> 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?
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?
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.
Note: I have never even met a women that aspires to trying to be one.
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.
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".
I know it is true, by looking at empirical data. Can you cite data that support your conclusion?
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."
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.
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.
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.
"Driver/sales workers and truck drivers": 3.4m, 92.2% male.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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.