Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjfl | Hacker News Reader

I think it's a little unfair to single out engineering. A lot of jobs with large salaries tend to skew towards men:

Women are only 16% of mergers and acquisitions lawyers (the big time money guys): https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/bclbe/Women_in_M_and_A(1)...

Women are still only 32% of physicians in 2010, despite "large advances": https://thinkprogress.org/despite-growing-number-of-female-d...

Women make up 5% of stock traders, hedge fund managers: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/19/would-more-...

Women are only 14.6% of CEOS, 8.1% of top earners, and 4.6% of fortune 500 CEOS: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2014/0...

View on HN

A quote I'd like to highlight from the article:

However, women, more often than men, add that they want to become socially responsible engineers, working to solve major problems and making a difference in people’s lives—which is consistent with other research showing that women are significantly more likely than their male counterparts to be interested in engineering work that is “socially conscious” (i.e., specializations such as environmental vs. electrical engineering).

This seems to be reflected across a lot of different gender-skewed occupations. Women seem to be attracted to fields that are either focused on the environment or care work. Fields that are either heavy industry, financial, or environmentally damaging tend to be male-dominated. It seems to me like men simply place a higher priority on making a lot of money than women do.

Is this a difference in mating strategy?

An alternative hypothesis - it's a difference in socialization, where women are taught that it's not okay to be ambitious for ambition's sake, and so they need a "purpose" to justify career success.

I definitely think there's something to your hypothesis that people are suspicious of women who are ambitious for ambition's sake. But then, I think we're suspicious of men for the same reasons. We expect a certain level of ambition out of men as part of their traditional role as a provider. When they stray too far beyond that they run the risk of being branded greedy or even sociopathic.

I don't think we can get around the fact that women simply don't need to earn a lot of money in order to attract a mate. Sure, lots of men can attract mates without making a lot of money but it's not as easy.

Socialization behaviors are often heavily skewed by human sexuality and mating motivations, though. Whether we like it or not, men and women DO have different body parts and different reproductive roles, and that DOES effect social behavior.

Now the question is: do these fields discriminate against women? Do women just not prefer these fields? Or do men crowd into high-paying fields?

One claim I've seen mentioned all over the place is that pay goes down when women enter a previously male-dominated field [0]. Sure, that's one way of looking at it. Was the question asked that men are actually leaving a field because the pay is going down?

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over...

Anyone who has studied at a university knows that on average women do not in fact prefer those fields.

Especially male tech students are still mocked and looked down upon by females in prestigious subjects like law and medicine.

The emperor has no clothes here (though only children can say that with impunity).

I'll take (e) All of the above.

There is strong evidence that women do not prefer these fields. There is also strong evidence that high pay is much more important for men than it is for women, so men will take less fulfilling jobs (and push harder and take more risks).

There is also some evidence of discrimination, though I haven't seen any evidence that it is stronger than in other fields, that it is systematic rather than individual. Certainly a lot of what is currently being claimed as horrible discrimination in tech doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Women also make up a low percentage of janitors, coal minors, construction workers, and landscapers.

I don't know where to find data supporting it but my hunch is there is not a great divide between women and men employed as janitors (aka custodial workers).

There isn't we just call them maids.

Granted it's usually less labor intensive than some custodian duties.

As far as construction, land scaling and mining well for the most part it's due to sexual dimorphism.

The average women has considerably lower upper body strength than they average man.

Jobs that involved throwing 60lbs bags of cement or fertilizer over ones shoulder aren't going to bode well for most women.

Interesting though.

If a women isn't a CEO or engineer, we assume women are unfairly being discriminated against. If a women isn't a low value job, we assume they aren't biologically ideal for it.

It might be that they are not biologically ideal for both for different reasons.

That said it doesn't mean there is no discrimination either.

Good point. I got the data from here: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf

34% of janitors and building cleaners are women but 89% of the maids and housekeeping cleaners. 34% is a little lower than I would've guessed but I suspect cleaners in hotels are categorized as housekeeping rather than building cleaners.

>Women are still only 32% of physicians in 2010, despite "large advances": https://thinkprogress.org/despite-growing-number-of-female-d....

Important difference between engineering and medicine is that they seem to be graduating at similar level [1], is this low number is due to a similar phenomenon of women dropping out mid-career. Given they seem to be graduating at similar level [1]. Pay can be attributed to women choosing to pursue less specialization. why is this the case?

1. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduate...

Babies. The reproductive division of labor is real. Whether it is good or bad can be debated by childless students in sociology classes across the globe but, in the end, parents make the decision that seems right for them. This often puts the childcare with the women and income generation with the men. This is more efficient than an even split.

Many couples decide to have children in the late twenties, early 30's. This is prime time for specialization in medicine. Hard to get ahead when you're balancing childcare with your career, it's basically like having 2 careers. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a pressure.

Of course, as things get less economically scarce, there are things like daycare, nannies, etc. that help with childcare and make it easier for women to work.

Even women that want nothing to do with childcare often have to leave work for 12 months or so, some take even a longer break.

Multiply it by 2-3 times and on average a woman has 3-4 years less than a man in her resume at 35-40 it can amount to 25-30% of your career since at that age it's likely not to be much longer than 15 years at that point.

Serious question: Wouldn't it be less sexist to just stop caring and reporting on this stuff?

If I were a woman and I saw that only a low percentage of people in the field were women... I think that'd be discouraging for me. So, at this point, what's the benefit of reporting on it? I don't think we gain any actionable data from the data.

I'd be more in favor or just saying, "Whoever you are... just do what you're good at, do what you enjoy, and do what pays well... it'll be a struggle to find the combination of those things you can live with in the jobs that are available... so really just focus on yourself and don't worry about anyone else."

I always figured this sort of problem would be better solved in primary school. When I was 5 I was under the impression women were Teachers and shop workers etc. And that women don't like computers. Anything related to computers was nerdy and geeky. Had school had broken down those barriers maybe more girls would have gone down different paths in life.

Question, is that money a guarantee for you, or you risk to lose everything by entering these fields?

I wonder if generational wealth has any affect on CEO/physician/hedge fund manager rates. And if there is a gender bias in generational wealth to begin with.

Yes, there is. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/5768075...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com