Hacker News Reader

Comment by gaius | Hacker News Reader

This question makes no sense unless it is also asked in conjuction with "what happened to all the male primary school teachers"?

View on HN

I don't see any reason they need to be asked in the same article actually. Was there ever a time when 40% of primary school teachers were male? It's not clear to me that there's any strong parallel between the two professions at all.

It is a good question to ask though, as there are societal pressures against men going into any profession related to children (e.g. the pedophile scare). But asking it _here_ is just cheap whataboutery to silence the discussion.

The reasoning for the decline in male primary school teachers (and daycare workers) has very little to do with women in CS. Guys have much more danger points in the legal system when accused of something. The risk / reward ratio is too far gone. This does not happen to women in CS.

The point isn't so much a direct comparison but more pointing out that their are different societal pressures on all of us that influence what we do. A male is less likely to be a primary school teacher because there are many factors that make it difficult for them. The same is true of women and CS. There are various forms of societal pressure that are most likely making CS a harder field to enter.

I think the rise of males in CS was due to the rise of the personal computer. As someone noted earlier, as computers become more common in the home and males started using them, they picked up a stigma associated with the type of males that used them.

Why does that have anything to do with primary school teachers? I'm fairly certain very little.

Because it's only a "problem" when an industry is male-dominated it seems. Question is do we want equality, or not?

Actually, it's only a problem because males dominate high paying industries.

There's a lot of talk about gender transitions on jobs. One common argument is if men leave jobs as they begin to pay less or is it that as more women take to a job, we value the job less.

Outside of a few niche industries (modeling, porn, etc...), men generally are in higher paying industries. And gender transitions within industries tend to favor men (for whatever reason).

I don't expect men and women to participate equally in every field of employment. But it would be interesting to understand why women aren't represented as highly in some of the higher paying fields, especially since the opposite is almost never the case (women are over-represented in a high paying field).

males dominate high paying industries

And low paying, dirty, dangerous industries too - and no industries at all, the majority of the homeless and the prison population are men!

This is the nasty little secret at the heart of feminism - they only want advantages, not equality. Another thing feminists are very quiet about is the earlier retirement age...

And low paying, dirty, dangerous industries too

Thia is not strictly true. For a couple of reasons:

1) Men have systematically blocked women from being a part of some dirty dangerous industries. For example combat soldiers, firefighters, even fishermen. It's possible women may not be particularly good at these jobs, artificial boundaries certainly don't help your case.

2) There are other low paying industries dominated by women. For example pimped out prostitutes are predominately women. So again, there are basically no high paying professions dominated by women. And low paying professions are shared by men and women.

Homelessness and prisoner isn't a profession. It's a state of life. But a more fair comparison there is to something like domestic abuse leading to death at the hands of the opposite sex. Or rape at the hands of the opposite sex. Or even just murder at the hands of the opposite sex.

Women tend to be blocked from firefighting by the fitness test. Requirements like carrying a 80kg 100 yards, extending a ladder and running quickly were too hard for many women.

Fortunately, this problem is being solved in progressive countries - they are making the test easier.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service...

This isn't great for me - I weigh more than 80kg, so I run the risk of getting stuck with a firefighter who can't carry me out of a burning building. But hey, gender equality is great, right?

This isn't great for me - I weigh more than 80kg, so I run the risk of getting stuck with a firefighter who can't carry me out of a burning building. But hey, gender equality is great, right?

Fewer fajitas maybe?

But seriously:

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=11592

Women were kept out period until relatively recently. I don't agree with reducing the physical exam if it puts lives in danger. I don't think we should block women from being able to even apply simply because we think the mass majority couldn't pass the test. At the same time we shouldn't create physical exams that have nothing to do with the job, knowing it excludes most women.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "recently" - in this case, it means 12-16 years before any current firefighter trainee was even born. (Assuming cadets are age 18-22.)

I agree with you that we should allow women to take the test, but we shouldn't lower standards to allow them to pass.

This book helps explain it a lot: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472...

The pay difference is a matter of a multitude of life choices made slightly differently between men and women.

When I was an education major, other people in the field told me that it was great that I, as a man, was going into education, because I would be serving as a male role model.

Pedophile mania.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com