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

#371

Post by apatters » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #292

lhinds wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not any specific one, but I'll try and summarize the points: * Feminists really do fight for representation in these jobs[0][1][3] to the point where one of the largest sexual discrimination lawsuits was brought up by women trying to get into the coal mining industry. * Women already have significant representation in such jobs and especially in other low wage jobs, such as textile manufacturing (in sweatshops, for i…

Your two comments don't really answer the question I posed. The first one denigrates it and attempts to outsource the task of answering it to Reddit. The second one is, I guess, mostly a recitation of various things feminists have done or not done in relation to this question, among other issues. But nowhere do you make a clear statement about whether you would advocate for pushing women into these jobs, and why or why not.

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

#372

Post by ThrustVectoring » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:50 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…

Stop believing feminists when they say they want equality of outcome. They don't - they completely ignore how men die at work at ten times the rate of women, put in more hours, take more competitive roles, and generally tend to make more sacrifices in pursuit of well-paying jobs and careers.

Feminists don't want equality of outcome. They want to point at the fact that women make less money as a group than men in order to demand concessions from society. And as was described elsewhere, when they get these concessions they use them to get what they actually want in practice, which makes the gross earnings gap even worse.

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

#373

Post by C1sc0cat » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #251

Frondo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah so discriminating against the posh kid who took a "Gap Yah" is ok now.

Presumably we should discriminate against all 4 year graduates as they took an extra year to graduate's who do it in 3.

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

#374

Post by C1sc0cat » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

0x445442 wrote: post #294

KirinDave wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It's odd to assume that the entire effect is therefore determined uniquely by "women's choice." Is there evidence of that? I don't think anyone is claiming choice is the "entire effect" but I do think there is evidence that choice is the overwhelming effect. Let me ask this, do the women you know complain about an under-representation of women working at Discount Tire or in the field of Underwater Welding? In Ameri…

They where forced out :-(

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

#375

Post by docbrown » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

scottlamb wrote: post #351

docbrown wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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". Gender aside, this is still discrimination based on a persons “experience”, as you call it, or very simply: their employment status.…

> Gender aside, this is still discrimination based on a persons “experience”, as you call it, or very simply: their employment status. This is against the law. Plain and simple. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound right to me. Consider four people who graduated at the same age, then took different paths: * Experienced Eric worked for the same company for 11 years, is still there, and is considering a new job. *…

>The law you quoted appears to say it's illegal to discriminate against Unemployed Ursula for being currently unemployed, so she should have the same shot as Younger Yenina and Late Larry. It doesn't say her year of unemployment must be considered equal to Experience Eric's extra year of work.

The argument made prior to this is not that an unemployed person is equal to a continuously employed worker but merely that unemployment should not and cannot affect your qualifications for position X. The law is pretty general as it states an employed person is anyone who does not have a job, is able to work, and is seeking work.

If Eric, Yenina, Ursula, and Larry are all able bodies, placing Ursula in her own category based solely on a gap year is in itself discriminatory.

The parent comments are taking the gap year into account—something that can be elaborated on, but should never be a deciding factor. The general consensus ITT is that Eric automatically is a better fit for position X than Ursula based solely on their employment history.

That argument in itself shows biases toward length of employment and current status, with the latter being something that should be irrelevant in a hiring process.

Edit: to show an example, most job postings on P&G have this disclosure:

>Qualified individuals will not be disadvantaged based on being unemployed.

That one line is what everybody is arguing againat, that unemployment automatically declines your qualifications.

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

#376

Post by gowld » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #284

Kaveren wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Women tended to be more prosocial and less negatively reciprocal than men, with differences in standard deviations of 0.106 for altruism (P The context of this quote and the tables are provided by the other commenter. [0] "(26)" in the quote refers to a footnote. Edit: Fixed hyphen space in quote.

Those seem like such small differences. It's interesting that they lead to such large outcomes.

It's what you'll find in non-linear systems. For example: Preferring to not be an extreme minority leads to extreme segregation, since local attempts to resolve the problem make it globally worse:

https://www.wired.com/2014/12/empzeal-parable-polygons/

https://ncase.me/polygons/

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

#377

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

aleeds wrote: post #179

taneq wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what spun me out when I first traveled in Asia. Backpacking through Thailand there was (as far as I could see) pretty equal representation in almost all different job roles, from street vendors to travel agents to IT. (Come to think of it, tuk-tuk drivers and taxi drivers were universally male, though...) After years of being told that all women loved tech and only shied away from it because it was full of hor…

Consider that "women dealing with horrible misogynistic neckbeards" and "women that get no special treatment" are in fact, compatible. For women every day, those negative experiences are the difference from men that keep them from being in the industry.

[deleted]

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

#378

Post by aswanson » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

davrosthedalek wrote: post #247

Frondo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, you totally should be able to take off for a year. The same way you can elect not to go to university. Or look in the laser. You just have to live with the consequences. And in many, many professions, a year or so out of practice means that you are measurably worse. Maybe (but likely) worse than before you left, but almost certainly worse than you could be if you would have used that year to get better at what ev…

In software, a year off might mean you get better. If you have more time to work on your own ideas and explore new paradigms instead of cranking out fizzbuzz all day in between commutes, you can become better.

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

#379

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

faceplanted wrote: post #115

grenoire wrote: post #31

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…

[deleted]

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

#380

Post by tomp » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #238

Mon29Oct wrote: post #176

This has been observed since Scandinavian countries pushed very female-friendly work laws, only to have differences in gender preferences more marked than ever. The book The Nordic Gender Equality Paradox submits two pieces of explanation to it, which are that 1/ One of the reforms was to offer sumptuous parent leave, encouraging parents to distance themselves from work for a significant duration, but which made the…

It is worth noting that Nima Sanandaji, the author of that and many similar books, is a proponent of small state, free markets, low tax, self determination and responsibility. In other words, he is a libertarian type, that doesn't support the welfare state, and by extension doesn't support requiring employers to offer maternity and paternity leave. He has also argued that Scandinavia is doing well due to the free mar…

> that doesn't support the welfare state, and by extension doesn't support requiring employers to offer maternity and paternity leave.

The second doesn't follow from the first. I generally support the welfare state, but I don't think that employers should pay for it directly; doing so significantly hinders smaller companies where a single ill/pregnant/vacationing person can cause a serious productivity disruption (especially if unplanned), even if they don't have to pay for it! Instead, I think the society/government should pay for social security, via taxes, that way it works like a very distributed insurance policy.