Live data from Hacker News

The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

theatlantic.com

211–220 of 630 posts

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Ask People? What does any of that have to do with being a woman? Just blanket 'patriarchy bs'?

Well, you know, if the question is "Why are there so few women in STEM?", then specifically asking women might make some sense...

[deleted]

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#212
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask women and you'll find that most aren't interested in programming a computer all day. Which one could argue is a sane choice. If anything it's more sane. Stop trying to make them feel like something is wrong if they don't have this inclination. Males and females have different preferences on average, some as early as birth[1]. This is not a bad thing. For the ones that want to program all day, obviously they shoul…

> Males and females have different preferences on average, and do from birth[1]. This is not a bad thing. Sure, but it seems more than a little convenient that the male-chosen professions seem to generally pay significantly more, on average, than the female-chosen ones. Haven't there been studies that showed that women moving into a profession was actually associated with pay dropping?

Men in general, are more aggressive and assertive when it comes to pay increases. If a male dominated industry has sustained pay increases year on year, this is probably why. Over time, female dominated professions have wages that do not increase at the same rate.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like informing everyone that these options exist is part of creating a more equal opportunity. If two people didn't have the same information for available options then there wasn't an equal opportunity.

I just hate that the emphasis seems to be strictly based on careers with high income. There is no focus spreading equality or equity or informing everyone when the career is about social good, life satisfaction, or blunt quality of life.

Yes, don't forget all the shitty careers, with long hours, danger, and significant health hazards. Not much equality of outcome on those either. Somehow no one is claiming sexism is the cause of disparity for those.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#214
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the kind of differences in performance and achievement that would be explained by psychological and physiological differences between men and women That's a bit of circular reasoning though. - Look how men and women behave differently! - But why do they behave differently? - Because they're different. - How do you know that? - Because they behave differently. It's not logically consistent and doesn't answer anythin…

Throwaway commenter, despite being downvoted, you're absolutely right! I'm a woman. I AM A WOMAN IN STEM. You know what makes my blood pressure rise? People in real life and in this thread who tell me that I'm naturally not suited to it, that I like people more than things. Go away! Shut the f(*& up! I want to sit here and deal with my code and not have people tell me that I either don't know what I like or I'm not a…

> You know what makes my blood pressure rise? People in real life and in this thread who tell me that I'm naturally not suited to it, that I like people more than things.

Well... most men aren't suited for STEM, either.

I think that there may be some validity in saying that women, on average, have a temperament difference or focus difference or whatever that makes them want STEM less. But there is NO validity in saying to any particular individual "therefore you are not suited". No, you judge the individual by the individual, not by the group.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Ask People? What does any of that have to do with being a woman? Just blanket 'patriarchy bs'?

Well, you know, if the question is "Why are there so few women in STEM?", then specifically asking women might make some sense...

I understand, but it's referencing the environment in a workplace that applies to both sexes not just women. Her complaint may have also applied to the men there, so really we should get both sides opinion shouldn't we?

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#216

It all comes down to equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. When there is equality of opportunity women choose different fields...often (but not always) because of different interests. Equality of outcome forces people to do things that they may not have an interest in. And that is before you get into interests vs natural talent and how that does or does not affect ones success in a field. On a fundamental l…

> As to the men being jerks/toxic etc argument. Are there times when that is true? Absolutely. But, men do not have a monopoly on being jerks I'd say the bigger point against the idea that women aren't in CS purely* because of men being sexist, is that this implies that male doctors and lawyers in the 60's and 70's were less sexist than male engineers of today. Does anyone actually believe this? * of course, it may s…

>this implies that male doctors and lawyers in the 60's and 70's were less sexist than male engineers of today.

I don't see how it implies this. The more relevant question is whether STEM has higher levels of sexism than other similarly attractive fields.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From quite long time ago women are accepted to universities. Yet to prove your point about "law being fixed long time ago" you refer to news from few months ago.

I didn’t say law was “fixed.” (To paraphrase Justice Ginsberg, law will be “fixed” when there are nine women on the Supreme Court.) What I said was that recent progress is the result of work that started decades ago. Harvard law graduated its first women in 1953. But back then top women law graduates were still getting offers to be secretaries. (Justice Ginsberg’s story was not at all atypical for her cohort.) That,…

> (To paraphrase Justice Ginsberg, law will be “fixed” when there are nine women on the Supreme Court.)

Wait, what? Is this an argument that men are inherently unsuited to be Supreme Court Justices?

My guess is this means having 9 women on the Supreme Court is to make up for all the years there were 9 men on the Supreme Court.

I find this dangerous logic. Seeking to alternate oppression of one group versus another doesn't seem like a good long term solution, in my opinion.

By the way, thanks for your analysis about the progression of gender equality in the legal profession. That's something I didn't know about.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But science includes biology, chemistry, pharmacy and medical research (e.g. molecular biology, neurology,...). So just because it is not the M does not say it is not part of STEM. Actually, I am unsure how country specific this is and where to put medicine with respect to hard sciences, soft sciences, social sciences etc.

> Actually, I am unsure how country specific It is kind of hilarious how different this works in a lot of countries. For example in German, the translation of science is 'Wissenschaft'. It would literally translate to "the thing you do to make knowledge". Humanities are called 'Geistes'wissenschaft and Law is called 'Rechts'wissenschaft'. Math is generally considered to be part of the humanities, and CS is usually ei…

> Math is generally considered to be part of the humanities

Hm, not always. In my experience it was a B.Sc., M. Sc. and Dr. rer. nat. and in the math-nat department, but it can also be associated with philosophy and of course there is no scientific method in math.

For medicine you also have the (again country specific?) question whether a medical doctorate is comparable to a hard science one, e.g. for the purpose of grants in medical research.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#219
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask women and you'll find that most aren't interested in programming a computer all day. Which one could argue is a sane choice. If anything it's more sane. Stop trying to make them feel like something is wrong if they don't have this inclination. Males and females have different preferences on average, some as early as birth[1]. This is not a bad thing. For the ones that want to program all day, obviously they shoul…

> Males and females have different preferences on average, and do from birth[1]. This is not a bad thing. Sure, but it seems more than a little convenient that the male-chosen professions seem to generally pay significantly more, on average, than the female-chosen ones. Haven't there been studies that showed that women moving into a profession was actually associated with pay dropping?

It's not some conspiracy to pay women less. It works like this:

1. More people (women in this case) enter the profession.

2. Due to increased labor supply, pay starts to drop.

3. Men, placing a relatively higher priority on high pay, begin to avoid the profession.

That last point is sort of interesting. Men are strongly associated with their careers and level of pay. This is most of their status. It has a tremendous impact in the dating market. It is a key factor in the likelihood of divorce. Men follow the money; they don't get randomly assigned careers and they don't just follow their dreams. Men strongly seek the status of a high-paid job. To marry and start a family, that job is almost required. Women have no such trouble, so they don't need to prioritize earnings. Women can pick careers they actually enjoy.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#220
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> women are expected to be in control of their emotions / self and men are not > Men are not often held accountable for taking their emotions out on people, be they anxiety, depression or insecurity I think a more accurate framing is that women are not allowed to be angry or aggressive, and men are not allowed to be sad or vulnerable. In public, at least. Consider how much more tolerable, and therefore common, it is…

Angry or aggressive behaviour is not socially acceptable for men, at least where I come from. Men are mostly expected to just not exhibit emotions publicly.

I guess part of my point is that men's emotions end up coming out whether they want them to or not. In trying to suppress one type of expression, it surfaces in other ways (anxiety disguised as "high standards" or "hard working" is a huge one here).
Post reply on HN