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

#421

Post by jschwartzi » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #372

toxik wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 orde…

> 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.

Instead of becoming frustrated with feminists for not defending mens' rights, why don't we get together and start to demand safer work environments, shorter workdays, less competitive roles, and fewer sacrifices?

We all would benefit from this. It serves the feminist agenda by creating work environments where more women can contribute, and it serves the masculine agenda by creating safer, less demanding work environments for men so that we can spend more time not working. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

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

#422

Post by js8 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

Carlton87 wrote: post #282

js8 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It matters when you want to evaluate whether a group has gotten a bad deal in society." I am not sure why would I want to do that. As a leftist (being pro-equality), I don't really want there to be anybody who got a bad deal in society. But why should it matter which group are they part of? It seems chauvinistic to me.

I'm on the right and the sad news that you must digest is there isn't enough resources for all 7 billion people. That is a fact that will only get worse as we continue to add more. Most will suffer and there really isn't anything a leftist government can do about that other than bring everyone down to the same level of suffering.

"there really isn't anything a leftist government can do about that other than bring everyone down to the same level of suffering"

So be it. It seems more fair to me than some ad hoc chauvinism.

In any case, I don't think the suffering is really required. What is, in your opinion, the lifestyle that is possible to be supported by resources we have for 7 billion people?

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

#423

Post by gammateam » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

Which is a good thing right?

What are the goals here? the top level responses I see are using this as an opportunity to talk about why experience is lacking, or as if this is an ironic outcome showing how its all a waste of time to get to the same result of the domesticated housewife.

I think at this point, focusing exclusively on the highest selective evolution of "merit" and skill is the flaw. If we are trying to grow the economic pie and cater to the most people, then hiring/career growth practices based on "the best" at the theoretical best academic or refined practice will have diminishing returns for companies. And this isn't saying that there is no circumstance where women or some other subgroup would be able to conform to the strict merit based regime in proportional numbers as incumbent groups. It is saying that the barking up this tree is flawed to begin with, if you can address a greater market by having a variety of views of the market.

Now that we have participation in the workforce, it would be more productive addressing how goods and resources are appropriated amongst people that help in any way, how incentives are aligned with the growth of the effort.

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

#424

Post by elliekelly » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #372

toxik wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 orde…

I'm a feminist. I've never once asked for or expected equality of outcome. But equality of opportunity? I absolutely want equality of opportunity. And you should, too. Equal opportunity benefits everyone because it allows the market to allocate talent more efficiently.

Professor Iris Bohnet of Harvard wrote a great book called "What Works" that offers some creative solutions to the issue. Here's an interesting article about a small change implemented by orchestras in the 1970's discussed in the book: https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...

Finally, on a personal level, I've found that even the most well-reasoned argument will be ignored when the person making it comes across as an asshole. I'm not saying you're an asshole and I'm certainly not saying that your argument is well-reasoned. But I am saying it's something you should take into account next time you feel compelled to air your opinion.

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

#425

Post by leetcrew » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

aklemm wrote: post #385

leetcrew wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not just unfair to the business though. if i have five years experience as a c++ dev and you have four years plus one year as a stay at home parent, it is unfair to me if the hiring process treats us both as if we have equal amounts of experience.

Is it actually unfair to you that someone put in the appropriate effort needed to raise a functioning member of society? Lot's of people in this thread are failing to value parenting appropriately.

first off, i don't actually agree with your implicit assumption that an arbitrary parent is doing some charitable service that i ought to be grateful for. i may benefit marginally from an additional birth by the time I reach old age, but the actual parents seem to benefit more, unless my peers are just bullshitting me about what a rewarding experience it is.

if you're in a position where you can afford to shoulder the financial burden of having children, that's great and I wish you the best. if not, don't expect the small sliver of childfree folks to make up the difference for you. if we actually get to the point where society can't replace itself, maybe we can talk again.

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

#426

Post by KirinDave » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #283

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…

"I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low according to the data" No ... the data shows that there is actually more equal opportunity, and yet there is gender divergence. The objective was never to 'equalize choices or outcomes' in fields - it was to provide access and opportunity, which is happening. It would be really, really hard to argue against the flood of data points indicating…

> No ... the data shows that there is actually more equal opportunity, and yet there is gender divergence.

Actually, it shows that there are more of these "opportunity metrics." But we need to ask how reflective of reality these metrics actually are, don't we? If the metrics are bad, that's also another explanation of this "paradox." If someone says, "equal time for paternity and maternity should cause this outcome", but it didn't... well... then we need to examine every reason why that might be? It could be that the law is counterproductive, that men are choosing not to exercise rights, that women are choosing to exercise their rights differently, or that the measures themselves were not actually effective (either by not addressing root causes, or by not actually being deployed effectively).

Why is this question controversial?

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

#427

Post by Ari_Ugwu » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #419

Ari_Ugwu wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people here have echoed the fears and complaints I've heard on this topic. Simply that somehow taking parental leave at all puts you at a disadvantage. Or puts you in a position where you have to explain yourself. I feel like what is being done here is to [ironically] force an equality of outcome on every metric _except_ the one that swings the argument. The very nature of equality of _opportunity_ means to me t…

I'm not at all curious about your year off (other than as incidental conversation if you choose to bring it up). I am curious about your experience and competency, both overall and in terms of recency/currency, as I believe both of those are strongly correlated to your projected contributions to my company. A pilot with 5K hours of experience is more experienced (in the pilot job market) than one with 4K. I don't car…

The point I'm trying to make is that you do seem to be making this A > B comparison without caring about the quality of those hours. Again, it seems to present the argument in a way that echoes the concerns I've heard. "A" simply starts off with an advantage in how you keep presenting it.

There doesn't seem to be room in your opinion or examples for a pilot with 3k hours flying commercial vs someone with 5k hours flying as a hobby on the weekends. 3k is simply less that 5k, right? You don't care _how_ they spent those 5k hours...simply that they have them?

If you agree that this is a ridiculous over simplification in order to prove my point then we may be on the same page.

The very nature of your comments makes me envision a women on the other side of your hiring decision wondering why she couldn't get you to focus on the _quality_ of the work and stop fixating on the _quantity_ of time spent doing it. Because that is exactly what I'm trying to do now.

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

#428

Post by pokemongoaway » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:05 PM UTC

sctb wrote: post #180

JimGuns wrote: post #152

[flagged]

Most of your posts have been breaking the guidelines by being unsubstantive, uncivil, or uninformative flamebait. Please read and follow them or we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No they don't. You just disagree. Stop being dishonest and pro-censorship! I support the parent comment.

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

#429

Post by jki275 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

probably_wrong wrote: post #386

jki275 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just went back and read Damore's memo, and that idea does not appear anywhere in it. I'm curious how you tortured that out of his words.

I don't want to copy-paste from myself, so I would suggest checking the comment I linked, or even better, the article where I commented.

It's still not in what he wrote. Perhaps you see it there, but it's not. In fact, it's the opposite of what he wrote.

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

#430

Post by aklemm » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 7:16 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #425

aklemm wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually unfair to you that someone put in the appropriate effort needed to raise a functioning member of society? Lot's of people in this thread are failing to value parenting appropriately.

first off, i don't actually agree with your implicit assumption that an arbitrary parent is doing some charitable service that i ought to be grateful for. i may benefit marginally from an additional birth by the time I reach old age, but the actual parents seem to benefit more, unless my peers are just bullshitting me about what a rewarding experience it is. if you're in a position where you can afford to shoulder th…

It’s nonsensical and of no benefit to society for the child-free to absolve themselves of any and all stake in how families are supported.