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

381–390 of 748 posts

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#381

Post by jeremyjh »

tomp wrote: post #247
sequoia wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In her article, she explains her hypothesis that women leave top-flight STEM/academic careers because the demands (and, crucially, when they must be met: 20s & 30s) conflict with the demands of bearing children during a woman's most-likely-to-be-successful childbearing years. She goes on to suggest that creating more supports for mothers such as affordable childcare and possibly collaborative academic working environ…

This is not a sufficient explanation. There’s more women in law and medicine, which are equally, if not more demanding. There must be something else - the nature of work (more people, less machines), the atmosphere (less bro, more professional), the pay (STEM careers plateau quickly)...

There is a sufficient explanation in TFA.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#382

Post by dabbledash »

maximente wrote: post #212
kalenx wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After pregancy and the very first months of life, I fail to see any "obvious biological reasons".

WHO recommends breast feeding until age of 2, so that's at least one thing that seems not readily changeable across sexes.

That’s because people in many countries don’t have access to clean water. There’s no reason to pressure women in developed countries to breastfeed for 2 years.

Unless you’d like to push them out of the workforce.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#383

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

commandlinefan wrote: post #339
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because countries where women are dominated by men both legally and culturally, have higher rates of birth, crime, poverty, etc., than countries where women have a level of social mobility similar to men.

Actually, no, it’s the other way around - in less egalitarian countries, women are more likely to pursue science and technical careers.

When women have equal opportunity for education and employment, that mobility is correlated with reduced population growth, reduction in violence, better health outcomes. I don't actually care how likely women are to pursue stem careers, or about mathematical diverseness. I am primarily interested in drinkable water, breathable air, edible food, peace, etc. Evidence suggests that sexist gatekeeping ultimately runs counter to my own interests.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#384

Post by detoxdetox »

ck425 wrote: post #280
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.…

It's worth noting that the amount of time parents (more so mothers) spend with each child has increased vastly, with relatively little evidence to suggest much increase in attainment. Most studies show that it's quality of time, not quantity, with parents that really matters. The evidence suggests we don't actually need to parent so much. Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with sending kids to day care. We sho…

Good point. A bit of nuance:

Young children are information sponges. Think about how easy a 2-3 year old picks up language. It is not that hard to believe that 2-3 year olds also pick up behavioral patterns from their surroundings. For life. Do we want Mothers to shape their young children's behavioral patterns, or low paid child care workers with no skin in the game?

8 year olds? Send them to school with a key around the neck. They'll figure it out.

The math: 2-3 kids, spaced 2 years, up to 3-4 years old = a career break of 5-8 years. That ought become social norm and be encouraged.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#385

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#386

Post by PeterisP »

WalterBright wrote: post #150

Before modern times, the grandparents fulfilled much of the role of watching the kids while the moms worked. In fact, some have posited that this is why humans live long enough to be grandparents - it's an evolutionary advantage. But in modern society, we tend to cast off our grandparents.

People live longer and are expected to work outside of their homes longer. Two generations ago when my grandmother was raising my mom, her mother was not working and could and actually did much of the childcare; but my mom can't watch over my kids much because she's obviously working full time and most likely will do so until my kids are nearly adults.

This might be different for people who have kids much later; however, in modern society there IMHO still is no gap where the grandparents already can look after kids because they've retired and still can look after kids because they're physically and mentally able to do so, because most non-rich people tend to work as long as they can, and when they stop working, they themselvelves need caregivers instead of being able to be caregivers for the extended family.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#387

Post by breischl »

danharaj wrote: post #4

The fact that women shoulder the primary economic burden of raising children is structural sexism. Sexism is not merely about personal conduct but also how we structure society. For millenia across many cultures women have had their participation in broader society curtailed to the sphere of reproductive and domestic labor. That is injustice. As Morenz notes, we don't have to accept that. We can structure our work so…

>We can structure our work so that women are not disadvantaged for having kids

Can we, though? It seems that there is some amount of time that women are unable to work due to the physical rigors of pregnacy, child-birth, and (in many cases) infant care.

Taking time away from work, no matter what the reason, necessarily affects the trajectory of your career. We can try to minimize that in various ways (as the original article discussed) but it seems impossible to reduce it to zero barring sci-fi tech like artificial wombs.

It might be reasonable to say that we can structure out work so that women are disadvantaged _as little as reasonably possible_ for having kids.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#388

Post by m1el »

gowld wrote: post #355
MrFantastic wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does your theory account for the 98% of men who are not top 2%?

Great question, and there are multiple explanations that can work, although I disagree with the previous poster:

There is more than one hierarchy of competence. For each occupation, hobby and skill there's it's own hierarchy. So if there's ~30 hierarchies, approximately half of competitors are going to be in top 2% of at least one.

Edit: and if we're talking about purely monetary measures, have a read: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704409004576146...

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#389

Post by TuringNYC »

toufka wrote: post #29
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…

There is an unfortunate distinction between those other professions - STEM fields rarely pay even close to what consulting, law and medicine pay. Peers of equivalent talent in those 3 professions are generally making double to triple (if not more) by the time STEM graduates reach the same moment in their personal lives. And that 'moment' is generally delayed in STEM compared to those professions; you start generating…

There is also the tech cycle. When is the last time you heard of a doctor suddenly losing 40% of their salary? Medicine is a licensed field with an artificially constrained supply. So is Law (to a lesser extent). Everything is cool in 1999, not so much in 2002.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#390

Post by ck425 »

detoxdetox wrote: post #384
ck425 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the amount of time parents (more so mothers) spend with each child has increased vastly, with relatively little evidence to suggest much increase in attainment. Most studies show that it's quality of time, not quantity, with parents that really matters. The evidence suggests we don't actually need to parent so much. Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with sending kids to day care. We sho…

Good point. A bit of nuance: Young children are information sponges. Think about how easy a 2-3 year old picks up language. It is not that hard to believe that 2-3 year olds also pick up behavioral patterns from their surroundings. For life. Do we want Mothers to shape their young children's behavioral patterns, or low paid child care workers with no skin in the game? 8 year olds? Send them to school with a key aroun…

That's not necessarily an argument against daycare, it is an argument for high quality daycare.

Studies show that boys with working mothers are less sexist and have more positive relationships with woman in general. Picking up behavior patterns goes both ways.

Post reply on HN