Hacker News Reader

Comment by sequoia | Hacker News Reader

In her article, she explains her hypothesis that women leave top-flight STEM/academic careers because the demands (and, crucially, when they must be met: 20s & 30s) conflict with the demands of bearing children during a woman's most-likely-to-be-successful childbearing years. She goes on to suggest that creating more supports for mothers such as affordable childcare and possibly collaborative academic working environments might mitigate the issue.

What leads you to think primarily about "passion" & socialization? It seems almost as though we read different articles, I didn't see anything about that.

View on HN

This is not a sufficient explanation. There’s more women in law and medicine, which are equally, if not more demanding. There must be something else - the nature of work (more people, less machines), the atmosphere (less bro, more professional), the pay (STEM careers plateau quickly)...

Also women in business.

Law and medicine are traditionally seen as high status and may retain women longer, but certainly, suffer the same issue; women over 30 drop off dramatically in law as they leave to become parents.

Law and medicine don't Logan's run you out with a constantly and pointlessly changing tech stack every five years.

It would happen in medicine if the public generally knew the truth.

The risk of a medical error rises by about 1% for every year a doctor is out of school.

Either AMA's continuing education requirements are lacking, or something else is at work.

I've heard that number before, where is it from? Does it control for the idea that more experienced practitioners tend to be called on for more complex operations?

This article suggests that while errors increase with the age of the practitioner, mortality does not. The difference is more likely to result from differences in training. There is also a lot of variation between individuals, with some older doctors far outperforming their younger counterparts.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/should-doctors-age-ma...

I don’t have any compelling evidence at hand, but professionals on STEM fields usually seem compelled to engage on career-related activities off their work hours, which is pretty much impossible during childbearing years.

You’ve never met a doctor in his/her prime? Doctors are extremely overworked in their late 20s.

Law and medicine allow for maternity leave.

In academia, you have a set amount of time to get tenure. It is not extended for pregnancy. If you don't get tenure, your career is basically over.

While the article talks about leaving STEM it focuses on PhDs and academia. This is an academia problem, it's not specific to STEM.

I’ve heard pregnancy gave you an extra year

Yes, and this is discussed in the article too.

> There’s more women in law and medicine, which are equally, if not more demanding.

There exists plenty of gender disparity within these fields. Many more women in pediatrics, obgyn and family law, many more men in surgery, for instance. I'd like to see a study of these disparities to see if the subfields women choose have the benefits this author suggest is a major cause of women leaving STEM.

It's right there in the article. You can't take a break from academia. Well, you can, but your career prospects suffer horribly. A quote: "Taking a year off during that critical 5 or 6 year period often means that the research “goes bad” ... You wind up needing to rebuild much more than just a year’s worth of effort."

Compare it with e.g. big tech - a hypothetical female PM who has just completed a big project can go off on a maternity leave and return to the memories of her success slightly faded, her contacts gone slightly cold, but otherwise she can start more or less where she left.

There is a sufficient explanation in TFA.

Great synopsis of the article. Nothing about GP's comment relates to the article's points. In case anyone's reading these comments who hasn't read the article, it's super worth reading.

The GP comment is worth a thought though

Having kids changes a lot of priorities about passion and socialization, although this generally affects all genders.

Is there a Paul Graham like post out there about children from a woman’s perspective?

http://www.paulgraham.com/kids.html

Sort of, but generally speaking, in the work world, men are rewarded for having families and women's careers are penalized on multiple levels.

Dad's are paid more, more sympathetic and even cheered on when they leave early for the talent show. Women on the other hand are considered less committed, less capable and less flexible.

Yes from her description it does seem like childcare would help a lot. But one of the other things she mentions is the moving (city/state) as well as travel. But sure looks like childcare would go a long way in helping.

I don’t think we would build “science towns” like Los Alamos in this day and age, but that would probably help as well.

I'm a little confused why work-life balance is the 'alternative' argument when it feels very much contiguous to the ones we already know and discuss, which is why I wrote what I wrote. Clearly, several people agree with you that what I said is a non-sequitur. My initial instinct was to agree, but trying to formulate a worthy reply and referring back to the article, I've decided to disagree.

She's talking post-engagement, I wrote about pre-engagement, but was thinking about both. People get it coming and going.

We have this not-at-all accurate mindset about professionalism and self-sacrifice, that 'everybody is doing it' but 'everyone' is mostly young, unattached men with something to prove. It's the Prisoner's Dilemma and young men defect. Immediately.

One of the things I value most about trying to get men to look at toxic masculinity is pointing out the self-harming aspects, showing how it's not that great a bargain. To demand better for themselves, and of themselves. I think the unattached bachelor who can work 60 hours a week 'with no consequences' is toxic, at least a little bit. We should all say 'yes' to anything that is not that. Travel, partners, relatives, children, volunteer work. Hell, throw pinball games and scifi conventions in too, not because I equate those with the first things on that list, but because I have taken the long way around to find that "there's work to do" should be a lower priority than self-care. Adjust your own oxygen mask before helping others with theirs. Advice I need to follow better myself.

I just spent a bunch of time writing down some specific examples, but it was starting to feel like a cherry-picked narrative about myself, which my partner teases me about, so block-delete. Suffice it to say that at the bottom of it I came away with this thought: I think 'treating people the same' but still volunteering yourself for things you shouldn't expect from others is not actually 'treating people the same'. If you never say, do, or look away from a single directly disrespectful thing in your whole life there are still a dozen ways you can contribute to a hostile environment.

In child development I think they call this 'bidding'. The child observes differential behavior from their guardians and tailors their interactions to maximize their returns, and things can get pretty out of control unless the parents communicate with each other, respect each other's concerns, and agree on boundaries.

Solidarity counts a lot. Maybe more than anything. And solidarity will, I believe, give you family leave, gap years, partial leave, childcare near work, hobbies... but those things without solidarity are just salves on a wound that never heals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com