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

Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 144 posts

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#61

Post by SapporoChris »

ascar wrote: post #52
SapporoChris wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-ga... Yes, the anti-male prejudice is just awful. /s

I'm not sure that link is actually helping your point. From the link: > The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 cents for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal wor…

You're correct, I didn't pick a good link. I picked one that admits the problem and then downplays it. Please note that no evidence exists on the page for the controlled gender pay gap.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#62

Post by ascar »

SapporoChris wrote: post #55
sidlls wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be true that entrenched systems favor males in some areas, and new social and cultural phenomena disfavor them in others at the same time. My wife has made the observation that there seems to be so much more media, events, toys, etc., targeted at girls in a positive way than for boys. We have two boys, and she has been quite the feminist in the time I’ve known her. As a guy I tend to err on the side of being s…

The pay scales seem to indicate that we are pretty damn far from having a general problem with anti-male prejudice. Media events targeted to girls, like the super bowl, Mardi Gras, military conflicts, just naming a few. Sorry, I'm missing it. What media events favored women.

> The pay scales seem to indicate that we are pretty damn far from having a general problem with anti-male prejudice

No they don't indicate that at all. Equal pay day is in fact anti-male propaganda. It's the opposite of meritocracy to expect people to earn the same regardless of career and life choices and that's exactly what the equal pay day would require. The controlled pay gap is at 1% (based on the same source you linked).

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#63

Post by mpweiher »

wpietri wrote: post #43
drno123 wrote: post #18

As a male engineer, whose grandmother got PhD in Physics around 1960 when overall PhDs were more strict than today, and especially for women, I think it is both bad when women are being held back “because they should stay at home and raise a family”, and when we want to right a historic wrong by having double standards so we could hire more women in STEM roles. We need meritocracy.

I get that, and I have been there before. But how do you fairly judge true merit in an oppressive world? A lot of the typical ways just support or amplify existing biases. That's not to say it's impossible, but an awful lot of people crying "meritocracy" do so in defense of conspicuously unexamined hiring practices.

Which hiring practices are those? The ones that favor women by 2:1? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112

Anecdotally, an executive recruiter friend I talked to recently here in Europe said that she now has to get approval from corporate headquarters in the US for a straight white male candidate.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#64

Post by wpietri »

stuckinhell wrote: post #57
wpietri wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. Achieving equality will feel like oppression to those used to having a good deal. Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy, something Andrew Tate seeks to restore and extend. As a guy, I'm perfectly fine with things like "the future is female" for the same reason I'm fine with things like "gay pride" and "black pride" even though…

This might be my management role leaking, but in my experience you are being far too rational. Humans are emotional beings first and foremost, then rational. I do think society is hostile to him, but I don't want him to become a reactionary, or a culture warrior. I'm his mother, I want him to be happy. I won't sacrifice my son to some abstract societal goal no matter how noble it might seem. This is why I cannot agre…

Ok? I don't think society is overall hostile to men. I'm a man. I think I might have noticed.

I'm not telling you to sacrifice your son to some abstract goal. I'm telling you that his happiness depend on things more meaningful than a gender label. Your son doesn't have to attach his identity to an oppressor class that is ending, which surely would impact his happiness. He can instead attach it to the end of oppression, something he can feel happy working toward.

And it's not my idea that ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. It's a basic fact that if Bucket A has 4 apples and Bucket B has 2 apples, asymmetric behavior will be required to get an equal number of apples in the buckets. Similarly, reducing my male privilege is going to require behaviors that are not perfectly the same toward all people. Should we try to minimize "collateral damage" as we move forward? Absolutely! But we should also keep in mind that not moving forward means ongoing damage. If we treat the collateral damage to men (from improvement) as more important than the damage to women (from not improving), that's just another flavor of patriarchy.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#65

Post by dasil003 »

mpweiher wrote: post #60
dasil003 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one group defines society. It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power, and its admirable to acknowledge your own privilege as you are doing here, but it's critical to not start believing that the cultural narrative du jour is somehow the ground truth. The minute we do this, we feed political polarization between genuinely good people, and open the door for liars and sociopaths to manipulate us li…

> It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair. A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power. People always confuse these things. Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.

I feel you are fundamentally in agreement with my point and splitting hairs to satisfy a pedantic desire to make a very specific semantic distinction. It might feel good, but you're not going to win anyone over with this type of nitpicking.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#66

Post by readthenotes1 »

wpietri wrote: post #39
stuckinhell wrote: post #4

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Even where I work, I'm under a lot of pressure to hire more women engineers to the point we bend rules and relax standards. There is a ton of societal and economic pressure with slogans like "the future is female". I'm a mother and I do not think this is a good thing. I have a so…

Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. Achieving equality will feel like oppression to those used to having a good deal. Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy, something Andrew Tate seeks to restore and extend. As a guy, I'm perfectly fine with things like "the future is female" for the same reason I'm fine with things like "gay pride" and "black pride" even though…

"Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior."

2 wrongs make it right?

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#67

Post by ascar »

SapporoChris wrote: post #61
ascar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that link is actually helping your point. From the link: > The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 cents for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal wor…

You're correct, I didn't pick a good link. I picked one that admits the problem and then downplays it. Please note that no evidence exists on the page for the controlled gender pay gap.

> Please note that no evidence exists on the page for the controlled gender pay gap.

What are you trying to say with this? The controlled gender pay gap is the actual relevant indicator. That women make other life choices than man can have a multitude of reasons and I strongly disagree that striving for equal ratios across career and life choices is a desirable goal. Man and women should have equal opportunities. Them making the same choices is not a consequence of that.

edit: Looking at their prime example of jobs with a controlled gender pay gap:

The controlled gender pay gap between male and female waitresses is at 82%. I can't help but feel this isn't properly controlled. A waiter at a higher class restaurant is likely to earn more than at your regular dinner place and though this is purely anecdotal, I tend to see nearly exclusively male waiters in fine dining restaurants. If these are grouped together with all waiters, differences in career and life choices are again not controlled for. There is a big difference between a "career waiter" (such as those you encounter in fine restaurants) and someone working in that job as a means to an end, often on a temporary basis.

(direct link to that section: https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-ga...)

edit2: also considering there is quite a number of jobs significantly below the median of 0.99, I would be curious to see the jobs where women are paid more than men and how big the differences are there. Afterall, the topic at hand isn't that female discrimination exists (it does, no question there!), but that male discrimination (often as a correctional method) becomes more and more of a problem that gets wilfully ignored or is even socially acceptable and encouraged! Discriminating men to solve female discrimination isn't a solution, meritocracy and equal opportunities are the solution.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#68

Post by stuckinhell »

wpietri wrote: post #64
stuckinhell wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be my management role leaking, but in my experience you are being far too rational. Humans are emotional beings first and foremost, then rational. I do think society is hostile to him, but I don't want him to become a reactionary, or a culture warrior. I'm his mother, I want him to be happy. I won't sacrifice my son to some abstract societal goal no matter how noble it might seem. This is why I cannot agre…

Ok? I don't think society is overall hostile to men. I'm a man. I think I might have noticed. I'm not telling you to sacrifice your son to some abstract goal. I'm telling you that his happiness depend on things more meaningful than a gender label. Your son doesn't have to attach his identity to an oppressor class that is ending, which surely would impact his happiness. He can instead attach it to the end of oppressio…

You don't notice because you aren't the same generation. You seem to have a blindspot around the idea of generational differences.

My son did not get advantages from being part of the oppressor class, YOU did. My son and you might both be male, but the generation experience is not the same. My son is a innocent child.

You an old white man telling me I should tell my son to to accept an identity he does not deserve. I will not force my son to pay for your oppressor sin/guilt. There is a way forward for both young women and young men,but its not your way. Your way only works if humans were robots.

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#69

Post by wpietri »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #66
wpietri wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. Achieving equality will feel like oppression to those used to having a good deal. Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy, something Andrew Tate seeks to restore and extend. As a guy, I'm perfectly fine with things like "the future is female" for the same reason I'm fine with things like "gay pride" and "black pride" even though…

"Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior." 2 wrongs make it right?

I don't agree with your framing that all asymmetric behavior is necessarily wrong. But accepting it for the moment, wrongs are sometimes necessary to make rights.

A good example here is the American Revolution. Oppression by force is an obvious wrong. So is killing people. Was it wrong for Americans to revolt, knowing they would have to commit wrongs along the way?

Re: Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

#70

Post by norwalkbear »

dasil003 wrote: post #65
mpweiher wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair. A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power. People always confuse these things. Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.

I feel you are fundamentally in agreement with my point and splitting hairs to satisfy a pedantic desire to make a very specific semantic distinction. It might feel good, but you're not going to win anyone over with this type of nitpicking.

It's not pedantic. It's a damn good point. Most men are shit out of luck just like most women beholden to whims of those with money and power.
Post reply on HN