Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 536 posts

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

#441

Post by ThrustVectoring »

aklemm wrote: post #381
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's fair for dangerous jobs to pay more, and I've never heard a feminist argue otherwise. The feminism I support simply asks for equal opportunity to various industries and for "care work" to be valued appropriately. Taxing people to pay for family leave is not a "concession" from society, it's more like balancing values and one that pays dividends.

You've heard feminists complain that women make something like 77 cents for every dollar men make and that that is unfair. If you hold all else constant and fix the gross pay ratio, men will be doing more dangerous work and not getting paid any extra for it.

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

#442

Post by aklemm »

leetcrew wrote: post #440
aklemm wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that is a strongly worded, yet totally unsupported claim. is there an argument that goes with it?

"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."

It's exactly as rigorous as your argument. We've both submitted opinions to be considered. I'm not expecting more rigor nor inclined to offer more because I think we've both put out enough worth considering. But if you want to bring more rigor I'll read it.

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

#443

Post by aklemm »

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…

The part about "parents seem to benefit more" is questionable. There ARE benefits, but I'd say good parents are doing a service as much as they are exercising a privilege.

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

#444

Post by classicsnoot »

KirinDave wrote: post #390
castlecrasher2 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but a 10% average difference in primary education among young men is a crisis I don't know how a PragerU video convinced you that this is considered a crisis outside the right-leaning think tanks but I haven't heard a single soul talk about it outside that sphere. It's easy to prop up what a political opponent labels important as something a lot of people care about but I certainly don't see this issue come up in en…

It was on Fox news not even a week ago, and I've seen UK news segments on this as well. I am fairly sure some of the audience here is acutely aware of this line of thinking. Note, for example, how many people are assuming I'm talking about the more common complaint of college statistics. I never once mentioned college or university. They think they know the argument I'm presenting even though I used language that in…

It is a general courtesy to indicate when you have retroactively edited your post.

More to the point, you were responding to a comment that had already introduced the caveat "outside of right wing circles," thereby rendering your observation a bit redundant.

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

#445

Post by dpark »

illumin8 wrote: post #370
dpark wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boo for whining about downvotes and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being alt-right. You're being intellectually dishonest here. You expect to be able to share your point of view without critical response but you insult others for expressing theirs.

You shouldn't express points of view through moderation. Replying to the comment is the appropriate way to express differing points of view.

I agree. Unfortunately that's not the HR stance. I can't find it now but PG stated years ago that downvotes are appropriate for expressing disagreement on HN.

Also, I'm not sure votes count as moderation. Moderation is generally something that exists at a level above community feedback.

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

#446

Post by dpark »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #373
dpark wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

We do. All things being equal, the person hired a year earlier will have higher pay. As they should, since they have an extra year of experience. Assuming equal candidates, the one with more experience will do a better job (second system syndrome notwithstanding).

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

#447

Post by KirinDave »

dijit wrote: post #437
KirinDave wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Can you identify where I didn't do that in the comment that you decided to disagree-by-downvoting? I'm quite tired of being warned of drawing conclusions I did not draw, while taking 10-15 karma point penalties. From my perspective, I'm receiving overwhelming feedback that even questioning these programs at the level of efficacy is unwanted and I should be silenced. I can't really work out how these vot…

At first you asserted: that it's possible that these outcomes could have been a byproduct of a failure to remove barriers to men and women going into workforce's which are majority dominated by their opposite sex. In fact you asserted that point quite strongly, and the reply was to the effect: "It's possible, but lets not just assume, since many people are already doing that" At which point you double-down on defendi…

Well, I don't agree with that at all. I'm surprised by the lack of skepticism towards the policies themselves.

Can you count the number of other people in this entire discussion asking the same question? For awhile, I think I was the only one!

It's quite obvious to me that you and others do not want to even enterain these questions, to the point where you're offended and candidly talking about disagree-by-doenvote for considering a fairly obvious question.

This is a discussion forum. But you're not pointing to a way in which I was hurting the discussion. You're talking about muting my questions using downvotes because you find the idea of considering them as a tough experiment offensive.

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

#448

Post by BeetleB »

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…

>A pilot with 5K hours of experience is more experienced (in the pilot job market) than one with 4K. I don't care that you could have had that extra 1K hours if you'd worked an extra year instead of doing something else. I only care whether you do or don't (as it pertains to this dimension of the evaluation).

This example, along with ones others have given, all reduce to the same thing: You are not interested in determining the skills of your candidate - you are interested in determining experience. Presumably with a dubious belief that your metric is a good proxy for those skills.

>I am curious about your experience and competency

Yet your example only addresses one of these.

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

#449

Post by sonnyblarney »

KirinDave wrote: post #426
sonnyblarney wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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",…

I think it's controversial because of the implied assumption that given equality measures, there would be basically equal outcomes ... and that if we don't see that, then for some reason should be skeptical. I don't think we should be. I think we should mostly trust the data.

After my long while on this planet, I'm of the inclination that gender is existential and that only a huge degree of social coercion would lead to some kind of equal outcomes.

In other words, the data I think agrees with many people's intuition, and that the continued quest to fix outcomes is maybe kind of more ideological than not.

As you point out, there are other ways to look at it, and surely we could dig deeper on this ... but we have a number of studies that are pointing towards the same thing.

I think we're probably going to have to accept that the world is gendered, and that this will mean some deviations here and there from a specific kind of aesthetic egalitarian which is neither possible, nor in the case of most people I think even aspirational.

I think most fields that women want to actually break into, they'll be able to do that in sufficient capacity even if it's not 50/50. But I also believe that in 100 years, the vast majority carpenters will still be men, that women will still be choosing to be primary caregivers to children more of then than men, and that we'll probably still be arguing about this.

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

#450

Post by leetcrew »

aklemm wrote: post #442
leetcrew wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is a strongly worded, yet totally unsupported claim. is there an argument that goes with it?

"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." It's exactly as rigorous as your argument. We've both submitted opinions to be considered. I'm no…

i guess it boils down to you wanting me to help pay for you to raise your child(ren) and me not wanting to. an impasse indeed. there are many more of you than there are of me, so you will likely get your way if you wait.
Post reply on HN