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

As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 536 posts

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#291

Post by amanaplanacanal »

kijin wrote: post #4
seagullz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, the preferential difference in expressing themselves implies that genders are not identical after all, an idea that doesn't get treated as a truism.

equal != identical. It's just as easy to confuse the two concepts in the human society as it is in weakly typed programming languages. If all genders were truly identical, there would be no point distinguishing between them in the first place.

Most of the time there probably is no point in distinguishing between them. Unless you are looking for a sexual partner of one specific kind or another.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#292

Post by claudiawerner »

lhinds wrote: post #252
claudiawerner wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the "Why don't feminists try and push for gender parity in coal mining?" is a very tired question (and rather silly meme) and it's got without a variety of answers from casual feminists. A cursory Google search for this question on Reddit has thrown up a variety of answers: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3bjr41/why_ha... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2rpbil/why_…

Most of those answers boil down to 'because they are more desirable', is there any specific one you think nails the answer?

Not any specific one, but I'll try and summarize the points:

* Feminists really do fight for representation in these jobs[0][1][3] to the point where one of the largest sexual discrimination lawsuits was brought up by women trying to get into the coal mining industry.

* Women already have significant representation in such jobs and especially in other low wage jobs, such as textile manufacturing (in sweatshops, for instance[2]), nursing, fast food work, oil drilling, childbirthing (and other thankless reproductive labour), janitors/sanitation etc.

* These jobs are generally seen as undesirable anyway, and there isn't a social push for men to enter them. It's expected that with less push for dirty (and trade) jobs in general, there would be less of a liberal feminist push for them too. This is consistent with the fact that second wave feminists argued for any involvement of women in the workplace, even blue collar jobs, but now such activity is less prominent.

* It's a class issue too, and the perceptions, biases and elitist attitudes which prevent entry to such jobs for both men and women have been challened by intersectional and Marxist feminists.[4]

* Part of feminism is challenging essentialist and elitist narratives about women and their capabilities, which managers in such industries cite in arguments against hiring women

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3am8ri/if_the...

[2] http://www.feminist.org/other/sweatshops/sweatfaq.html

[3] http://the-exercist.tumblr.com/post/105284613217/is-that-so-...

[4] Sean Sayers, "Marxism and Human Nature" discusses this elitism at length as both a gender issue and a class issue

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#293

Post by wyoh »

illumin8 wrote: post #265
illumin8 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this response, and the downvotes on the parent comment, incredibly sad. If you want to live in a libertarian fantasy world with no safety net, you are free to create one, and try to attract citizens to your country. Even in prehistoric times, it was generally understood that there was societal benefit to letting women take care of children when they were extremely young and that perhaps letting a new mother sk…

HN moderators, you should check the biases of the mod brigade. I'm out of this conversation. Immediate downvotes because I don't agree with the toxic alt-right views that seem to dominate conversations like these. I'm done with this discussion; seems we can't have a meaningful one.

"people disagree with me so they must be alt-right"

Please.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#294

Post by 0x445442 »

KirinDave wrote: post #255
Majestic121 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" Second, I don't think anyone is blaming women here. Choosing (or being pressured by the environment) to have more 'gendered' (whatever that means) career path is not necessarily a bad thing. It can become a bad thing if it hinders opportunit…

> I agree with your skepticism, but it's important not to fall back on the other end : i.e., "I know there's no difference between men and women therefore the policies are wrong !" An awful lot of women have negative things to say about that situation, so maybe I should just quote them? I don't think I am falling back on the "other side" here. I'm pointing out that the effectiveness of these measures seems quite low…

> It's odd to assume that the entire effect is therefore determined uniquely by "women's choice." Is there evidence of that?

I don't think anyone is claiming choice is the "entire effect" but I do think there is evidence that choice is the overwhelming effect. Let me ask this, do the women you know complain about an under-representation of women working at Discount Tire or in the field of Underwater Welding?

In America, during WWII a large number of women went into these types of occupations because of war time necessity and they showed they could perform the required duties just fine. But after the war most returned to traditional domestic roles. Are you saying that was not, by and large, their choice?

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#295

Post by [deleted] »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #80
js8 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people care so much whether preferences are biological or cultural. (Well, I understand it if we assume they are being dishonest, so assuming that something is not biological allows them to claim that it can be changed to whatever they think is morally superior. The debate whether being gay is cultural is a good example.) If I am given a true freedom to choose, to decide according to my prefere…

It honestly changes the way we work with something. Biological differences aren't things we can easily change right now. Skin color or the shape of one's fingernails or the length of one's legs. Some biological things have real world things that go with it. Skin color, for example, could put you at greater risk of skin cancer or a greater risk of low vitamin D. One simply accepts and lives with these things and works…

[deleted]

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#296

Post by ddingus »

ramblerman wrote: post #34
ddingus wrote: post #2

This seems like non-news to me. Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition. As we see equality better represented out there, women should feel less inhibited, in terms of role compliance to get opportunity, and with that, should be expressing themselves through work, as they would any other thing they are doing.

You are doing a disservice by sweeping this under the rug as common sense. We live in a political climate where people are looking at the tech industry and especially FANG companies with a microscope and unless they see 50/50 representation they feel there must be inequality at work. James Damore was fired for highlighting this very fact.

Oh I do not think so. People vary considerably, and gender is a part of that.

What I did not do was declare all people of a given gender different in some immutable way.

Women and men overlap. What we are seeing is more of the feminime presented, and that is womens contribution as inhibition is reduced.

There are guys who operate that way, and they are not common. There are women who operate quite masculine too. Both not so common.

Over time, again as inhibition is reduced, people will present more as who they are, with greater role freedom, and that is a very good thing.

The workplace will be more vibrant as people are represented in all their shades.

That too is a good thing.

I am not judging people, the genders, etc... others have, and the pushback on that is understandable.

The goal here is those who can do the work, desire to do it, should be doing it. Ideally, they present as who thay are and everyone works together with mutual consideration, respect, etc...

None of that is controversial.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#297

Post by golemotron »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #268
vidarh wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who believe this is solely cultural pressure should try having children. While, sure, you can raise children to be much more willing to challenge gender norms, and you can raise them to not hide or be ashamed of where their personal preferences violate cultural gender norms, every parent I've known that have strongly believed it was all cultural have ended up changing their mind after they've tried their harde…

I have no doubt that this is exactly what happens, but I don't think it shows what you intend it to show. Kids pick up the culture around them, and if they are exposed to television or other children, they are going to pick up what they see. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but I don't think it proves anything innate in gender either. Another part of the problem is our language, and the…

> Kids pick up the culture around them, and if they are exposed to television or other children, they are going to pick up what they see.

Even just hours after being born?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016363830...

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#298

Post by ummonk »

illumin8 wrote: post #246
jaxtellerSoA wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I'm coming from a place of privilege but that point of view makes me incredibly sad. Why? It makes me sad that anyone would want to force business to take on risk that it wouldn't otherwise in the name of "equality". Choices have consequences, if you choose to stay out of work for a year to raise your child then you will be less employable.

I find this response, and the downvotes on the parent comment, incredibly sad. If you want to live in a libertarian fantasy world with no safety net, you are free to create one, and try to attract citizens to your country. Even in prehistoric times, it was generally understood that there was societal benefit to letting women take care of children when they were extremely young and that perhaps letting a new mother sk…

Parental leave is not a safety net. Parenthood can be planned - it isn't some random catastrophe that befalls you for which you need an insurance safety net.

Note that I do support strong parental leave policies, and advocate for such wherever I work.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#299

Post by ddingus »

dandare wrote: post #36
killjoywashere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like non-news to me. Well, they do state their analysis is consistent with other data available (which they cite). > Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition. Not sure why you're getting down-voted, I think that's fairly accurate. I just read Sandberg's Lean In (recommended by a colleague), from the perspective of a male manager for multiple teams with women at multiple levels (I hav…

I think he is being downvoted for the low quality of the comment. A study on 80,000 individuals in 76 countries is not "news", it is a high-quality science. Stating blatantly that "Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition." is a low effort conclusion when the study actually compares the competing "social role hypothesis" and "resource hypothesis".

It is high quality science. Sometimes science is affirmative. I am surprised this is not seen that way, that is all.

From the reading here, I should be.

Honestly, it just means my natural inclinations toward gender issues are not far off the mark. That may be less common than I realized.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#300

Post by ddingus »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #55
skookumchuck wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> expectation is sometimes that women dont swear etc. FWIW, a woman swearing definitely lowers her attractiveness, at least to me, by quite a bit.

For another data point: I'm an American woman. I swear like a sailor. Sadly, this has failed to be man-repellent. If only! My life would be vastly simpler if my foul mouth just got me left the hell alone by men. Also, everything I have read and experienced suggests that other women are a huge source of social pressure on female behavior, possibly far more than male sexual predilections. An actress once said "I dress…

Well, I like women who swear, and I like them because I swear too.

Profanity is often used as an expression of comfort and security among ones peers. That is nice to have in play.

Happy to leave you alone that way. :D But would enjoy working with you otherwise. Sadly, a lot of guys see that signal as the wrong kind. Unfortunate.

As for dress, it should be for you first and foremost. Those other people should be doing them, you do you. Maybe we will get there.

Post reply on HN