Hacker News Reader

Comment by kajecounterhack | Hacker News Reader

It wouldn't be a problem if inequality wasn't influenced strongly by negative factors for women. The tech industry is rife with evidence of hostility toward women; IT Barbie and gendered toy marketing are other examples of how women are not on equal footing with regards to entering this industry.

And there is also the problem of women being paid less to do the same job.

To paint a picture that says the current landscape is "normal" is to overlook a lot of broken things.

View on HN

>And there is also the problem of women being paid less to do the same job.

How many times does the "wage gap" need to be debunked before people stop spreading it?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-do...

http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-ga...

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gende...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-...

I find it's a really convenient indicator that it's time to excuse yourself from a conversation.

Three articles by the same person from the American Enterprise Institute and then some obvious opinion pieces with restricted sampling sizes.

Imo, the smoking gun should include a gun and it should probably be smoking.

There definitely are many problems and things that could be improved, however, the point is that even if all of those problems would be fixed, there would be a gender disparity in choice of occupations.

The GP statement "If there is no gender parity, there is a problem" is strictly false, even in an ideal world managed by fairies where all these problems are totally fixed, we would not observe gender parity - it would for most professions be much closer to 50/50 than nowadays, that's true, but it would not be at 50/50.

  even if all of those problems would be fixed, there would
  be a gender disparity in choice of occupations.
  ...
  it would for most professions be much closer to 50/50 than
  nowadays, that's true, but it would not be at 50/50.

1. I'm pretty sure reasonable people consider something "close enough" (like 46/54) to be gender parity. I understand that you read the statement as being strictly 50/50 but prose != computer program; maybe read what the GP was trying to say when reading.

2. On what basis are you assuming there would be a gender disparity, all other things being equal? (There isn't.) Can all other things be equal? Probably not perfectly, which is why most would consider "close enough" parity to be a win, but we're certainly not close now.

re: 2, and please forgive the slight necroposting.

That men and women might be biologically predisposed to find certain pursuits more attractive than others should not be controversial.

But even if we cast biology aside, and assume (against all evidence) that differences in preferences are due solely to socialization, is that bad? Is it bad that women feel more drawn to caregiving careers and men to analytical ones? Even if, which I do not for a moment believe, these differences in behaviour and preference were due solely to socialization, so what? As long as people are happy and fulfilled, why would that socialization be a wrong that needs righting?

> and gendered toy marketing

Why don't you go into the toy business with androgynous products and let's see how you do ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com