Live data from Hacker News

As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

science.sciencemag.org

121–130 of 536 posts

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#121
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider there are a lot worse things than being attractive to men. Plenty of women have been raped and stalked. Some would be hard pressed to name worse experiences than the ones they have had for the crime of being attractive.

Plenty of people have been harmed due to their wealth. Does that mean you would rather be poor than rich?

What I wish is that I had not been molested and raped as a child and that I weren't currently being cyberstalked by nefarious individuals that have a track record of genuinely materially harming me. In fact, I wish a short list of people who have harmed me and will not cease and desist their icky crap would kindly drop dead as the only thing they could possibly do to enhance my life.

I also wish I didn't have to put up with "gotcha" questions of this sort.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#122

This follows a series of validation studies (incl. e.g. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719 ) from this year especially. The results seem to consistently show the same 'paradoxical' outcome. J. Peterson came to my campus last week and I think he mentioned this one specific study, and also noted several other ones, which brought the one I linked to my attention. It really isn't the only one, a…

Is Jordan Peterson any better in person than he seems in his book? I read it after a friend recommended it and he seemed completely insufferable and possibly mildly autistic based on what seemed like a real lack of understanding of the internal lives of others. Lots of people seem to like him, but I can't bring myself to watch him speak in person since everything I see just traversing the internet is framed as him "d…

what about your reading of the book made you think he doesn't understand the internal lives of others? I read the book and didn't get that impression at all.

sure, there's a lot of "feminist owned by Peterson's logic" stuff out there, but that's the culture war for you.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#123
post #95

There's a fairly simple explanation: in egalitarian societies femininity is socially acceptable even in "traditionally male" occupations. So women don't need to act "masculine" to make progress in those jobs. When it's socially acceptable for a CEO to be a mother and a woman, more women will feel comfortable pursuing a family in addition (rather than in exclusion) to a career. There's another fairly simple explanatio…

> When it's socially acceptable for a CEO to be a mother and a woman, more women will feel comfortable pursuing a family in addition (rather than in exclusion) to a career.

Unfortunately this is probably going to be an unpopular thing to say, but I've seen how much work goes into both being a CEO and being a full-time parent up close.

(With the caveat of: in the work culture here in the US...) Running a business that employs a significant number of people and having daily, hands-on parent interaction with your child are mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if you are a mother or a father.

If you want to change this fact, you'll need to start implementing controls on working hours & days like Germany did. You also have to do that knowing that crunch time is one of the competitive market advantages that the US offers.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#124

This follows a series of validation studies (incl. e.g. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719 ) from this year especially. The results seem to consistently show the same 'paradoxical' outcome. J. Peterson came to my campus last week and I think he mentioned this one specific study, and also noted several other ones, which brought the one I linked to my attention. It really isn't the only one, a…

Don't you think it's strange that it's seen as a 'paradoxical' outcome? The modern trend of gender-associated differences being primarily attributed to cultural influences seem unscientific at best and politically motivated at worst, especially when for many years we've had well-documented differences in the male and female brains that are clearly evident in brain-imaging studies. All else being equal, of course there are going to be significant differences in preferences between cohorts divided by gender, and such findings should not have negative consequences so long as we treat people as individuals.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#125
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not really sure what you're trying to say. Can you give an example, perhaps? In particular, can you give an illustrative example which explains the difference between "free to choose" and "actually free to choose"?

Do you think there is something innate that changed genetically about women that led to them being much less likely to be computer programmers now than they were in the 1970s, but much more likely to be biologists? If not, there is probably some other factor at work leading to these changing "preferences," even though as far as I know women have had no legal barriers to working in either field throughout that period.…

I think the programmer example is a much better example than the transgender example. If you are ostacized and disciminated for your choice, you are not "free to choose". It's "free to choose" in the same sense that everyone is "free to choose" to commit crime, with the risk of being put into prison for your choice.

The "woman in programming" example is much better. Woman in programming started declining basically the moment computer games entered the market, since computer games are marketed primarily to males (outside of mobile, but that influence is fairly new). If we just simplify the whole problem to this one influence, woman are not programmers because of the marketing of "children toys". Is that bad, something we have to change? Nobody is really prevented from choosing to do certain freetime activities, to get exerience and motivation. They are just notpushed towards it. Still it leads to an unequal outcome.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#126

Equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes are incompatible as long as the source groups differ in any meaningful way, even "just" in preferences, which is a very big factor in choice of profession. In order to get equality of outcomes, you would need to enforce inequality of opportunities.

Why would you want equality of outcomes anyway? It goes against individual Freedom. As long as opportunities are as equal as they can be, the rest is just the reflection of what individuals want to focus on and achieve. Equality of outcomes will force some people to do what they dont want to, which is undesirable on many levels.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#127
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it debunks the notion that discrimination is the only reason for any differences in gender representation. Which is also a notion that nobody has ever argued but suits polarized demagoguery.

I think the above notion is the biggest component of the gender pay gap.

Could you clarify what you mean please? I'm arguing against the imagined notion (which is also regarding representation, not pay).

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#128
post #83
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not really sure what you're trying to say. Can you give an example, perhaps? In particular, can you give an illustrative example which explains the difference between "free to choose" and "actually free to choose"?

I have an anecdote which I found quite interesting: Last week I got to meet my cousin’s daughter for the first time. It was a family dinner and after everyone had eaten she pulled out her barbie dolls to play with. Since I‘ve been on HN for a few years now and this is not the first time I came across this topic I asked my cousin: Why does your daughter play with barbies? Did she choose the barbie doll or where they g…

There are obviously gender difference between what girls and boys like to play with in general even from a VERY early age. Its extensively documented.

Of course radical feminists reject all this evidence en masse and pretend its all a social construct, which is absolute nonsense.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/slms/slms-news/slms/girls-toys-ve...

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there is something innate that changed genetically about women that led to them being much less likely to be computer programmers now than they were in the 1970s, but much more likely to be biologists? If not, there is probably some other factor at work leading to these changing "preferences," even though as far as I know women have had no legal barriers to working in either field throughout that period.…

I think the programmer example is a much better example than the transgender example. If you are ostacized and disciminated for your choice, you are not "free to choose". It's "free to choose" in the same sense that everyone is "free to choose" to commit crime, with the risk of being put into prison for your choice. The "woman in programming" example is much better. Woman in programming started declining basically th…

Firstly, I think you are implicitly assuming that there's nothing dissuading women from being programmers--that if they join the industry, things go perfectly smoothly for them. That's far from the case, in my experience.

Secondly, nowadays, men and women both play games at roughly the same rate (with women playing a little more by some metrics), but that doesn't seem to have improved the chances of women entering the programming industry. What is the explanation for that (besides that it's "new", which isn't really the case anymore)? Like many people, I got into programming as a result of video games--but I find it hard to believe that that alone is responsible for the entirety of the observed difference in behavior.

Finally, what is your explanation for the huge increase in the proportion of women in biology?

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#130
post #85

I am highly sceptical to this study. Does anyone have a list of what they measured as differences and how they did it? The reason I am a sceptic is because as a Scandinavian I notice easily how much more macho men are in less gender equal societies and how much more feminine the women are. I don’t think it is an accident that the world’s top female boxer is Norwegian rather than say Italian. I do there is something t…

Interesting, most of the data shows the opposite effect to what you may be implying: http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girl... https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/scandinavian-gender-e... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... Countless more articles if you google

I did not suggest the gender paradox does not exist. What I am saying is that I am not 100% convinced it is caused by genders being more different in more gender equal societies. I think it is perfectly possible for women to be more feminine and interested in an engineering degree than a less feminine women.

Secondly correlation is not causation. It is a classical mistake and most of these articles make zero attempt at explaining possible causes of the correlation by say third factors.

One example is about gender equality or welfare states being the blame for Nordic countries having fewer female CEOs than e.g. the US.

But if you actually look more in depth at both societies and the people involved one can see a lot of other possible explanations. Nordic countries have low levels of economic inequality. That manifests itself in many ways: there are few people doing low skilled menial tasks, such as carrying suitcases, doing garden work, nannies etc. It also means Nordic CEOs make considerably less money than American ones.

You notice that female American CEOs tend to have large houses and lots of help they can pay for, such as home deliveries, nannies/babysitters etc. That tends not to be available to Nordic CEOs. Not only are there very few people doing such assistive jobs. It is also frowned upon in the culture. It is expected that parents spend a lot of time with their children.

E.g. pre-schools don't stay up very late.

A final factor which cannot be discounted is that the world is more globalized today. When I grew up in the 80s in Norway, boys and girls were in a lot of ways more similar. But from the early 80s American pop-media poured in. It focused on far more traditional gender roles than what Nordic countries had done: Lots of pink princess stuff for girls and macho militaristic stuff for boys. I've seen how girls have become more feminine under this influence.

The other influence is the end of a more socialist society where one tried to even out gender differences more. As Nordic countries became more capitalist, one could also see stores pushing clothes, toys etc which a stronger gender difference, because they knew that would sell more. I think this helped amplify differences.

Maybe it does not matter, but I am trying to make the point that when it comes to social science, the interactions and influences can be very complex. Separating cause and effect can be very difficult. Doing this study in a multitude of countries do not actually represent separate independent tests IMHO. E.g. Norwegian gender roles cannot be cleanly separated from American concepts of gender roles, due to the out-sized influence of American mass media.

Many of these studies do not consider the fact that you have to consider the whole female population. Often they compare only the working populations, but since most women work in Nordic countries while few do in developing countries, it skews the results. Lots of women in Nordic countries are paid caregivers in pre-schools and retirement homes. These women are not paid to do the same in developing countries and thus don't show up on the labour statistics.

Post reply on HN