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

Gender and Career Choice

sokanu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#41

Post by Lawtonfogle »

exarch wrote: post #15
jacalata wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meaningless at all. It directly refutes the constant argument that "women don't do engineering because they aren't interested in it".

Not if the only measure of interest used is literally self-reporting a binary "interested/not interested", like it is here. This is deceptioneering through statistics.

>This is deceptioneering through statistics.

It seems that any statistics concerning gender should be treated as such until proven otherwise, regardless of which gender it is about.

Women are favored in child custody! Oh wait, when you consider how rarely men fight for their children, men are more favored! Oh wait, if you account for all variables except for gender, then...

Women are more likely to be raped. Oh wait, if you count being forced to penetrate, men are more likely to be victims. Oh wait, if you count out prisons as they are a special case that doesn't give information about the social trends of society, then women are still the primary victim.

Women get paid less for equal work. Wait, if you don't count all full time as equal but count overtime, they are paid equal. But if you look at raises based one experience then men are favored. But if you count experience based on hours worked instead of years (since someone working 80 hr/wk gets more experience in a given year) women are favored. But then if you...

In short, all of these issues are complex and you can manipulate the statistics to get the result you want.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#42

Post by beat »

rubergly wrote: post #38

In case it wasn't obvious, the word "female" is an adjective, and referring to a group of people by an adjective instead of a noun has a demeaning connotation in English, especially when it's primarily used for one group and not another. Notice how the word "male" is only mentioned in this article as an adjective ("male/female mix", "male/female interests"), but "females" is often used as a synonym for "women" ("% of…

In disability-oriented fields and discussion, it's called people-first language. You're right, it's a sore point. I noticed it too, although I've been kind of trained to notice it.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#43

Post by neilk »

Nadya wrote: post #2

Completely meaningless statistics without factoring in the experience and education of the people surveyed. It's one thing to say you're interested and another to go through the effort required [0]. I'm interested in being a pilot - but I lack any of the education or credentials to actually become a pilot . So my interest compared to the possibility of employment would be meaningless. How many of the females are inte…

> How many of the females are interested in Engineering but majored in Gender or Women's Studies and effectively slashed any chances they had of working as an engineer?

The guy who started this site majored in philosophy and identified as a painter for a long time.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#44

Post by beat »

Nadya wrote: post #13
jacalata wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meaningless at all. It directly refutes the constant argument that "women don't do engineering because they aren't interested in it".

With a majority of majors going to Health professions, Psychology, English, Biology, Arts, Social Sciences, etc and few going to Engineering. It's not a big surprise that, although many claim an "interest" in Engineering that many are also unqualified to hold a position as an Engineer [0]. Having an interest in something and being qualified for the position are two entirely different things. Being qualified has a lar…

What about careers that don't require academic credentials? I gave the example earlier of my own daughter, and the gender bias she faces working in a professional kitchen. That's not an academics-driven field. Kitchen advancement comes from apprenticeship and personal relationships.

If gender bias (observable in staff behavior) plays a role in opportunity, then it stands to reason that women are less likely than men to advance in the field, given similar effort and experience.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#45

Post by beat »

NTDF9 wrote: post #39
beat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perilously close to arguing that women don't do engineering because they're not as smart as men. Either you're using competence to explain the disparities, or you're not. If you're not, then you need an explanation for the observable interest/career disparities. This is especially true for paths where gender bias is reflected in the low/high career paths within the same field (for example, nurses vs doctors).…

>> This is perilously close to arguing that women don't do engineering because they're not as smart as men. Smart is the wrong word. It gives the analysis a different connotation. I think the word we are looking for is aptitude. Among men, there are many who have the aptitude to do STEM. Then there are other men who don't....and that is fine. I think the same goes for women. Many women have the aptitude...but many do…

I was going to critique this argument, but then my mouth just open and closed over and over, silently.

Really? You're serious? Women aren't as smart (or competent, to use your euphemism) as men because they would rather be popular and pretty? That men do the "hard stuff" while women stop themselves?

You're serious?

Oh, dude. You really need to talk to some women.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#46

Post by Nadya »

rcoder wrote: post #7
Nadya wrote: post #2

Completely meaningless statistics without factoring in the experience and education of the people surveyed. It's one thing to say you're interested and another to go through the effort required [0]. I'm interested in being a pilot - but I lack any of the education or credentials to actually become a pilot . So my interest compared to the possibility of employment would be meaningless. How many of the females are inte…

/me sighs Where to start? First, to your (horribly sexist) implication that women opt out of the workforce by studying "Gender or Women's Studies": it isn't even in the top 10 majors for women. You know what the #1 major for women is? Business. http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/top-10-college-majors-women... Biology, math, and physics are all also popular majors for women: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/28/…

>While only 22% of CS PhDs were given to women, they made up an even more minuscule 14% of CS faculty.

Not everyone who obtains a degree later chooses to enter their field of study. A degree also does not guarantee a job. This is yet another example of trying to misuse statistics as a form of confirmation bias.

Looking at statistics from this Slate article [0], since 2003 only beyond obtaining the degree.

Given the data is 3 years out of date, it's possible employment rate has jumped to 63% (the highest its been since 1998!) and that 14% is exactly on-par for the course for having no gender discrimination (against or in favor of) women. A more realistic estimate is that the employment rate is still at 50% or below and 14% is actually discrimination in favor of hiring women given less than 11% should be hired at current employment rates.

>First, to your (horribly sexist) implication that women opt out of the workforce by studying "Gender or Women's Studies": it isn't even in the top 10 majors for women.

It was one example of a major dominated by women that is useless for holding any of the jobs listed as "liked". They also "opt out of the Engineering work force" by majoring in Biology, Business, and Psychology and not Engineering if you feel that using Gender Studies was somehow sexist.

[0] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/07/empl...

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#47

Post by jacalata »

Nadya wrote: post #13
jacalata wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not meaningless at all. It directly refutes the constant argument that "women don't do engineering because they aren't interested in it".

With a majority of majors going to Health professions, Psychology, English, Biology, Arts, Social Sciences, etc and few going to Engineering. It's not a big surprise that, although many claim an "interest" in Engineering that many are also unqualified to hold a position as an Engineer [0]. Having an interest in something and being qualified for the position are two entirely different things. Being qualified has a lar…

So your proposition is that interest is 100% irrelevant to eventual career path? That's the only scenario where this data is irrelevant. I didn't notice the article saying "interest should correlate 100% with career and any difference is just sexism", which seems to be the straw man you're putting up.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#48

Post by NTDF9 »

beat wrote: post #45
NTDF9 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> This is perilously close to arguing that women don't do engineering because they're not as smart as men. Smart is the wrong word. It gives the analysis a different connotation. I think the word we are looking for is aptitude. Among men, there are many who have the aptitude to do STEM. Then there are other men who don't....and that is fine. I think the same goes for women. Many women have the aptitude...but many do…

I was going to critique this argument, but then my mouth just open and closed over and over, silently. Really? You're serious? Women aren't as smart (or competent, to use your euphemism) as men because they would rather be popular and pretty? That men do the "hard stuff" while women stop themselves? You're serious ? Oh, dude. You really need to talk to some women.

>> Really? You're serious? Women aren't as smart (or competent, to use your euphemism) as men because they would rather be popular and pretty? That men do the "hard stuff" while women stop themselves?

Not all men do the "hard stuff". There are enough men who don't put in the work in their formative years. Those men don't get to cry unfair. These men know that they spent their time partying, fooling around and generally not developing their competence in something.

What I mean is people (men and women) should realize that you can't expect anything without putting in the work. Put in the work and then if you see unfair treatment you are entitled to complain.

Once again, "smart" is the wrong word.

>> Oh, dude. You really need to talk to some women.

Thanks for the personal attack. I'll ask my current GF and my female friends to help me find these mythical "women" you speak of.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#49

Post by Nadya »

neilk wrote: post #43
Nadya wrote: post #2

Completely meaningless statistics without factoring in the experience and education of the people surveyed. It's one thing to say you're interested and another to go through the effort required [0]. I'm interested in being a pilot - but I lack any of the education or credentials to actually become a pilot . So my interest compared to the possibility of employment would be meaningless. How many of the females are inte…

> How many of the females are interested in Engineering but majored in Gender or Women's Studies and effectively slashed any chances they had of working as an engineer? The guy who started this site majored in philosophy and identified as a painter for a long time.

My mother majored in psychology but runs a home business. My father majored in English but installs security cameras. A project manager I know majored in Audio Engineering.

It doesn't seem uncommon to work outside of your major. But the jobs are also generally jobs that don't require a major to be a serious candidate.

The number of salespeople and marketers who don't hold business-related degrees shows that being a salesperson does not typically require a degree. Being a chemist or an engineer largely requires a relevant degree to be a serious candidate.

Re: Gender and Career Choice

#50

Post by rcoder »

Nadya wrote: post #46
rcoder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/me sighs Where to start? First, to your (horribly sexist) implication that women opt out of the workforce by studying "Gender or Women's Studies": it isn't even in the top 10 majors for women. You know what the #1 major for women is? Business. http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/top-10-college-majors-women... Biology, math, and physics are all also popular majors for women: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/28/…

>While only 22% of CS PhDs were given to women, they made up an even more minuscule 14% of CS faculty. Not everyone who obtains a degree later chooses to enter their field of study. A degree also does not guarantee a job. This is yet another example of trying to misuse statistics as a form of confirmation bias. Looking at statistics from this Slate article [0], since 2003 only beyond obtaining the degree. Given the d…

I know I'm feeding the trolls here, but this just demands an answer:

"Given the data is 3 years out of date, it's possible employment rate has jumped to 63% (the highest its been since 1998!) and that 14% is exactly on-par for the course for having no gender discrimination (against or in favor of) women."

This is basically middle-school level math and you're doing it wrong.

Whatever percentage of newly-minted CS PhDs go on to teach, the ratios of men and women working as professions should be roughly the same as those earning degrees: 78% and 22%, respectively. Instead, it appears that a disproportionate number of women are "somehow" not ending up in teaching positions.

In a truly fair world those numbers would be much closer to 50/50, but that's a separate discussion.

Post reply on HN