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

611–620 of 748 posts

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#611

Post by Fomite »

asdff wrote: post #604
Fomite wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also less room to move. It's much harder for someone whose been doing PCR for the past 6 years to go "You know what, screw this..." than there is for someone whose been working on the analysis of large datasets in say, physics. And, perceptional-wise, leaving for industry is often seen as a failure.

People doing PCR for 6 years are probably generating a pretty big dataset for analysis... Bioinformatics is an entire field. The lines between molecular biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, statistics, and computer science are getting very blurry these days. Plenty of bio phds get hired for data scientist roles in industry. No one is going to knock you for leaving for industry these days. Anyone who is a big deal e…

PCR doesn't necessarily generate large data sets.

And as someone who works in the field, there's definitely a stigma against students not aiming for PI positions at R1 institutions. There's some practical reasons for that - students who go into industry are less useful for "empire building", but it's also cultural.

I'm lucky enough to be in a field where this isn't as true, but I'm faculty in a multidisciplinary center, and the closer you get to pure biology, the worse it gets.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#612

Post by hinkley »

MrFantastic wrote: post #300
hinkley wrote: post #87

I can't speak for women, and I'm just smart enough not to try. But what I can say is that I don't hold all of the values that I did as a young man. I'm not excited about the same things, and today I find some of those ideas uncomfortably naive or even off-putting. As I've engaged in more activities, as I've socialized with more people, I've encountered many more ideas and a lot of nuance. Nothing has simple answers a…

Men are hardwired to ascend to the top of the hierachy so they can access all the women. That's why male billonaires will risk their fortune to make another billion. Women are not rewarded biologically for being the top 2% in their industry. It's almost as if the higher women climb career wise the fewer dating options they have because women tend to want men that are even higher on the totem pole. Outside of a score…

Life is not a game, stop trying to win it.

But I think you know that already.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#614

Post by lordnacho »

burlesona wrote: post #479
lordnacho wrote: post #196

One thing that she touched on that I've thought a lot about recently is the age at which we have kids. My father passed away a couple of weeks ago, and I compare him to his brother. My uncle had his first kid 10 years younger than my dad, and he ended up with the fourth one being older than me. He's got 10 grandchildren, the oldest of which is an adult now. My dad's grandchildren will never know him in any real way.…

I think about this a lot as well. My wife and I decided to have our first child at 30, which is fairly early compared to our peers. Economically it would have been better to wait, we’ve each had career opportunities we couldn’t take advantage of because of having children, and if somehow we could have waited until 40 I think we would have had an easier time economically. But, physically and emotionally, I wish we cou…

If the economy permitted it, the dating market would reflect that and you'd more easily find someone at a young age.

Just like it used to be.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#615

Post by TeMPOraL »

saghm wrote: post #576
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.…

> Instead, we are soft forcing Mothers to drop their kids in the care of poorly paid strangers at the earliest convenience, to spend their full time energy enriching faceless shareholders. Is there any evidence indicating that this is actually true? What makes you think that the existence of out-of-home childcare is forcing mothers to work? This seems backwards; I think it's much more likely that the existence of mot…

The market is a feedback loop, not a static system. Daycares may have started appearing because some mothers wanted to go back to work earlier. But, as more and more families started using them - whether to gain a financial leg up, boost the mother's career, or for personal reasons - they've become established. At the same time, the market started pricing it in - what was perhaps once a trick to boost your material status, now became the default, and these days sending kids to daycare isn't a way to boost anything - not sending them is a way to have less money. Similarly, daycare is expected in careers simply because there's more than enough mothers doing it that not doing it puts you at a competitive disadvantage.

The market rewards being above the mean, but otherwise works to make the mean cheaper. If a few % of people find a way to move above the mean, they reap great rewards - which encourages others to do the same; the mean starts to move up, and competitive pressure starts to push its value down. In the end, "the new way" becomes the default way, and initial rewards from doing it are erased.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#616

Post by RonanTheGrey »

codingmess wrote: post #605
nl wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the person you are replying to is either agreeing or disagreeing it is a privilege. They are just pointing out the increadibly bad argument they are replying to. A brand new account posting self-contradictory nonsense like For dads to step up, as feminists demand, mothers would have to give up that privilege. sounds like a troll to me. I think the comment "no, you see, I can't possibly help you with thi…

No - what is going on is that feminists point to statistics of dads not staying home, then claim it is because dads "don't step up to help in the home". That's a feminist lie - several, actually. First lie: it is a burden to take care of your kids. Second lie: dads are lazy slobs oppressing the mothers to do all the awful work, while they chill in their comfy careers. It's not even a question of "I can't help you wit…

This comment is helpful and relevant:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22080563

While women experience a "parent penalty", the one men would/do experience is much more severe because rather than being seen as necessary or expected, it is a character judgement: you chose to walk away and didn't have to so you have demonstrated you are wiling to be a traitor. (fair or not, this is the judgment).

If one is to advocate for men "stepping up", one must at least understand what they are asking.

"What, just step in front of the cavalry charge, they'll go around you don't worry you're just chicken hehe checkmate".

And while it might be unpopular to suggest this is so, I agree with the parent poster that the first thing that seems to get lost in these discussions is that taking care of children is not a burden. Work, yes, hard, yes, a burden? Only if you didn't want them in the first place. I say this as a father of 2 who sometimes sacrifices work to take care of my kids. It's a privilege the days I do so and I am currently undertaking a Herculean effort to modify the shape of my career and my income in order to do so more often because I love them and want them brought up right instead of leaving them in the hands of some daycare. Burden? WTF?

And it seems to be an absurd argument: "Caring for the children is a burden that holds back women therefore men should do it so women can work." Wait what? How does that fix anything?

This is why I largely stay out of these discussions. It seems to be impossible for them ultimately to be realized as nuanced. This problem is hard and a balanced, equitable solution is multifaceted. To state the solution as "well men should just...." in any context whatsoever does a disservice to the discussion.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#617

Post by lolc »

deyouz wrote: post #88
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.…

We should remember that woman != mother. Not all women are straight/want children/have children.

You're excluding women who are not straight but want or are having children! Seriously though, I find the post you replied to to accurately distinguish between women and mothers. The women who are not bearing are included in those numbers! If we peg the share of women who don't have children at ten percent the child-per-women number of 2 means a child-per-mother ratio of around 2.2. It doesn't change the argument and is an unnecessary detail.

(I disagree with the thrust of the post and think that letting mothers participate in society outside home an important factor in female empowerment. But please let's talk about that, not haggle over definitions.)

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#618

Post by the_gipsy »

jbay808 wrote: post #481
the_gipsy wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sexist because you are dismissing women being treated as lesser beings with some armchair analysis.

I disagree with the poster you are replying to, but I also disagree with what seem to be the implications of you comment -- that someone who prefers performing childcare over STEM work is a "lesser being"?

No no, lesser being as in "we decide your duties and remobe your opportunities".

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#619

Post by celticmusic »

chongli wrote: post #521
celticmusic wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short of some form of difficult manual labor, I've never experienced a workplace that doesn't allow a woman to pump. This is certainly not going to be the norm.

It's not a matter of being disallowed, it's a matter of convenience and comfort. If a woman is working a factory or a large department store, she may have to pump in the restroom. That's not exactly a comfortable or convenient place for it. Far different from an office which offers a quiet room with a comfortable chair or couch for her use. Beyond that, there's also the matter of storage. Breastmilk is unpasteurized…

There are a lot of things in life that aren't perfect, yet they're still solutions.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#620

Post by the_gipsy »

hanniabu wrote: post #470
the_gipsy wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, but you don't see many, if any, complaints about under-represented saturation divers.

So what?
Post reply on HN