As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by dpark » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #231

jaxtellerSoA wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm coming from the same place, except I don't think it's privilege, I think it's wanting to build a world where anyone can take a year off for anything and not have that held against them if they later want to go work for someone. Do YOU want to have surgery from a surgeon that hasn't performed in year? Your idea is fine utopian, fluffy unicorn, ideology. But practically it just won't work. This doesn't have anyth…

Surgeons can and do take a year off from their practice, and return to work. I would absolutely be patient #1 after some surgeon's sabbatical. I also find it deeply depressing that "a person should be able to take a year off work" is now utopian, fluffy unicorn ideology on a forum for forward-thinking technologists.

The year off isn’t the fluffy unicorn bit. The fluffy unicorn bit is that you think your choices should have no consequences.

If you want to take a decade off work, you certainly have that right. But that doesn’t mean employers should pretend that you have an extra decade of experience, just as your choice to forgo a degree doesn’t mean an employer should pretend you earned a doctorate.

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

#252

Post by lhinds » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #242

apatters wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would 50/50 gender parity across all industries ever be a desirable goal? Coal mining is male dominated -- should we push more women into becoming coal miners?

It's worth noting that the "Why don't feminists try and push for gender parity in coal mining?" is a very tired question (and rather silly meme) and it's got without a variety of answers from casual feminists. A cursory Google search for this question on Reddit has thrown up a variety of answers: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3bjr41/why_ha... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2rpbil/why_…

Most of those answers boil down to 'because they are more desirable', is there any specific one you think nails the answer?

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

#253

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:46 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #233

madeuptempacct wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I thought having a nice home would get me a satisfactory social life. It didn't. How does that even make sense? Were you hoping to live around wealthier people and impress them with your nice sofa?

My mother had a great social life. It involved inviting people over, serving dinner, having the ability to allow people to stay overnight as guests. Replicating the nice dining table and means to allow for overnight guests failed to magically cause guests to appear. I never figured out what piece of the puzzle I was missing. My mother put a lot of emphasis on being able to serve her guests and make them comfortable a…

Maybe you spent so much time trying to create an environment, you forgot to make friends?

That said, modern generations are more about going out and doing things in short social engagements. People 'feel' very busy, and the idea of an overnight stay may be too much commitment for someone that doesn't feel they have a strong friendship with you.

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

#254

Post by davrosthedalek » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:50 PM UTC

ramblerman wrote: post #205

apatters wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would 50/50 gender parity across all industries ever be a desirable goal? Coal mining is male dominated -- should we push more women into becoming coal miners?

> Why would 50/50 gender parity across all industries ever be a desirable goal? If women and men "are indeed biologically identical in their job preferences" you could argue a good measure for real equality of opportunity would be 50/50 parity across industries. Because given a fair shake everyone would be evenly distributed across all industries (since we have the same preferences).

You could, but I don't think it's fair. Shouldn't it be: If women and men (or any other classification) are indeed biologically identical in job preference, willingness to work in the first place, and aptitude, the quota in each job should reflect the basis distribution?

Just assuming that all of these are the equal might hide the actual problem we want to fix. Or might point to asymmetries we might not want to fix.

Of course, the 50/50 gender parity has also a different motivation, trying to address the culturally influenced preference. The argument goes like this: Because of historical reasons, some professions are male dominated. Girls are not interested in these professions because female role models are missing. So if we force the promotion of female role models, this historically created bias will vanish.

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

#255

Post by KirinDave » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:51 PM UTC

Majestic121 wrote: post #248

KirinDave wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's curious to me about this stance is no one questions if the measures taken, when coupled to there outcomes, don't suggest failed policies. "Well we made policies and they didn't do what we expected, therefore women are making choices!" seems to me (with an American bias perhaps) to be a failure in the design or implementation of the policies, rather than immediately blaming women. I'm surprised how credulously…

I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" Second, I don't think anyone is blaming women here. Choosing (or being pressured by the environment) to have more 'gendered' (whatever that means) career path is not necessarily a bad thing. It can become a bad thing if it hinders opportunit…

> I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !"

An awful lot of women have negative things to say about that situation, so maybe I should just quote them?

I don't think I am falling back on the "other side" here. I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low according to the data. It's odd to assume that the entire effect is therefore determined uniquely by "women's choice." Is there evidence of that?

It's one thing to say, "Keep an open mind." It's another to hedge off what's at least an equally likely scenario from discussion at all, which with the flood of downvotes I'm getting certainly seems like what's happening to me

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

#256

Post by js8 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:53 PM UTC

adwn wrote: post #178

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #109

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.…

> 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 [...] Wait – I thought back then (1950s/60s/maybe 70s), "programming" refered to something more akin to data input, i.e., someone designed a program, and the "programmer" entered that program into the computer's memory, using punch cards or wh…

I didn't really live through that era, but my suspicion is that more well-paid roles (especially in management and health care) opened for women during that era, and so they decided to work in different fields more in accordance with their own preferences. Hence the decline from women in computing. Basically, I believe it is in line with the gender-equality paradox.

It can also be the case that the whole thing is a dynamical system (for example driven by desire to work in a field which already has majority in the same gender), and it somewhat chaotically "oscillates" around the equilibrium. So there really is not an causal explanation as such.

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

#257

Post by moorhosj » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:55 PM UTC

toxik wrote: post #192

msh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that book, but it's wrong on childcare being less affordable. Atleast in Denmark and Sweden child care is heavily subsidized, to the point of being free for very low income parents (in dk). So there is no way it can make economic sense for mothers not to work. And stay at home moms (for more than 1-2 years) is rare compared to the USA.

You still pay the opportunity cost, even if you are getting a monthly income. Why should I hire the person who was away for a solid year on parental leave over the guy who has been working diligently during that time? Forcing parents to have equal amounts of parental leave, as we do in Sweden (well, we incentivized it,) is a form of imposed equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is often said to be some disease of…

What is the opportunity cost of the mother going right back to work and spending no time with their newborn? Does society absorb that cost?

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

#258

Post by mindcrime » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

sundvor wrote: post #245

mindcrime wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it isn't "discriminating based on parental leave". It's "discriminating" based on experience. The reason why someone takes a year (or whatever) off isn't the issue. Does this feel unfair in some sense? Yeah. But would it be less unfair to artificially punish the person who didn't take time off? Questionable...

It occurs to me that you're kind of equating a year of holidays with that of having a baby, which ensures the continuation of our species. In our (HN) case, that is putting a few more technologist offsprings into the mix for what that's worth. I can assure you looking after a baby the first year is not leisure time.

I am in no way saying that taking care of a baby is leisure time, or anything of the sort. I'm just saying from the perspective of an employer evaluating two candidates, if all other things are equal, and one took a year off and one didn't, and the employer chooses the candidate who was at work continuously, they weren't specifically discriminating against "parental leave".From that point of view, the reason doesn't actually matter at all, as they are just comparing two candidates.

Of course in reality human nature being what it is, some people probably do actually care. And rarely are "all other things exactly equal". I'd guess most employers would be more favorable towards someone who took a year off to raise a baby, as opposed to taking a year off just to lounge around.

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

#259

Post by classicsnoot » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #223

classicsnoot wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is only a paradox if one has calcified their thinking about the desires of women _in general_ in a particular way. If one starts from the presumption that men and women are exactly the same (in terms of desires and methods), than it is indeed a paradox. If one retains the traditional perspective, a much disliked but surprisingly defensible position, of the disparate desires of men and women, these results comport…

> If one retains the traditional perspective, a much disliked but surprisingly defensible position, of the disparate desires of men and women, these results comport well with the presumption. It's odd though how so often this "traditional" viewpoint is eager to suggest, "These are the preferences of women and their outcomes," when it's suggested women result in a net disadvantage, but is a crisis when men see these o…

I feel as if you are making an apples to oranges comparison (but I don't perceive any ill will so I am responding in good faith and with no intention to politick) in terms of gender pay gap and decreasing male inclusion in higher education.

I am glad you used the more accurate numbers of 7-10% in terms of male/female pay. From my perspective, the innate differences between the sexes explains this gap quite well: men are motivated from a very young age, in addition to their general biological proclivity towards competition, to seek approval through public acts to gain status; women are motivated from a very young age, in addition to their general biological proclivity towards hording value, to seek influence through private acts to gain status. There are plenty of specific examples that run contrary to my assertion, but in general, men seem adapted to the corporate system which would lead one to expect them to dominate therein. Regardless of classical dominance hierarchy, there is massive combined interest actively working to inject as many females as possible into high paying, white collar jobs.

In terms of higher education, the decrease in male participation is a significant problem because male participation in higher education was tenuous at best even before female inclusion began. Though higher education was indeed a "boys club," it was a very small club. Just because it was "all" male does not extend it into being "all male." The moment the gates opened for females, they took over the majority in public universities within a decade. They continue to dominate in education to this day. Metaphor is a dangerous game, but I think one should worry more about bad students getting worse than good students getting more attention.

In my opinion you make a very salient point about the difference in the reaction of people to the two problems. I see them as similar because both endeavours (more females in corporate && more males in education) are fighting both a biological tendency as well as cultural norms, no simple task in a world of consensus, and I don't have to elaborate and how very far away from that we are.

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

#260

Post by DoreenMichele » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #210

DoreenMichele wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly visual-spatial. I now make little websites and take photos and play SimCity. But when I was a homemaker, this largely got expressed as an interest in clothes and household decor because those were basically the avenues open to me. It wasn't particularly fulfilling. I thought dressing well and being pretty would get me a happy marriage. It didn't. I thought having a nice home would get me a satisfactory soc…

"I thought X would get me Y and being disappointed." This is most of us, most of the time, in most endeavours, and I don't think it's a gender thing.

I wasn't suggesting it was a gender thing. I was suggesting it was a thing I struggled with in my youth. That's it.