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

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#631

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

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #545

falcor84 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How many times have you heard a man say he had to choose between his career and having kids? I agree with your sentiment, but there's a big biological difference here in terms of the fertility age. As discussed in the article, this question is very urgent for women in their 30s, but men can delay reproduction until their late 40s with no major issues. As such, men don't face an ultimatum on this, the way that women…

There is a difference in fertility age, but men don't start leaving STEM academia in droves when they approach their fertility limits- only women do. So the part about it being urgent to have children at a certain age may be a biological difference, as you say, but the part about leaving academia to have children is not a biological difference. Or, to put it more simply: why don't men leave their careers to have chil…

By the time men approach their fertility limits they either have children or have decided they don't want them.

Most men don't leave their careers at any age because they have to provide for the preganant wife which can't work and needs lots of care.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#632

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

rixed wrote: post #555

username90 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The competitive aspect? Males in plenty of species compete for status and low status males are getting chased away from the pack, so evidently genes are expressive enough to encode gender norms.

You probably believe that your views about genders is coming from observations of "males in plenty of species", but have you considered that maybe your views about "plenty of species" could come from your views on genders?

[deleted]

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#633

Post by eyko » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:15 AM UTC

axguscbklp wrote: post #575

datashow wrote: post #437

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. You really need some data to back it up here. "I worked, my mother worked, my grandmothers worked, and my great grandmothers worked." is not good evidence. For one, there is a representative issue. For another, there is a huge difference between part-time work and full-time work. We don't know how many hour…

Most people for most of history were peasants. Peasant women don't just raise children - they usually contribute to almost everything else that the farming economy requires, as well. Think of old photos of peasants/poor farmers. Do the women look like they have been spending their time just raising children?

My family on both my mother and father's sides were farmers, including my parents for most of my early childhood. On the farm, women would work mainly during harvest season and a few other moments, but I remember quite vividly a conversation where my aunt got pregnant and other adults in the room we're angry that the birth might fall too close to harvest season so she wouldn't be able to help out. She said what was she supposed to do? To which her mother replied that you get pregnant at so and so season and that this is how it had been done for generations. At that moment I realized that most of their birthdays did fall out of harvest season (including mine!).

Your comment brought back those memories. I know an anecdote is not data but in my case (we're not American however) most women were expected to help out with the harvest and sowing. Children also helped out during harvest (some of my worst and best memories!). I also would say that at least in my region, some would help only seasonally in the farm. The rest of the year they're expected to be "managing the home" and any women that wanted to study would be met with very sexist attitudes and responses. Also worth mentioning that raising children does take a toll on you. If you think peasant women look bad because of hard work on a farm, it's probably not. Think hard work off the farm, combined with poverty, stress, anxiety, etc.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#634

Post by blub » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:16 AM UTC

jccalhoun wrote: post #398

daotoad wrote: post #263

My only quibble with this article is that the fact that there is a wall related to child bearing and rearing IS institutional sexism. It's just a different form of it than the "my coworkers constantly stare at my tits and don't take what I say seriously" variety. We've put women largely in charge of child rearing duties. Obviously, men aren't able to get pregnant and bear children. We are, however, perfectly capable…

I agree. The article says "What if it isn't sexism?" and then goes on to describe institutional sexism.

The absence of the significant additional support required for women to both have children and get tenure as a professor is not sexism. That support was never there in the first place and men don't get any support either, so there is no discrimination happening.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#635

Post by DavidVoid » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:29 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #473

DavidVoid wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is high time to recognize that 2 children is still a lot of effort and make room for Mothers to take care of their own children. It's high time that fathers start putting in some more work in that department too. Sweden has 480 days of paid parental leave, and each parent has exclusive right to 90 of those days. Have fathers spend some time raising their kids instead of just letting their wives do it and you'll s…

This is a very feminized view of child rearing. Fatherhood's traditional gender role in raising children is to provide resources and protection. If you don't recognize that as "parenting" then you are missing the plot. Hugs are great, but not nearly as great as food and shelter.

So you think that if a father is just working (and essentially doing what he'd do if he didn't have a child) then that should be considered good parenting because he's providing resources? Might as well call every working man a good parent then even if they barely even interact with their kids.

There are very important emotional aspects to parenting that you people who constantly complain about feminism seem to completely ignore, I'd much rather have a father who's there and who I can spend time with than a father who's working two jobs because "more money earned == better parent".

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#636

Post by kerpele » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #628

entee wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subje…

Is it possible that the problem there is the amount of women starting studies in stem fields? I don’t have any numbers but anecdotal evidence of two Helsinki based schools in CS related programs had very lopsided gender ratios in bachelors and masters levels.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#637

Post by conanbatt » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:45 AM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #422

downerending wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you could leave your children in the care of educated professionals in child development... That sounds wonderful, but it's economically impossible, except for the rich. The cost would be near or exceed what most people clear working a job.

Yup. My wife and I were faced with the option of her contributing financially to the home and we pay for child care, or her being an at home mom. If she went to work, she would net $20 a week after paying for child care. Yeah, nope.

How much does an "educated professional in child care dev" cost?

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#638

Post by conanbatt » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:45 AM UTC

codingmess wrote: post #285

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".

Mothers have the first pick because they invested more into the kid coming into being. They risked their life and invested 9 months into bearing the child. So they get first pick to also be the person spending time with the child.

The strange thing about arguing that its a trade is that you have to consider the trade is fair and consider nothing else.

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#639

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:49 AM UTC

tasogare wrote: post #566

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it biology that only women are expected to leave work to care for children? I don't follow. Is there some biological reason why men are not expected to do the same? Do you mean something else by the "it" in "It seems to be just plain old biology"?

You are missing purposely the fact that women have to bear the child, which is quite incapacitating especially in the last months. Then there is a recovery period. All in all that already about a year. So yes, it’s totally normal that the expectation of caring for children fall on women because it is the prolongation of their pregnancy. Actually this is not even disputed except by a minority of people in a minority o…

So you are talking about leaving work to give birth and recover from it? That indeed is required, but I'm talking about leaving work to _raise_ the children that one gives birth to.

I'm saying that it's only women who leave work to _raise_ their children and that _that_ is sexist. There is no reason to abandon your career to raise your children, there is no reason that this is never done by men (who can do it just as well as women because it does not involve special biological characteristics) and there is no reason that women are expected to do it.

In the western world of course we have such things as maternal leave and in some countries even _parental_ leave which is an attempt at a solution to exactly the problem we're discussing here: that women are expected to leave their careers _permanently_ to raise their children even though they only need at most a few months or so to recover after giving birth (a year is an absolute extreme), and that men are not expected to do the same.

EDIT: So, I say "in the western world" but it turns out that's not _all_ the western world. From wikipedia's article on parental leave:

The United States, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, and a few island countries in the Pacific Ocean are the only countries in the United Nations that do not require employers to provide paid time off for new parents.[6]

EDIT 2: "You are missing purposely the fact".

I'm not and I could assume you are wilfully misunderstanding _me_. And where would that get us?

Re: An alternative argument for why women leave STEM

#640

Post by novok » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 10:58 AM UTC

entee wrote: post #323

codingmess wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hurting in some ways, for example in increased prices for housing. If families with two income earners compete with families with one income earner, the outlook is bleak for one earner families. Prices simply rise to what the two earner households can afford. In fact many families can not afford the single earner model anymore. There are also changed expectation, although presumably those can be managed. But onc…

The two income trap you mention was the subject of an Elizabeth Warren book sometime in the early 2000s. It’s a real issue, I’m not sure how to solve it, but it seems like a different larger scale issue. Also at this point its a little late. That societal evolution has already created facts on the ground such that in most larger cities it’s impossible to afford a good middle class lifestyle without two incomes. Given…

We already have socially funded free child care through the ages of 6-18, is it that much of a stretch for society to provide it for 0-5 too?