Hacker News Reader

Comment by klipt | Hacker News Reader

There are many possible hypotheses apart from "sexism against women" though.

Consider the hypothesis of "sexism against men": society considers all women valuable, but only values men who earn a decent amount of money. Men who earn little find it hard to date and have children.

Wouldn't this "sexism against men" spur men to choose high earning (but maybe not fulfilling) professions, while women would feel more free to aim for personally fulfilling (but lower earning) professions?

By the metric of earnings this might look like sexism against women, but by the metric of life satisfaction, it might look more like sexism against men.

View on HN

I'd strongly reject the argument that "society considers all women valuable", but even so, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Whether it's sexism against men or sexism against women, the disparity is a problem for women who want to enter these professions or for men who want to enter "more personally fulfilling" professions. Regardless of the framing, it's certainly true that inequality can lead to bad outcomes for both men and women.

> it's irrelevant to the discussion

I think it's relevant to how we approach a solution.

If the problem is "discrimination against educated women" then we need to educate people not to be biased against educated women.

If the problem is "discrimination against low earning men", we need to educate people not to be biased against low earning men.

My guess is that if women didn't prefer to date higher earning men, a lot of the wage gap would disappear. The social pressure to find a partner is huge, probably one of the strongest social forces in existence.

Blaming women for the wage gap because they supposedly don't date poor men certainly is one take.

Especially because this entire argument is about the various forms of friction women face as they try to climb the professional ladder.

From all available evidence females across most mammalian species strongly prefer and reproduce with the most successful males.

In humans women strongly prefer men who are more successful than them, are the gatekeepers of reproduction, and generally a greater proportion of women are able to pass on their genes than men.

By Darwinian logic this will inevitably result in a subpopulation of men who the most highly accomplished in certain sex selected traits in the species. This isn't excuse making its nature. I am consistently bemused at how the selfanointed intelligentsia of society that pride themselves on their rationality and scientific acumen refuse to accept this. You might as well cry about Gravity and hop up and down hoping you eventually fly up to the moon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com