Women Lose Out to Men Even Before They Graduate College | Hacker News Reader

Women Lose Out to Men Even Before They Graduate College

bloomberg.com

12 pointslambda_lover10 comments

I'm in a relevant position - I'm a 25y/o male computer programmer who lives with (along with several other people, and not in a relationship with) a 27y/o female preschool teacher - we both represent the most common jobs for our gender according to the article.

We both started college virtually opposing positions - I came in as an Art major, she a Bio major, with the intention of medical school. At some point, we both realized what we valued was incompatible with our majors - I wanted to build things, work on hard, concrete challenges, and make money, so I switched to CS. After she graduated, she took a long time reflecting on what she wanted in her future, and eventually realize what she wanted to do was to work with children (she has an extremely strong maternal personality), so she became a teacher, despite the pay and that she had the grades to go to medical school - to her, being able to work with kids and have a balanced life (impossible for years with medical school and residency) is far more meaningful than money. She also has a stable relationship with a caring boyfriend who also works, so her being able to complete support herself isn't a priority. I'm an extremely independent person (a stereotypically male trait), and am somewhat neurotic about money due to my parent's passed down habits. I wanted a job where I would have a good blend of financial stability, freedom, and challenge - software engineer checks all the boxes.

I realize this is completely anecdotal, but also likely archetypal for many others. For what it's worth, I make much more than her, but she's a happier person than I am - despite her "losing out." We're measuring success wrong, at least for a large segment of the population.

I think this data is great and there's a lot to learn from it. It just seems like reporting annual salaries might not be appropriately normalized, though. Hourly wages would be much clearer, IMO.

Women are not the same as men, and many women rank their role in family activities higher than their professional development. If they choose to spend less time at work, then they would likely earn a lower annual salary.

Since the problem that we want to focus on is whether and when women earn less due to discrimination, that issue is confounded by this data. Though I sympathize that the ACS data that's readily available probably doesn't track that. Maybe it should.

EDIT: I thought I was fair in my criticism but I have attracted downvotes. Let's discuss: what do you think about what I said?

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Yours is an opinion shared by many folks, and is the most common-sense explanation about career differences between men and women: they want different things. Obviously, things happen to both men and women that either encourage or prevent certain career choices. Obviously, not to the same degrees. We should at least be able to apply Occam's razor to this issue as we do to many other issues.

Seems fair -- if men are working more hours, then they aren't actually paid more per hour, and might even be paid less. The fact that so few men (and so many women) work as K-12 teachers, who often work a fairly limited number of hours with generous vacation time makes me particularly inclined to side with you here. Of course, there's always the argument that the number of hours doesn't actually directly map to the number of hours you spend at work (for instance, many K-12 teachers do a lot of grading/planning in their "off" hours, whereas some other work requires no commitment outside of the 9-5 grind).

I think there's another side to this, though, that makes us question exactly why men and women seem to gravitate toward such different career paths. Why, in 2018, do so few men become stay-at-home dads? Why do women seem to favor more personal time outside of work (and why don't more men?)?

Some of this is purely biological -- a woman literally develops and feeds a child inside her body for 9 months, which is going to skew leave toward women after a child is born -- but others are more societal: why can't we live in a world where men hold more K-12 teaching positions? Maybe instead of dismissing these problems because of a poor metric [salary vs. hours worked] we should think about how things ought to be, and what we can do to be there.

I'm not in favor of 50/50 male/female employment in every career, of course -- I truly believe that there are physical differences that will manifests as different representation in certain jobs. But surely we can do better than the current 95/5 ratio in elementary teaching, or the 20/80 ratio in software development. anything within 20% is a good place to aim in my opinion.

Perhaps we should be praising women for deciding to embrace the work/life balance to a greater degree than men instead of viewing it as a problem that needs to be fixed. Biology certainly plays a role in this.

Another way of saying it is that both men and women have about the same internal work/life balance, but for more men work is life.

Considering the direct correlation between high earnings and dating success, I would agree.

I think we can take that a step further and heap praise on women for choosing work that involve caring for children, the sick, and the elderly. Long periods of crunch-time in tech/finance/etc. can be draining, but IMO the mental and emotional fortitude required to sustain a career as a care-giver is in a class of it's own.

I was a homemaker for a lot of years. I dropped out of college to follow my husband's military career. I spent years looking at available opportunities to further my education at every new duty station and finding them largely lacking.

I eventually completed an AA in Humanities to lock in my old credits so I wouldn't have to start over completely. I then began pursuing a bachelor's that supported my goal of becoming an urban planner. I also completed a Certificate in GIS, the equivalent of Master's level work.

Then I began applying to jobs and internship programs. My resume had a high call back rate, but I wasn't ever offered a job in my field. I ultimately got a job at an insurance company.

I don't know why I never managed to get an urban planning or GIS job. Maybe lack of interview skills. Maybe lack of job hunting skills. Maybe the many years I spent as a homemaker made my resume not adequately impressive.

But then I had a job in something else and I was busy trying to make my life work during a divorce accompanied by health drama. One day led to another and with each passing day I had more experience in insurance and it was another day further away from when I got my Certificate in GIS.

And now a lot of years have passed. I did apply for a job in my field recently and I did get past the initial stage, though I did not get the job. And maybe I should just keep looking for jobs in my field, though it has been a lot of years. But there tend to be few such jobs in any given geographic area, they typically require a driver's license and I no longer drive.

I was one of the top students of my graduating high school class. I've done a lot of therapy and introspection. I tend to understand myself and my life better than average. Yet, I don't have some clear cut explanation for why I failed to get my dream job. I usually describe it as "I wanted to be an urban planner before life got in the way."

So, as I read this article that frames itself as knowing the psychological underpinnings for different outcomes and frames it as based primarily on choice, I find myself skeptical. That seems a little too convenient. I don't think most lives are quite so clear cut.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com