Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

> it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men.

That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.

View on HN

> Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.

That's not a theory, that's just restating the question! Why is the distribution the way it is, and should we make efforts to change it?

Maybe, but I still think there's an important point in there.

We (society) do a lot of handwringing about CEO and engineering jobs, but these aren't even remotely the most gender-asymmetric careers out there.

According to [1], "Locomotive engineers and operators" are 92.3 percent male. I'm willing to bet that if you can "fix" that problem - or even conclusively identify the cause - gender imbalance issues in other fields will be less contentious.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

I have never in my entire life met a female plumber, yet somehow I doubt that's caused by the inherent patriarchal bias in the ****-fixing industry.

Note: I have never even met a women that aspires to trying to be one.

“fixing” that “problem” would involve somehow convincing many women to enter a career field in which they have no interest. How do you propose to force them to change their desires?

That argument assumes women aren't interested in those roles, and that their disinterest is the only or primary thing that causes an imbalance.

You have to know that isn't true, which makes this a great example of why people are frustrated about discussing anything 'political' in the workplace.

Do you have some data to support your assumption that they do want to be in those roles in higher numbers that they are already?

Why on earth would you say "you have to know this isn't true"?

If you see similar patterns across many different cultures, including ones considered to be more gender-egalitarian, I would have honestly thought the conclusion would be, in fact, varying interests.

Or do you think there are no biological differences (on average) between men and women, in which case, I can provide you with large, multi-national studies that come to a different conclusion.

I can see how there could be debate about how much the difference is, and what the causes of it are, but "you have to know that isn't true" seems like saying "Come on, everyone knows the world is flat, stop arguing in bad faith".

>You have to know that isn't true

I know it is true, by looking at empirical data. Can you cite data that support your conclusion?

> would involve somehow convincing many women to enter a career field in which they have no interest

This is a blatant non sequitur. Counterexample:

It's hard in many places to be a male schoolteacher, because men are seen by parents and other staff as potential predators, to the point where some people won't even trust a man to change their kid's diapers. Men have said that this is a big reason they don't want to become schoolteachers, so if we help change public opinion on this front, then we've ostensibly lessened a gender imbalance without "forcing" any men to "change their desires."

There are:

55k "Locomotive engineers and operators" (90% male)

1.7m "Chief executives" (70% male)

1.9m "Software developers" (80% male)

3.2m "Architecture and engineering occupations" (85% male)

Maybe there is a lot of handwringing within the locomotive industry, but it really doesn't seem important enough for the rest of us to care about.

Not that agree or disagree, but... Using that logic, why should we care at all. Less than 7 million out of about 170 million in the workforce. Shouldn't we be looking a other, more common jobs? (On a side note I'm surprised software devs are only 1.9 million)

There are two orders of magnitude difference between the number locomotive operators and the CEO & engineering jobs:

55k/7m = 0.8%

7m/170m = 4%

There's a legit difference between arguing about a $40k line item on a $1m house sale and a $400 line item.

What's your point? Either way we're adding up largely arbitrary line items composing a very small minority. It makes more sense to look the areas that would impact the most people. To use your analogy, who cares if the seller takes care of that $40k line item of the other ones that need work add up to $250k? Great, I have a solid roof but what about my crumbling foundation...

Sure. And there are fewer full-blown autistic people than there are people "on the spectrum". But it's a lot easier to study autism by looking at severe cases than it is to try to figure out what's biologically different about people who are "a little aspy".

92% of veterinarians are female

98.8% (!) of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female

If you want to understand gender imbalance in employment, these are the obvious places to start.

One more to add, with enough population for you to care about:

"Driver/sales workers and truck drivers": 3.4m, 92.2% male.

> 98.8% (!) of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female

I'm fairly sure a big part of the driver for the imbalance in education is that being a teacher is one of the only ways, other than being a full-time employee (not contractor) some place like Google, to access European-like levels of parental leave, plus European-like levels of time-off, generally, which is also hugely valuable when you have kids, while also being a career in which leaving multiple times for months at a time to have kids (if you time it well with Summer, or hit up FMLA time) is minimally disruptive to one's career growth, which is unusual for non-very-rare-and-hard-to-get jobs. Plus, and this isn't to be under-appreciated, teachers are in demand everywhere, so one can gain all the above and move to (for example) let your spouse chase higher wages at a less-family-friendly job (nursing is similarly friendly in that demanded-everywhere way, and go figure, nursing is dominated by women, too).

Relatedly, teaching is also one of the most single-parenting-friendly jobs around. The pay may not be great, but you're off (more or less) when your kids are, it's stable, and it comes with benefits. Retirement, even! It may also let you do things like get a job in a good school district, while living in a worse district (cheaper housing), but send your kids to the better district you work in, which can make a huge difference if you're on a single income.

For younger grades in particular, I think it's all of the above, plus a combination of simple interest-factor, and of men fearing (not unjustly) that any interest in or affinity for young kids (who aren't relatives) will make them look extremely creepy.

I don't disagree with you, but it's notable that the gender imbalance for teachers diminishes as the kids get older.

* Preschool and kindergarten teachers 98.8% female

* Elementary and middle school teachers 79.6% female

* Secondary school teachers 58.8% female

* Postsecondary teachers 51.1% female

There's clearly a lot more going on here.

Right, preferences and "guys teaching little kids is creepy" play a role, and maybe some other stuff.

That would be a great theory, except that gender segregation is similar for countries with European-like levels of parental leave.

In a Swedish study the term they used for the teacher profession was a "leaky pipe". The first year at university the teacher program is only somewhat gender segregated, but for every year that goes men either quit or refocus towards a specialty with more men. Once graduate, each year as an employed teacher the segregation rate increases with men either quitting or switching to a specialty like after-school sport.

The number 1 cause as highlighted by that study: culture fit and not feeling accepted.

Okay yeah, that's a different issue than what I thought you meant. You're saying we should focus on the most asymmetric careers because they'll give us the best understanding of gender gaps.

That makes sense, but personally I think you should still focus on the "smaller issues" instead of just looking at the most extremes. People who are "a little aspy" may have similar biological causes as severe autism, but their social situations are much different. People with Aspergers may just require some minor accommodation to live their lives, but people with Autism may require a lot of care. The causes can be similar while the scale drastically changes the type of response.

Because men and women are physiologically different and are just not attracted to the same things. For example most women don't like hunting, while men do, most likely due to evolutionary reasons.

If it's just about statistics not looking as nice and even as we'd like then no, in my opinion we shouldn't make any efforts to change it.

Obviously that is the case. It would be startling if adults chose careers in exactly even proportions, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, or whatever. BUT, based on human developmental theory and how people make decisions, no choice is truly random.

Therefore, there must be a reason for those choices.

Your theory offers no explanation other than random chance, from what I can tell. Identifying inputs and outcomes is sort of the point of solving problems.

I think the main issue was with the "expectation" part. It carries an insinuation of being forced, or socially shunned, etc. There are choices being made, and choices aren't random. I don't really see expectations that a woman take a lower paying job playing into that very much. I can see more pressure on the other side - like for the man to pay for everything on dates, support their family, etc, with the resulting less pressure on the other side allowing the choice of work that is fulfilling in other ways (societal benefit, fun, less stress, flexibility). Even these roles are choices. A man could choose not to pay for dates, be a stay at home dad, etc. When it come mate selection, there is generally more pressure on the male than the female.

I'm assume you're male because you're coming at it from that perspective. Do you believe there is no pressure when you're one of the few women in an engineering course? There's a lot at play here, and focusing on your slice may prevent you from seeing the whole.

I can see pressure if the woman (or any first-of) is one of the first in their role/job to do well and represent their subgroup. This of course implies that there is a stereotype to overcome, which I see as a very small minority sentiment today. I didn't notice any stereotyping related to women in my classes. Also, in my masters courses the gender mix was probably 60% male 40% female.

There is a lot at play, and there is plenty of variation by location and other factors.

And what you have done, I am willing to bet, is use your own individual experiences to draw conclusions for the wider world. My own personal experience is that this is almost never a good idea (see what I did there). This is not a values judgment, or meant to be hateful at all, really.

This paragraph reads as if you are saying, "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist."

And the same can be done in the other direction. Are you worried about some rare disease or catastrophe? We have to determine where the line is and if the current laws are somehow not adequate to protect people's rights.

I'm not saying that issues do not exist (see my prior comment about very small minority). From what I've seen, including various statistics, it seems to me that gender discrimination is not common and the laws are already in place to deal with it.

But then why do those careers earn less money? Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less?

Many of those jobs produce fewer tangible outputs, are government jobs, non-profit, or otherwise do not focus on maximizing profit. Positions like teachers, social workers, etc are seen as cost centers, not revenue centers. They are necessary jobs and perform valuable societal functions, but they are supported through other revenues which were not a direct product of their job. As for why one gender chooses those jobs more than others, there are a variety of factors. One of the leading ones is that some people are more likely to choose work that is meaningful over just a dollar amount. Studies show that isn't just based on gender, but also in the some minority groups.

> Why is it that it just so happens that every job that is more likely for women to work also is paid less?

I am quite confident this is not true, in the broad way you have stated it.

There are many categories of jobs with a greater proportion of women, that pay higher than many categories of jobs with a greater proportion of men.

I think mortality/danger is an interesting axis:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-inju...

If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived?

If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?

The question is why those careers earn less money. Your assertion is that the careers men choose are more dangerous, so those careers earn more. My question is, are dangerous careers well paid?

Here are the totals for occupational deaths: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm

~25% for Transportation and material moving occupations

~20% for Construction

~10% for Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations

~1.5% for Business, Finance, Computers, Math, Engineering, and Legal

I believe all the ones you listed would fall above the median salary of about $50k.

My point wasn't that all the specified careers were above the median salary, my point was that the most dangerous jobs don't seem to be the best paid jobs. The original question was

> But then why do those careers earn less money?

and the follow up was

> If, by being a man, you are 10x more likely to die from your job, and you are 10x more likely to die younger, should society compensate for your fewer hours lived?

which I tried to answer with looking at which jobs killed more people. It doesn't look to me like the big money is in jobs which kill more people

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb3a.htm

-----

Transportation: $25.71/hr ~= $51k/yr

Construction: $32.24/hr ~= $64k/yr

Repair and Maintenance: $25.26/hr ~= $51k/yr

------

Professional and Business: $35.82/hr ~= $71k/yr

Financial: $39.67/hr ~= $79k/yr

Computer systems design and related services: $50.60/hr ~= $101k/yr

Legal services: $46.34/hr ~= $93k/yr

-------

That said, I think the commenter I was responding to was trying to change the subject

> If no, why would society decide to undervalue males?

Regardless of the answer to their question, the topic would then be on-the-job deaths instead of the gender wage gap. I chose to answer the part of the question relevant to the gender wage gap.

You need to compare jobs you can get with same qualifications, of course. That's why we don't compare surgeons with janitors.

Of course, most gender pay gap comparison do in fact compare surgeons with kindergarten teachers, but that seems done intentionally to mislead.

That's not true. Obstetricians are mostly women and are better paid (on average) than internal medicine, which is mostly men. There are other examples.

If you assume men are willing to give up more (life span, time, stress, risk) for money than women, it has an amazing amount of explanatory power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com