Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force • Hacker News Board

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#211

Post by shantly » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #107

danbolt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very true. We definitely are more lenient towards people in different ways depending on their gender, and there are a lot of relaxed social expectations that men have compared to women. Still though, I think there are dimensions of this where this is less true, perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. The typical men's section of a cl…

>perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit aroun…

> Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.

Strongly disagree—you may just not have been exposed to all the options in men's fashion. There are tons, without even deviating too far from traditional/normal.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#212

Post by danbolt » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

Camillo wrote: post #111

danbolt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Esther Perel's thinking[1] that the next century is going to involve a broadening on what society deems a positive life is for straight, cis men. In the same way that we consider it acceptable for women to express themselves or live differently than the gender roles of the past, I think we'll start to do the same for men. I already see this with my millennial or genZ peers. It's not uncommon to read comm…

> It's not uncommon to read comments on Hacker News or twitter from men feeling that they seen as less valid for doing less traditional activities[2][3] (eg: caring for children, prioritizing their careers less, being less traditionally forward, etc.) and I think society is going to need to change to acknowledge this better for both men and women. That is an interesting angle. What do you think is going to change, an…

I think a growing cohort of men will start to live their lives and express themselves in ways that are fulfilling to them and know it’s worthwhile despite society’s expectations. This might involve being more “feminine” in a lot of ways or place less importance on their careers or seeming successful by traditionally masculine traits. I think men will recognize this in each other and support one another when their peers or women won’t necessarily like the untraditional new lives they’re leading. This might be like women having careers in the 1960s or LGBT people being out in society. It can be untraditional, but ultimately a fine and healthy way to live your life. I think social media or online communities will help with this too.

In terms of what is causing it to change, I think is deindustrialization and the nature of a capitalist, individualist society. If your peers or culture are asking you to be “masculine” as a hunter gatherer, Breton-Woods-era American tradesman, or Jay Gatsby-type, you’re going to feel out of place if you don’t feel like that’s how you want to live your life.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#213

Post by wostusername » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

anotherman554 wrote: post #157

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say couples. I said married people. Married people BY LAW do not have separate finances. Your situation is completely different.

In the case of a married couple, it's my understanding that if you refuse to share your earnings with a spouse, the spouse has to either put up with it or divorce you and ask the court to give them a share of it. Absent the nuclear option of a divorce, finances can be kept separate.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is dependent on if you are in a community property state or not. In a community property state (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin) all income earned by either partner is automatically community property and owned equally by both parties. In a non-community property state you have the right to keep your earned income separate from your spouse.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#214

Post by shantly » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

tomxor wrote: post #201

mywittyname wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. I don't wear either of these on a daily basis, nor my birthday suit, and people think that I dress nice. Men have a plethora of clothing options that are stylish, comfortable, and appropriate for work situations. I'm currently wearing slacks that are de…

I duno, what you say sounds right but my experience seems to be the opposite, i can never find anything that fits in physical shops, everything seems to be stocked for either obese or tall people, i'm slim and on the shorter side (but not very short)... alternatively perhaps I just expect shopping to actually be efficient, i hate spending ages shopping, but perhaps frequency is the only way you can find a good fit...…

It takes some combination of time and money. On the high end of the money side you know nothing about fashion and pay someone to dress you well. On the low end you have to learn a bunch and spend serious time so you can buy pieces via thrift, sales, and seconds, that'll actually fit, look good/appropriate, and last.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#215

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

nkkollaw wrote: post #23

jacquesm wrote: post #16

The more interesting thing is the distribution of income. I would happily bet that there still is a considerable gap between women on average and men on average and that the total amount taken home by that majority is significantly less than the total amount for the men.

Women tend to choose jobs that pay less. They're on average more interested in people, so they tend to choose to become nurses, teachers, etc., while men are interested in things and become software developers, engineers, etc. I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to force women to become software developers..? But why.

[deleted]

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#216

Post by danbolt » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

somebodythere wrote: post #202

magduf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit aroun…

It is unfortunate that the range of clothing coded as masculine is not as expressive as the range coded as feminine. What kinds of masculine-coded clothing articles would you like to see?

Formal outfits that involve bright colours that aren’t necessary a three-piece suit. I’d love to see dresses and jumpsuits tailored to men.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#217

Post by Ohn0 » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

08-15 wrote: post #162

Ohn0 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ahem. The topic of equality of outcome is flamebait to begin with. (Why? Because of tiny details like "encouraging" hidden it between the neutral reporting.) The question is real, though: are trans women counted as women? If not: transphobic. If yes: what do these numbers really tell us? And there's also "non-binary" and "prefer not to say". Making sense of statistics in the current year is f'ing difficult.

I know, but I wanted to try copy/paste for easy karma.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#218

Post by standardUser » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

Ohn0 wrote: post #128

wayoutthere wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring everything else wrong with your post, I'll just point out that most software developers were originally women before about 1960 -- it was seen as "woman's work" because it didn't require physical labor. Women were significant contributors to the development of computing from the very beginning -- in fact, "software" as a concept was invented by a woman [1]. The profession didn't become high-status or highly-…

How does this refute the previous position that women in general aren't currently as interested in computer science as teaching or nursing?

One does not need to refute the position that woman are less interested in computer science than nursing or teaching because asserting the personal interest of a hundred million people you've never met is nothing more than made up nonsense. There is of a course a lot of information out there about how societal expectations, existing power structures, gendered use of language, workplace dynamics and many other factors influence things like education and career ambitions. But ascribing it to the idea that "women are more interested in people" is lazy and meaningless.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#219

Post by cmendel » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #198

nkkollaw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women tend to choose jobs that pay less. They're on average more interested in people, so they tend to choose to become nurses, teachers, etc., while men are interested in things and become software developers, engineers, etc. I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to force women to become software developers..? But why.

> Women tend to choose jobs that pay less. This is accurate, but not for the reasons you have given. Think of it this way. Within a profession, say "lawyer", there are different career paths. One career path involves a lot of travel away from home, and one does not. Because traditionally women are expected to be home for children, women tend to more often select the path that involves staying at home more, which tend…

Would you be so kind as to pass along a citation for this?

>But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.

My understanding had been that the wage gap was a result of statistical malpractice. Further, I had thought that the intraprofession pay comparison between genders boiled down almost exclusively to (willingness to negotiate) and (taking time off of work to have children).

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#220

Post by shantly » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

riversflow wrote: post #194

mywittyname wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. I don't wear either of these on a daily basis, nor my birthday suit, and people think that I dress nice. Men have a plethora of clothing options that are stylish, comfortable, and appropriate for work situations. I'm currently wearing slacks that are de…

> Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape. I read this frequently, but it just seems flat wrong, I think men just have lower expectations about how clothes should fit, and there is less expectation that men stay slim. I’m trim and fit, and I can only buy from a couple of brands if I want clothes that fit me well without being skin tight. I’m not alone. There is a great variety of shoulder geometri…

Decent (read: donated to by people with money) thrift stores are a great place to find one's sizing. Go in with a few brands in mind and an understanding of how their sizing works (they may have cut variations in addition to just small/medium/large, like trim/slim/regular, for instance) then just start trying on anything from those brands until you narrow down your correct sizing. If you get very close you may be able to guess for e.g. online sale orders from that brand (say, a pair of chinos at the thrift store is a tiny bit too tight but looks alright otherwise, so you're very confident 1" more in the waist would fit well, so you catch the next sale from that brand and order their chinos in the size you're almost sure will fit)

Difficulty: you have to know what to look for in fit so you can diagnose what's wrong with a given article if it's not quite right.