An alternative argument for why women leave STEM • Hacker News Board

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#621

Post by blub » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:46 AM UTC

adjkant wrote: post #439

Tade0 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not six months, it's 9 months of pregnancy + ideally another year to recuperate, bond with the child and care for them.

Children don't magically become independent when they turn 1 either, they need a lot of investment from both parents in order to develop harmoniously.

Starting at this point one could wonder if fathers couldn't spend the same amount of effort as mothers. Technically they could, but by that point they probably aren't very good at some kinds of care and bonding, nor is the baby used to them in that way, unless they already did it during the first year.

It's also not something that is appreciated by others, except maybe the mother, if she can get over their clumsiness and has the patience to teach them what to do. All in all, there's no benefit for the family if the fathers instead of the mothers work part time or stay at hole.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#622

Post by blub » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:48 AM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #363

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…

It's becoming more acceptable that whomever is the lower-income partner is the one who is the primary caregiver of children (man or woman). From what I can see, working in STEM academia definitely means you are likely to be the lower-income partner.

Where is it becoming more acceptable? In Germany I read an article about a stay at home dad and their life sounded quite miserable. They couldn't even hang around with other mothers because their husbands became suspicious.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#623

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

adjkant wrote: post #439

Tade0 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#624

Post by ivalm » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:52 AM UTC

saghm wrote: post #585

ivalm wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SWE at FAANG is only a minor, frankly irrelevant, portion of STEM. Most people in STEM cannot transition to being a FAANG SWE. In fact, the OP article of this thread is about progression in an academic career, which doesn't pay well unless you become a full professor at a research uni. First time you break low 6 figures in this career is when you become assistant prof in early/mid 30s.

> In fact, the OP article of this thread is about progression in an academic career, which doesn't pay well unless you become a full professor at a research uni. First time you break low 6 figures in this career is when you become assistant prof in early/mid 30s. Is an assistant professor different from a "full professor" in your usage here? I'm not sure how you define "paying well", but low six figures is significan…

Tenure track professors in the US have 3 major levels:

1. Assistant Professor = no tenure, up or out after ~5 years.

2. Associate Professor = tenured, but still not "full"

3. Professor = tenured "full professor"

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#625

Post by kkarakk » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:54 AM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #614

burlesona wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah economy is just one part of the puzzle, society has moved on from the "you need to have kids to live a full life" mentality too. Good luck finding an interesting career driven woman who wants kids at 20 something.

Also, imo- for the most part kids degrade life experience significantly before they improve it, often in the part of your lifespan that you can actually enjoy life the most. Are you going to be taking risks and travelling to far flung countries in your 40-50s? most probably not by choice.

Hanging out with my kids at 40 isn't gonna happen even if i had chosen to have kids. Kids nowadays will be in school/tutoring programs/hanging out on social media not have time for me as a father to teach them outdated cultural mores(that they will ignore anyways just like i did).

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#626

Post by RonanTheGrey » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 9:56 AM UTC

HammockWarrior wrote: post #397

Seems like much of the problem could be solved by just having the working world chill the f' out for women and for men. For example, a 32 hour workweek along with generous paid parental leaves. Everyone should have time for a life outside of work, not just women of childbearing age. Also, The whole idea of having young people work like dogs in order to have a shot at making partner, or gaining tenure, or gaining a me…

> Also, The whole idea of having young people work like dogs in order to have a shot at making partner, or gaining tenure, or gaining a medical degree is both outdated and ageist.

You can't dictate this though. Say you have a well-run engineering team where everyone spends exactly 40 hours a week and only 40 hours a week on their jobs. And everyone does this.

You hire one new person who just LOVES THEIR WORK and they work 80 hours a week. Their output is through the roof, they get recognition, raises, bonuses, and promotions.

Now everyone chases them. Goodbye work/life balance for the entire team.

And before one suggests "make it against the rules to do that", good luck seeing how long your group or business lasts with such a policy. Probably NOTHING could be worse for morale.

Even being generous and kind, you end up with that situation. So your solution must work with that tendency, not assume it out of the problem.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#627

Post by kkarakk » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:00 AM UTC

satyrnein wrote: post #572

virtuous_signal wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

32 hour workweeks might work but there will always be the issue of defection . If a company allows employees to take unlimited leave, then worker A who avails him/herself of it, will be at a disadvantage to worker B who keeps working like a dog, when it comes time for promotions. If company A mandates 32 hour workweeks, then they will eventually lose out to their competitor company B who mandates 40 hours (or more in…

Wouldn't these concerns apply just as well to minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, environmental protections, etc?

yeah and china is now manufacturing the world's things coz they don't follow any of those laws and their citizens don't have a say in it.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#628

Post by ptaipale » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:07 AM UTC

entee wrote: post #40

GCA10 wrote: post #15

Thanks, Karen Morenz, for providing a unified, panoramic view of the ways that the standard academic career progression short-changes many female scientists, even if each step along the way seems to make sense. It's worth taking a look at three other professions with long, high-intensity pathways from apprentice to master --all of which have been wrestling with the same challenges. They are management consulting, law…

I agree with this and the subtlety of the OP’s argument. There is clearly a problem, there are clearly many contributors, I have personally seen The OP situation play out with my female friends/colleagues in STEM (and other “high power” sectors). This does NOT discount that sexism still is a problem nor that there may be cultural/societal norms that influence the family planning issue. It’s a complicated issue, it ne…

I am not so sure that the suggested availability of high quality childcare really helps those numbers in STEM.

In Nordic countries (I live in Finland), which are quite well known for having good quality childcare available to all families at low cost, the situation has not increased placement of women in STEM professions.

In fact, quite the opposite: the more "gender-equal" a society, the fewer women study STEM subjects.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#629

Post by Hercuros » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:12 AM UTC

allovernow wrote: post #146

pgeorgi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With all due respect, I don’t understand this call to action. Faculty position is basically a zero sum game. If more women end up as faculty, fewer men will. So, unless it costs more to train women than men, I doubt any “investment” would be saved The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the…

>The assumption is that aptitude for these positions is roughly the same between genders, so if there's a significant imbalance, society doesn't get the best people on the given set of seats. An assumption which I have to point out is absolutely not verified. In fact, there are mountains of circumstantial, statistical, and biological evidence to the contrary - which policy makers in the west are increasingly ignoring…

It should also be mentioned that general statements or studies about the relative mathematical or technical abilities of men and women do not necessarily have any direct bearing on specific groups of men and women, like “people who have successfully completed a STEM PhD”. In fact, it’s quite plausible that any differences between men and women disappear once you only look at those people who have a PhD, even if those differences did exist in the general population (which is debatable, and even if it is true, it is not clear which factors are responsible for it). Since this article talks about gender disparity in the population of people who have a PhD, statements or studies which apply to the general population are not really all that relevant.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#630

Post by paganel » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

detoxdetox wrote: post #451

maire wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course! But that's only a tiny minority of wealthy women. Nobody is claiming that, historically, women did not work. It's just that female work was performed in proximity of their young children and interweaved with their care. Which is work in itself as well. The historical norm of peasant societies is gendered work roles. Roughly speaking, the male works in the fields and the female works around the house / vill…

Not sure about the US but here in Eastern Europe our peasant grandmothers were definitely working on the fields themselves, most of the times even longer hours than the men. It was the job of the very old women around the house to stay at home and take care of the eventual infants, but even then, that was an exception rather than the rule. I know that one of my grand-grand-mothers wanted to go and work the fields until her late 80s, together with everybody else from the extended family, staying at home was a sign of weakness and was seen as almost courting sickness/death.