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

An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 748 posts

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#431

Post by wilg »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #395

The author is missing the forest for the trees. She argues that a specific kind of sexism (harrassment) is not sufficient to explain why so many women are forced out of their careers in STEM academia. She argues that the real reason is that those women want to start a family and they can't do both at once. She herself is considering leaving academia to start a family (she wants to have two or three children). Yet she…

I agree with you. However, I think slicing up the various types of sexism in the way the author does is tactically useful for solving the issue in the fastest possible way.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#432

Post by kendallpark »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #395

The author is missing the forest for the trees. She argues that a specific kind of sexism (harrassment) is not sufficient to explain why so many women are forced out of their careers in STEM academia. She argues that the real reason is that those women want to start a family and they can't do both at once. She herself is considering leaving academia to start a family (she wants to have two or three children). Yet she…

Agreed. How many times have you heard a man say he had to choose between his career and having kids? The fact that it is predominantly women who feel they have to choose between children and career IS institutional sexism. We say we've achieved "equal opportunity" when women are allowed to participate in career fields that had originally evolved around the male workforce. Is that parity? That women can succeed in certain industries as long as they are like men in that they never become pregnant? Jobs and industries designed by women for a female workforce would look a lot different.

We need to--as much as we are able--change societal expectations, workforce expectations, and the way jobs are structured so that women are not at a disadvantage. These changes can also benefit men (eg, equal parental leave and other policies that it more affordable and feasible for people to have children). It hurts both sexes when workplaces are biased towards this archetype of a male breadwinner that is content putting in long hours away from his family.

You could view this as anti-family bias, which, due to society and biology, disproportionately affects women.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#433

Post by the_gipsy »

proc0 wrote: post #267

Why do we care that there are equal women and men again? Why does representation actually matter again? I would find it more exciting to see a field with no representation because I could make a greater impact! This whole ideology of having representation everywhere is very dumb and conformist.

Because women have a right to the same opportunities as the other 50% of the population.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#434

Post by jpetso »

selimthegrim wrote: post #348
imgabe wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law and medicine allow for maternity leave. In academia, you have a set amount of time to get tenure. It is not extended for pregnancy. If you don't get tenure, your career is basically over. While the article talks about leaving STEM it focuses on PhDs and academia. This is an academia problem, it's not specific to STEM.

I’ve heard pregnancy gave you an extra year

Yes, and this is discussed in the article too.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#435

Post by wilg »

uncle_j wrote: post #415
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It is almost never mentioned but most men won't respect other men who are stay at home parent. So there is also an expectation on the man to be the bread winner. That too, is sexism, of course. Sexism also harms men.

I don't agree it is sexism. It is the simple fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. This guarantees that there will be asymmetry between the genders regardless of the social engineering that is attempted. There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. > Sexism also harms men. Yes it does. But this is not one of those circumstances. However that i…

Bad take! There's no distinction between "biology" and "social engineering". Our biology underpins us having these discussions. Our biology underpins our society. Our biology underpins our thinking that things can be better. Our biology encourages us to improve our own quality of life and that of others in ever larger social groups. Everything we do is true to our biology.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#436

Post by adjkant »

gfodor wrote: post #154
detoxdetox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lost in the modern rush for status and money, "obscenely convenient high quality daycare" used to be called "Motherhood" and was supplied by Mothers themselves. Some would argue, the most valuable contribution to society, even if not directly monetized. To sustain a healthy population, we used to need 10 children per fertile woman, which made "stay at home Mother" an obvious necessity for the vast majority of women.…

I've re-read your comment a few times now, and I don't see anywhere you've written something that implies you think women ought to become mothers due to some moral standard you have. So I don't think the downvotes are warranted. It sounds like you are highlighting the contradiction between the fact that women are now increasingly expected and needed to do the job of full-time motherhood while also somehow, miraculous…

While implication versus what was literally written is quite muddy with this comment, what is missing from the entire comment is why it has to be a mother and not a father. The ending part also shows a lack of understanding of how childcare actually works today as well.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#437

Post by datashow »

maire wrote: post #428
detoxdetox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lost in the modern rush for status and money, "obscenely convenient high quality daycare" used to be called "Motherhood" and was supplied by Mothers themselves. Some would argue, the most valuable contribution to society, even if not directly monetized. To sustain a healthy population, we used to need 10 children per fertile woman, which made "stay at home Mother" an obvious necessity for the vast majority of women.…

Non-working mothers is a modern anomaly. It used to be a sign of wealth for a man to have a non-working wife. That is why the newly affluent men of the mid-20th century wanted it so much. They came out of the great depression, fought a great war, and wanted a wife at home. You should not judge all of history by this one era. The work of child care used to fall on the entire extended family. The nuclear family reduced…

> Non-working mothers is a modern anomaly. It used to be a sign of wealth for a man to have a non-working wife.

You really need some data to back it up here. "I worked, my mother worked, my grandmothers worked, and my great grandmothers worked." is not good evidence. For one, there is a representative issue. For another, there is a huge difference between part-time work and full-time work. We don't know how many hours your mother, grandmothers, and great grandmothers worked, or worked for how many years.

Check data presented on this webpage: https://ourworldindata.org/female-labor-force-participation-... . Female labor participation rate has being increasing since 1900.

Apparently the data contradicted with your own personal experience. This is why we should try to avoid general argument based on our on personal experience.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#438

Post by tathougies »

danharaj wrote: post #170
tathougies wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that the primary enforcer of this curtailment is not adults but infants? I mean, I took long paternity leave, I am with my daughter at night, and am with her whenever I am home. She still wants to nurse on her mothers breast when she's sick or in pain. This makes sense as not only is it comforting to her (and a childs emotional need is very real) but it is also physiologically beneficial (nursing…

How many people do you think are involved in raising the average child? Two? I had a veritable village of people raising me. I can assure you that only one of them nursed me. For some reason, though, most of them were women. It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more…

I mean I was raised by my grandmother and grandfather while my parents worked. Did you think I didn't need to emphasize the importance of extended family? My father and mother also take care of my daughter, as do my wife's. However, she still wants her mom at night, no matter who is around. This makes it harder for my wife to work. It is unfair to even ask her to, given her work when dealing with the baby at night.

I suppose we could bottle feed. But my wife doesn't want to, and it is linked to worse outcomes for kids so asking moms to do this for the sake of their career is like asking them to cut their nose to spite their face.

> It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more efficient.

Of course, but there's only one mom still. My parents were raised in a ' non-nuclear family' where aunts and uncles lived next door. Hell, I was raised by my mom's family and my parents often living together. Do you think the mom wasn't preferred out of all these people? You have to be joking. The only people who ascribe 'the nuclear family' as a bogeyman are people who idolize extended families. Believe it or not, even in an extended family situation, with grandma, grandpa, aunts and uncles... babies still prefer their mothers.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#439

Post by adjkant »

Tade0 wrote: post #427
tylermenezes wrote: post #272

I think it's still a form of sexism to assume women are the ones who need to care for a child. That's something that very few diversity-in-STEM folks are really thinking about. Many years ago an ex-girlfriend, who works in STEM academia (and is otherwise a liberal, progressive feminist), expressed concerns similar to the author about having kids. When I brought up that it wasn't written in stone that she would need t…

I think it's still a form of sexism to assume women are the ones who need to care for a child. They're definitely the only ones who can breastfeed(at any practical rate anyway). One may, of course, elect not to do that, but it does make a difference for the child.

Why is 6 months of time dictating the entirety of childcare?

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#440

Post by tathougies »

csb6 wrote: post #96
tathougies wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that the primary enforcer of this curtailment is not adults but infants? I mean, I took long paternity leave, I am with my daughter at night, and am with her whenever I am home. She still wants to nurse on her mothers breast when she's sick or in pain. This makes sense as not only is it comforting to her (and a childs emotional need is very real) but it is also physiologically beneficial (nursing…

Structural sexism is not perpetuated by infants. I mean come on. Children wanting to nurse is not the big issue; children grow up, and do not need nursing when they become toddlers. So why are women still expected to be caretakers of toddlers, middle-schoolers, and tweens? Surely, there isn’t a physiological reason. There is clearly something larger going on. In reality, men and women’s roles are arbitrary, and the s…

Of course not. But the average woman wants three kids. WHO says babies should breastfeed for two years. My daughter has nursed for 13 months. A mother taking off three chunks of 13 month leaves while married to a man probably earning as much or more than she does (since women disproportionately marry similar or higher earning men) is going to -- at some point -- realize that it's easier to stay at home. That is exactly what my wife did.

> Even the concept of the nuclear family - with one possible nurse and mother figure - isn’t a universal construct of human societies.

Yes it is. The only people who claim this are people who've never lived in an extendend family situation. You still know who your mom and dad are. They are still the primary care givers, and babies still have a primary attachment to their moms when born that self-reinforces itself unless there is some major disruption.

Post reply on HN