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

201–210 of 232 posts

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#201

Post by danjayh »

com2kid wrote: post #185
chongli wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly what I came here to say. Ramp up STEM grads? Pay drops. Ramp up attorney grads? Pay drops. Ramp up workforce in a sector? Pay drops. Adding women to the marketplace for a particular job significantly increases competition for employment. As an example, if a bunch of pro-male motivational speakers went out and encouraged men who currently have very dangerous jobs to move into nursing en mass, and the spots in nursing schools weren't artificially limited (they are, in reality), the pay would drop.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#202

Post by LanceH »

klipt wrote: post #141
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not as strongly, but there is demand for male nurses - they need stronger people to help move people around, and men are stronger. (biological facts, etc)

But does the people-mover have to be a nurse ? Can't you just hire a cheap, uneducated muscle-man to move your people?

This occupation is "orderly".

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#203

Post by topmonk »

mikeash wrote: post #186
topmonk wrote: post #184

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." 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.'"

How is that a lie, though? How do you know it's a bad faith argument? You know what bad faith means, right? That someone is not representing what they truly believe.

Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you.

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

We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#204

Post by [deleted] »

watwut wrote: post #113
dahdum wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard from male teachers that teaching younger children isn't worth the risk (perceived or real) of baseless accusations ruining them. They much preferred to teach high school or above.

If the risk is perceived higher with small children and lower with teenagers, then it is 100% on adults. No amount of money will overcome "they suspect me to be predator" social pressure.

[deleted]

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#205

Post by davidgay »

humanrebar wrote: post #96
watwut wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is highly discussed issue in pedagogic cycles - how to get and keep more males. For years. The answer usually ends up "yes, but they would come only if there would be higher social status and salaries for teachers". And no one knows how to achieve that. It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away, I dont recall any studies. Just that is the usual assumption. The fact that male teachers ten…

> And no one knows how to achieve [higher status and salaries for teachers]. They do . There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment. > It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away I know male teachers who have had to deal with sexism (the men as sexual predators stuff). A non trivial amount of people find men untrustworthy with children.

> > And no one knows how to achieve [higher status and salaries for teachers].

> They do. There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment.

I'm curious (growing up in Switzerland), which does pay it teachers highly (https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/201...): what about the Swiss approach to teacher salary is unappealing to the pedagogic establishment?

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#206

Post by jupiter90000 »

humanrebar wrote: post #96
watwut wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is highly discussed issue in pedagogic cycles - how to get and keep more males. For years. The answer usually ends up "yes, but they would come only if there would be higher social status and salaries for teachers". And no one knows how to achieve that. It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away, I dont recall any studies. Just that is the usual assumption. The fact that male teachers ten…

> And no one knows how to achieve [higher status and salaries for teachers]. They do . There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment. > It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away I know male teachers who have had to deal with sexism (the men as sexual predators stuff). A non trivial amount of people find men untrustworthy with children.

To be fair, most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by men. It is something to be concerned about.

Source: http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-ab...

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#207

Post by yorwba »

scarmig wrote: post #175
malandrew wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a citation for that with data?

So, having spent some time trying to track it down, the best I found was [0], which wasn't nearly as strong as I suggested: "In an experiment, people read a realistic persuasive message that was relevant to them. Results showed that anecdotal evidence does not benefit from the inclusion of statistical evidence or from its intrinsic quality." I originally heard about this from Kevin Drum [1], but I was unable to track…

What about the other direction; do pure statistics benefit from the inclusion of anecdotes? I would expect that to be the case, at least in the general population; but you seem to say that it's not.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#208

Post by Borealid »

irrational wrote: post #178
nitwit005 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If raising 3 kids is 3x work, raising 12 kids is not 12x work. The reason being is that as the kids get older they start to take on the chores and helping out with the little ones (unless the parents are morons and don't train the kids to work and assign them tasks). So you have 3 young children and that is 3x work. But, by the time the next three come along, the first three are old enough to help out (maybe 4-5x wor…

This argument assumes the older children share the parents' goals.

If the children are assumed to possess free will, it is possible that the older ones' actions could result in an increase in the amount of work for the parent as they got older.

It is also possible to "raise" children one did not have biologically, and to have more than one child at a time biologically. Twelve children born together would be... tough. For a number of reasons.

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#209

Post by int_19h »

seanalltogether wrote: post #42
Snoozle wrote: post #9

I think that regardless of your social or political stance of anything regarding males, females, workplaces, salaries, or sexism, more data is always nice to have. Now I'm going to figure out how to twist this into fitting my own personal world view and then make a news article about it.

If these circles had average salaries attached to them, I'm sure the article would write itself.

Looking at the outliers, at least, it's not that simple. Do dental assistants get paid less than plumbers? Paralegals vs electricians?

Re: Most Female and Male Occupations Since 1950

#210

Post by int_19h »

randyrand wrote: post #189
zaroth wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would say that a lot would change for the housewives...
Post reply on HN