see age plots with these. While the industry reached parity in 2010, college admission reached parity in about 1987: https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/PublishingImages/100215g...

Like another commenter said, it lags for the same reason lawyers lag: vets have a long shelf life. I have a parent who is a working veterinarian and is well past retirement age.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#183

Post by StavrosK »

yung_endian wrote: post #143
joenot443 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a friendly reminder as I noticed you're new - patronising, nonproductive comments like this don't go over as well here as they do on reddit.

I've been lurking here since it started. It's not patronizing - it's pointing out a basic statistical fact. Has the bar on HN truly fallen so low that pointing out that anecdote != data is now considered rude?

"Pointing out" is what you did, "rude" was how you did it.

For example:

"It's almost as if you don't understand that rudeness is about the tone instead of the content".

Or:

"It looks like you're trying to move the goalposts; would you like some help with that?"

Or:

"> 'It's not patronizing - it's pointing out a basic statistical fact' Interesting how you think the two are mutually exclusive."

Etc.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#184

Post by topmonk »

mikeash wrote: post #102
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that most of above is objectively horrifying, but the tone of your post was overly emotional and attracts the kinds who vote based on emotion instead of logic. "the U. S. began... to pull its head out of its ass," is not professional. > there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. >it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's libera…

What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the coun…

> What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers."

I assume by that you're saying that shaming people is ok if they "deserve" to be shamed.

You can't take the hacker news rule, "You should be civil to each other." and say it should apply it selectively to those who you agree with.

It doesn't make hacker news "better" to have only one viewpoint, by shaming all others because they don't match the mob approved groupthink of what right and wrong is.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#185

Post by com2kid »

chongli wrote: post #176
smmorneau wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once women start doing a job, “It just doesn’t look like it’s as important to the bottom line or requires as much skill,” said Paula England, a sociology professor at New York University. “Gender bias sneaks into those decisions.” She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study,…

Is that the case? Or is it that men leave a field when the pay begins to drop? Distinguishing between cause and effect is very important in these matters. I don't see anything here to suggest the authors have established the cause and effect relationship.

> Is that the case? Or is it that men leave a field when the pay begins to drop?

Supply and demand as well. More workers willing to do a job means the offered pay can be lower. Sellers market VS buyers market.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#186

Post by mikeash »

topmonk wrote: post #184
mikeash wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the coun…

> What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." I assume by that you're saying that shaming people is ok if they "deserve" to be shamed. You can't take the hacker news rule, "You should be civil to each other." and say it should apply it selectively to those who you agree with. It doesn't make hac…

No, I'm saying that the offense of using strong language when describing something bad is completely trivial when compared to using nice language to lie about both past and present in service of the counterargument.

Bad faith arguments wrapped in nice language are vastly more destructive to the conversation then a little foul language.

We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#187

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

throwawayjava wrote: post #146
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's cu…

> it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question: >>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly? This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender…

You are right. I had an issue with the crass language, made a bunch of assumptions on their opinions, and responded very poorly. Your post helps me see this, thank you.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#188

Post by econ101isSexist »

smmorneau wrote: post #171
humanrebar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you mean that men have jobs with higher average salaries, there are still implications beyond that. Do men have higher salaries because they are more likely to consider salary when choosing a job? Do women have lower salaries due to sexism? Some combination of the two? Something else?

Once women start doing a job, “It just doesn’t look like it’s as important to the bottom line or requires as much skill,” said Paula England, a sociology professor at New York University. “Gender bias sneaks into those decisions.” She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study,…

When product A enters a Market dominated by B in large numbers,the Price drops. This is explained by the market being Assist.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#189

Post by randyrand »

zaroth wrote: post #155
randyrand wrote: post #112

I've said this before, but technology progress is the reason women now work outside the home. Not societal progress. Tasks that took all day in the 1900s - 1930s are now completely outdated or take minutes instead of hours. A housewife today would be bored out of her mind relative to how much work a 1900s era housewife had to do. Making 3 meals from near-scratch for 6+ people every day, raising 6-10 children so they…

With you up to the very last sentence. Labor force is an economic term with a specific meaning. It is not the same as saying that someone is not working for someone to not be in the "labor force". Since there's an economic purpose to the definition as-is, I don't see how you can possibly claim it is condescending without misrepresenting what the term actually means.

Stay at home work has the same affect on the economy as away-work. I don't find the distinction useful in this context.

The only thing we'd have to change is semantics. If house wives charged their husbands for their work, and vis-versa, then they could be 'employed' but nothing would have changed.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#190

Post by randyrand »

nitwit005 wrote: post #139
randyrand wrote: post #112

I've said this before, but technology progress is the reason women now work outside the home. Not societal progress. Tasks that took all day in the 1900s - 1930s are now completely outdated or take minutes instead of hours. A housewife today would be bored out of her mind relative to how much work a 1900s era housewife had to do. Making 3 meals from near-scratch for 6+ people every day, raising 6-10 children so they…

The work seems to expand to fill the time. You'll notice people struggle to raise their 2-3 kids, when people previously had over a dozen. They're now putting in more effort per-child. Having cleaning be easier similarly seems to raise cleaning standards.

Washing machines both increased cleaning standards and made cleaning easier / a smaller part of our life.
Post reply on HN