Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivan_gammel | Hacker News Reader

It is important to understand the reasons for that negative correlation. If you do, your conclusions would be quite the opposite - sex imbalance is not something to accept, but rather to fix. Many authoritarian regimes are expanding their economic base by enabling women to pursue professional careers. In some developed countries there’s no such pressure, so they are simply stuck in the past. They are not doing better because women are enslaved in the kitchen or take only stereotypical jobs. It’s just ideological and/or religious trap.

View on HN

My wife spends around an hour a day in the kitchen. I spend close to eight chained to my computer. If one of us is a slave, it's not her. She's not attending daily stand-ups to report how teaching our daughter the alphabet is going; she chooses how to spend each day with no external pressures at all. Her work taking care of the kids is still more exhausting than mine, but it's also obviously more fulfilling and engaging. When we meet all of our financial goals, we'll both be full time parents. As it is now, I make more than enough for her to take care of the kids full time and still make progress toward our goals. Why wouldn't she take that deal?

Consider that when you talk about women doing what makes them happy and what they see as important work (because it is) as being "stuck in the past" or in a form of slavery, it might be you who's devaluing them. We both received a lot of that rhetoric growing up, and it took until well into adulthood to really understand how wrong and harmful it is.

Hey, I know you know best (talking plural here), but make sure that your wife feels accomplished in her own line of work and/or getting her dream job. Raising kids is great, but as age goes by, she might feel sad about not accomplishing other things.

This is coming from someone with a dysfunctional family, I don't have much context about your life nor do I want to sound as if I'm assuming things. I'm just trying to warn you about that possibility.

> make sure that your wife feels accomplished in her own line of work

"make sure that your wife feels accomplished" sounds very strange to me. Ultimately it should be his wife's responsibility to make sure that she feels accomplished right? I get that it's not a bad idea to talk with your spouse about what the two of you want in life and to consider other options from time to time though.

> Raising kids is great, but as age goes by, she might feel sad about not accomplishing other things.

I think this happens to almost all people no matter what they spent the majority of their life doing. Everyone thinks about how things might have worked out if they'd done something different. As long as people are free to make their own choices, and they have the opportunities to pursue what they want in life, then people are entitled to their own regrets down the road. We each only get one chance at life. It's very rare for someone to look back and not feel sad about not accomplishing other things.

> Ultimately it should be his wife's responsibility to make sure that she feels accomplished right?

No. In a healthy relationship partners care about each other. This means also enabling them to pursue their dreams. It’s not just talking, it’s also doing something, e.g. taking parental leave or sacrificing your own opportunities so that your wife could use hers. Without this kind of support she won’t have much choice.

> it’s also doing something, e.g. taking parental leave or sacrificing your own opportunities so that your wife could use hers. Without this kind of support she won’t have much choice.

Even in a relationship, you have to own your own choices and be responsible for your own happiness. Seems like an ideal situation at least. As one of the few couples who can afford to live a good life on a single income, she'd already have far more opportunities than most. All choices involve sacrifices. If she wanted to work or they wanted to hire someone to come in to help take care of the house/kids it wouldn't necessarily change much for him.

> All choices involve sacrifices. > If she wanted to work or they wanted to hire someone to come in to help take care of the house/kids

This comment is perfect illustration of sexism. You don’t even consider the option of father taking parental leave while the mother works. Why is it woman who must do the sacrifices? And of course the idea of hiring someone to come: this is not efficient and not scalable, so not a solution for entire population that would empower women.

> You don’t even consider the option of father taking parental leave while the mother works.

Given what little we know of their situation, that would likely be a very stupid thing for them to do. Because most people do not make enough money to support a family on a single income, and he is fortunate enough to be making that much money now, it's unlikely that she would be able to do the same. It's also reasonable to assume that they discussed their options a long time ago, likely before a child was even involved. It's a good idea for couples to talk about that sort of thing before they start a family, and for those couples who could realistically have a parent at home with their child, whoever is making the most money is the natural choice for the one who continues working.

As it happens, I do consider stay at home fathers to be a perfectly valid option. Again, every choice is a sacrifice. The parent who goes to work for 40+ hours a week is making a sacrifice. The parent who stays home with their child is making a sacrifice. There is no difference. If people didn't need to work in order to support themselves and their loved ones, I doubt that many parents (mothers or fathers) would choose to abandon their kids for most of their waking hours during the most formative and remarkable time of their children's lives. At least not to the extent that most of are forced to currently.

It's very odd that you seem to consider only the parent who stays home to be "doing the sacrifices" without due consideration for what parents who are forced to work long hours give up. In most families, both parents have to make that sacrifice. It's a rare gift for there to be an opportunity for one parent to have the ability to be with their family.

You are correct that hiring someone to help keep up the home and care for children is not a solution for the entire population. That's alright though, because we're discussing just one person's family situation and that person's situation is exceptional. When it's an option, bringing in outside help is extremely efficient which is why most families resort to it at least some of the time, even if only by hiring a babysitter for a few hours occasionally, or by enlisting the help of a relative.

If I were looking for a solution that would apply to the entire population, I wouldn't be interested in solutions that specifically "empower women" either. I'd be looking for ones that empowered all parents, both men and women, because both should be equally afforded the opportunity to pursue their own interests and find work they feel is important, meaningful, and fulfilling. I'm really not sure what that solution would look like though. UBI perhaps? Maybe a requirement that every last job pay enough that a person could support themselves and a modest family on a single income? It'd take a massive departure from our current culture in any case.

> I'm really not sure what that solution would look like though

I‘m living in the country where it more or less exists, though things are getting worse now. America is a very special country that is called developed despite many gaps in welfare system, but there are more successful examples. Let me enumerate the necessary policies:

1. Universal healthcare, tax-funded or statutory insurance - doesn’t matter. 2. Parental leave allowance of minimum 2-3 years for each parent, tax benefits for businesses to hire temporary substitution. 3. Parental leave benefits covering at least 12-18 months that are higher if both parents take the leave, defined as a percentage of salary. Ideally must cover the period until the child goes to kindergarten. 4. Free kindergarten at walkable distance (ok, for America could be reasonable travel distance), free full day schools, free university education (German style) that does not require students to work a lot and allows for parental leave. 5. Labor code that enforces 35-40 hour work, sufficiently high minimum wage and disincentivizes overtime/second work for parents. 6. Most importantly, cost of living must be primary KPI for the government. Property prices and rent contribute a lot to it, so the investment bubble must be accurately deflated (that’s a separate story how, and America is again very special here, so it’s more like a long term idea).

Overall, the policies must be designed with the lifetime journey of a typical family/couple/single professional in mind (CJM is a good tool). Observe. Analyze. Identify and eliminate barriers. Don’t break what works, don’t impose certain ways of living etc.

I get all of your points. But it is difficult, specially early on, to recognise that some sacrifices do limit your life quite a bit. From not being in a social environment outside of your house more often, to having other efforts bear other fruits and feel like you're capable of more things.

I didn't want to sound as if the wife doesn't have a say already, it's just that it's very difficult for her to question the current way of doing things given the sacrifices that the other one is making. The same is true for the male! Don't get me wrong! And this is why it becomes surprisingly difficult for both to start discussing if they're happy with this "contract".

OP seemed to be happy and his wife too from another reply, so I guess it's all good. It's just that I know that this contract can have very bad effects long term.

She does accomplish other things/have hobbies. Her squat is in the "exceptional" tier on Symmetric Strength. She's good at cooking a variety of meals. We've gotten compliments from neighbors that live a couple streets away about our yard. She generally takes credit for transforming me from a video game nerd into a weightlifting Chad, and I don't disagree. She majored in math and did a couple programming courses in college, but by the end she had had enough of those things.

By contrast, I know for a fact that about 2 years of my work were for nothing (building products that ultimately failed), and another 3 or so had a large amount of unnecessary work from way overly complex designs that I didn't have the political capital to prevent, which added a lot of stress to my life as I still cared enough to try. There's been times where I've presented management with an analysis showing that some project they want me to lead is going to have negative ROI, but the reality I've encountered is a lot of "engineering" in software runs on vibes and doing what's currently cool/sounds impressive, so the conclusion may already be foregone. Knowing you did your due diligence to present that analysis and then did a good job executing on the delivery is fine I guess, and you'll get your raises and promotions for doing it, but it's still somewhat hollow.

If someone is really internally motivated by ambitions of career ladder climbing, then they should go for it. If economics make it a necessary practical choice, then do it (though if they are on a path to a STEM career, chances are they are in a social circle that enables them to find a high-quality spouse on the same path so that only one of them has to do it). But in general I'd advise young people who don't yet know what they want that they should have their prior be that their family and personal accomplishments (or lack thereof) will be more important to them than their career accomplishments.

That's good to hear! As long as you're happy and you discussed these things with eachother it's all good.

This dovetails with my central critique, which is that the current state of feminism, in my opinion, tends to insidiously subscribe to the tenets of the “late stage capitalism” that many self-proclaimed x-wave feminists (again, in my experience) claim to denounce, as it is oriented around viewing people first and foremost as economic agents. Yes, individual income affords freedoms to both men and women, which is not to be discounted. But then you hear criticisms of women such as your wife, essentially demeaning them for not striving to be the fittest individual economic agents possible. As if being an AE for Yelp is the pinnacle of the human experience.

Again, by no means a black & white issue. I have simply have a distaste for such an individualist philosophy and fear it inevitably leads to an “us v. them” mentality.

> But then you hear criticisms of women such as your wife, essentially demeaning them for not striving to be the fittest individual economic agents possible.

to some extent I think that pressure is put on everyone. There's a lot of pressure to always be making/spending more money. There's also a lot of jealousy. Almost every person I know with children, man or woman, would rather be with their kids, and be there for their kids as they grow up. Very few couples are fortunate enough to be able to afford a good life on just one income.

That leads to people being resentful that they are missing out on what they want for themselves and their children. They're stuck missing all the once in a lifetime experiences they could be having because they are chained to a desk for 8-10 hours a day 5 or more days a week. That can cause people to resent the few men and women who do get to stay home and be with their family. They'll make others feel bad for not spending their time working for someone else because misery loves company. It's crab bucket mentality.

> My wife spends around an hour a day in the kitchen.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions about your life, but cooking meals for the whole family usually takes more than an hour a day if you are not just putting frozen pizza in the oven. I often spend twice as much. Maybe she’s very efficient. Maybe you don’t really know her.

> As it is now, I make more than enough for her to take care of the kids full time and still make progress toward our goals. Why wouldn't she take that deal?

I have already spent one year on parental leave and I can say with confidence that if you have passion for work and enjoy what you do, it is not a “deal”. It is sacrifice for your children and for your partner. All families are different. Maybe your wife enjoys working as housekeeper and fulltime mother and doesn’t really care if several years are taken from her career path elsewhere. Not everyone wants life like that. You say it yourself that the circumstances of your life pushed you into this split of responsibilities. Would you do it differently if your wife wanted to get back to work even if that meant less money? Would you let her pursue her passion?

Frozen pizza takes like 2 minutes. You literally just put it in the oven, go do something else, then take it out and slice it. Normally lunch takes about 15-20 minutes. Dinner takes ~45. We usually have overnight oats for breakfast which takes ~5 minutes every 3 days to prepare. Our older one is usually happy to get some combination of cut up fruit, toast, sausage, and cottage cheese for breakfast, which takes like 2-5 minutes to throw together. The time sink is hounding her to actually eat!

My wife never worked a career and never wanted to, so there'd be no "going back", but yeah we were happy on a small fraction of my current salary when we were younger, or half my current salary just a couple years ago. I'm not particularly interested in status or materialism; if I didn't have my family, I'd already be done with my career. There's an endless list of other things to do. Even programming is quite a bit more enjoyable when you're doing it for yourself. I've actually told my last few managers that I'm not specifically trying to get to the top of the career ladder with the extra stress and responsibility, but they inevitably push you toward it anyway. Modern corporations don't seem to know how to deal with someone who isn't motivated by status (or I guess they just need someone who can do the stuff, and I'll do it if they need me to). One of my managers actually told me he thought I was having self-confidence issues when it was exactly the opposite! I think a couple years later he's moved closer to my perspective for himself.

I've also taken all of my paternity leave including the unpaid portions. No regrets there. I feel super fortunate for having had the opportunity and would obviously recommend everyone in tech to do the same.

So you are lucky one to have happy family. Do you think your example is a good argument in gender equality discussion? Why my comment above triggered your response?

I think saying women like her are enslaved is itself misogyny. She has agency. She's the one who pushed for our setup (I probably would've done grad school for math or physics and tried to go the academic route if we hadn't met). My reply is to illustrate that you're thinking about people like us wrong: she didn't make a sacrifice to be a homemaker; she's not pining to go work in an office. I make the sacrifice by working so she doesn't have to. In fact during our 20s she had no responsibilities at all and could pursue any passions she wanted to knowing I had the money handled.

I don't know how relevant our situation is in the wider scope. I'm only speaking to the way people think it's fine to second guess her in a way they wouldn't if she had a job they'd like her to have. Jira isn't going to bring fulfillment to her life. Most businesses aren't curing cancer; they just have some kind of boring work that they need someone to apply a generic solution to. It's not very intellectually stimulating either; you're not doing particle physics.

To the extent that it is relevant, I'd speculate that most guys pretty much don't care at all about a potential spouse's career prospects while most girls do. So if a girl is in a social circle with lots of guys with high paying career potential (e.g. engineering class), she can probably marry one of them and pursue whatever she wants. Guys will generally not do as well in the dating market if they have their mind set on being a househusband. They might find someone, but it will probably be quite a bit more difficult. I have no idea how much of an effect that would have and obviously there will be multiple reasons for the discrepancy. I know I wouldn't be doing software as a job if I had that option though, and I like programming! Like another commenter said, if "campground manager" paid as well, they'd probably do that instead.

> I think saying women like her are enslaved is itself misogyny

Fully agree. I would not change anything in my comment above nevertheless. It is not about the women who have and make the choice. We are not in the world yet, where this would be the default assumption.

At least in the US, according to [0], around 67% of women with children under 18 who are not employed prefer that. Among women with children, a higher proportion of women who do work would prefer not to than the proportion of women who do not work and would prefer to. It appears that most women with children have the working status that they prefer, but if you had to guess that someone was unhappy about their situation, it would be a working mom. Additionally, most moms do not have a preference to work outside the home.

Keep in mind this is after decades of messaging of the type I'm pointing out and people are exemplifying in this very thread after I pointed it out where women who stay at home are questioned about whether they're "accomplished" and generally looked down upon by the middle/upper middle class.

[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/267737/record-high-women-prefer...

> Among women with children, a higher proportion of women who do work would prefer not to than the proportion of women who do not work and would prefer to

1. Just a reminder: women who stay at home with children do work and it is wrong to say otherwise.

2. As I pointed out already numerous times here in other comments, those polls are just numbers. You cannot simply draw a conclusion that if there exists some gender-based preference, it’s ok. Without answers and analysis why it’s just another bad research. And there’s A LOT of reasons, why those numbers may not reflect happiness and accomplishment, but rather a safe choice and avoidance. Please, do the proper research. I don’t think you are adequately informed on this matter.

That sentence had a complicated enough structure as it is and the meaning is clear. My direct experience with such a woman is that in most contexts she says she "doesn't work", and it's understood that that means labor force participation. You'll find up thread that I said "her work... is still more exhausting than mine".

The statistics agree with our lived experience. There's also lots of reasons why those numbers would reflect happiness and accomplishment, which I've tried to provide some color to. They're not slaves, and in fact the stats show they have almost 50% more free time and get more sleep[0]. So they actually have more time and energy to pursue their interests, and they have pretty much complete autonomy in their work in the home. Because of that increased autonomy, their accomplishments are also more directly attributable to them.

Staying at home is not the safe choice. If you're middle class, you'll face all sorts of microagressions for it (e.g. people acting like raising bright, well-adjusted kids is not a substantial accomplishment while writing CRUD software is). You also don't have a career to fall back on if the marriage fails or your spouse dies, so it's actually high risk and requires trust and planning. But it can also carry substantial rewards, and the type of person who would be high achieving in a STEM career is also the type of person who is likely to be a high achieving parent, so they are likely to see those rewards.

Without more info, why would you assume women's stated preferences are wrong? Especially if you restrict to women who are capable of a STEM career? Based on my direct experience with a woman who got her MRS in math, I'd expect that actually they are quite intelligent and self-aware, and are quite good at achieving their goals.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/04/08/chapter...

> The statistics agree with our lived experience

The statistics without explanation mean nothing. They are just numbers. You need to show causal link before making any conclusions from that data. Interestingly, the same research you quote includes some information about it with indication that stay-at-home life is dictated by circumstances:

> The recent rise in stay-at-home motherhood is the flip side of a dip in female labor force participation after decades of growth. The causes are debated, but survey data do not indicate the dip will become a plunge, as most mothers say they would like to work, part time or full time.

Apparently, this is the stated preference. Your personal situation is also mentioned there (highly educated and affluent "opt-out" mothers are said to be "relatively few").

>Especially if you restrict to women who are capable of a STEM career? Based on my direct experience with a woman who got her MRS in math, I'd expect that actually they are quite intelligent and self-aware

Sounds pretty much sexist. 99% of population are capable of STEM career, it is only a matter of motivation, education and avoiding prejudice. Intelligent and self-aware women can spot toxic environment faster and make career choices where they can avoid them. Being "opt-out" mother is often such a choice. I have seen examples of it many times.

You're suggesting there is not a casual link between having a work situation and reporting that they prefer that work situation? Obviously some situations are dictated by circumstances; the Gallup poll indicated ~1/3 of women don't have their preference in both directions. But most women report preferring their situation in both directions. Why is their stated preference under question? And especially why is it only under question on one direction?

The link you quoted didn't seem to actually mention that part-time bit, but it does say:

> Marital status is also strongly linked to views about the ideal work situation, and the gap in views between married and unmarried mothers has widened significantly in recent years. Among unmarried mothers, about half (49%) say working full time would be their ideal. This is up dramatically from 26% who said the same in 2007. Only 23% of married mothers today say their ideal situation would be to work full time, basically unchanged from 2007.

Which seems even more suggestive to me: the wider stats are muddled by single moms where it wouldn't make sense to stay home. When you focus on married moms, only 23% want full time work. Basically, they don't actually want to climb the career ladder.

Saying 99% of people are capable of a STEM career is totally out of touch with reality. 15% would be optimistic (and would probably require an inclusive definition of "science"). For a large portion of the population, technical subjects are actually quite difficult.

Someone who would counterfactually be in a highly compensated career is generally going to be in the highly educated affluent bucket almost tautologically. They are also going to have a similarly situated social circle where they can meet a spouse. They're exactly the demographic that's capable of being in the "opt-out" group, which was my point up thread: girls in STEM have the option of marrying a guy in STEM and living an affluent life as a homemaker.

>The link you quoted didn't seem to actually mention that part-time bit

It does. I copied the text. Full report consists of multiple pages, not just the one you quoted.

Lol at assuming you know this guy's life better than he does from a couple comments.

The countries with the most female empowerment and equality in the nordics have some of the smallest percentage of women in STEM in the world.

And? Have you looked at any research why this is happening? Out of context this can tell anything.

Of course, there are a variety of roles that are heavily female-weighted: nurses, K-12 teachers, executive assistants, etc. So there are at least some forces driving gender preferences for roles that probably can't/shouldn't just be wiped out in the West.

> It is important to understand the reasons for that negative correlation.

Agreed 100%

> If you do, your conclusions would be quite the opposite

This is where you lose me. Your statement here suggests the following:

1. That you know, for a conclusive fact, what those reasons are

2. That the reasons suggest something ominous

Furthermore, you haven't explained what you consider to be the reasons, let alone offered explanation or citations that would support why you think those are the particular reasons. You implied that the reasons are sexism and discrimination, but you left that quite open for interpretation.

Moving on, you then suggest that minority groups that do not pursue careers in STEM are "stuck in the past."

I have two daughters who are in their early, going on mid twenties. My youngest daughter is one of the smartest and brightest people that I have ever met. Obviously I'm biased, but this is a kid that found ways to get herself into all sorts of trouble as a toddler by solving problems that I would have thought no toddler was capable of.

In her late teens she had no idea what she wanted to do, but she expressed some interest in learning to code. Being a software engineer myself, I gave her all of the support and resources that I could. I offered to teach her myself. I bought her Udemy courses and books. I invited her to sit with me at work to see what what life as a coder is like. I made it as accessible for her as possible.

What has she decided to do with her life? She works in a professional kitchen and is on the career path to becoming a chef and possibly a restauranteur.

People with your attitude would snub your nose at her life choices, look down at what she's passionate about and claim that she is a 'slave' living in the 'past' because she's currently working in a low-paid service industry. You would then blame sexism or classism despite the fact that she was raised in a progressive, well to do family that gave her every opportunity to succeed at whatever she chose to do.

Of course, one anectode does not refute statistics. But you have not offered statistics. You came out with assumptions, accusations and a snobbish attitude towards people who would make personal life choices that you don't understand or approve of. The beautiful thing about freedom, however, is that no one needs your approval or understanding.

She works in a professional kitchen and is on the career path to becoming a chef and possibly a restauranteur.

which to my knowledge is a male dominated profession. so good on her!

Both boys and girls from Asian countries tend to be more interested in STEM.

Because it's a commodity job where they can provide value to western corporations without having to be physically located there, and there's huge demand for them because of their low cost.

Japan isn't low cost.

How about calming down and keeping your emotions in check? Your whole comment is triggered by a wrong idea of what I meant and who I am. It is also ignorant of all the data that exists about gender inequality and the root causes. It is not something that you can learn from a single link to statistics. You need to do your own research, read some books and meet gender equality advocates to understand better the world in which your daughter lives.

Individual free choices are valid and as a father you did a good job showing the opportunities you know about and then not pushing towards certain career. A woman absolutely can and should be able to choose to be an engineer, a nurse or a fulltime mother and housekeeper, as long as this is free choice. All those jobs are important and respected.

However I’m not talking about them or diminishing them. I’m talking about the society as a whole and sexism so deeply rooted in the culture that even with proper education it is still not easy to uncover and combat all biases. Gender discrimination starts very early when metaphorically speaking boys get cars and girls get dolls. Children are programmed by the society to have certain interests and play certain gender roles. The share of girls who will choose a profession traditionally dominated by men is already lower because of that. Then it extends to university and first career steps. Women too often have to deal with sexism and harassment in academia or on workplace. Too often they are told (still!) that men can do better. Choosing a more traditional role they avoid it, but is it really a freedom of choice? And we even have not started talking about childcare where exists institutional disparity forcing to make a choice between the family and career. For example, how long was your parental leave compared to your wife? Freedom for all but white men in countries like America is only theoretical. On practice the circumstances of life do not leave many women a choice. The outcomes are speaking for themselves. There are many women who are perfectly fit for the most sophisticated jobs, yet there are only few who make it there. In Germany we at least had Merkel. America, the so-called leader of the free world, never had a woman as a president. Fortune 500 CEOs? Startup founders? Billionaires? Nobel prize winners? You can easily find those numbers. There’s no genetic predisposition for women to not being able to get there. There’s only ignorance of people like you who think that they have done enough and it’s the matter of choice.

i don't know the real reasons, but i have the impression that in those countries STEM careers give women more freedom, and that would be why they pursue them. the added freedom makes it worth the potential downsides.

in the west they already have more freedom, and so the downside of having to endure sexism does not make it worth the effort.

not sure if that is true, but it makes sense to me

> in the west they already have more freedom, and so the downside of having to endure sexism does not make it worth the effort.

This is a great point. I think a lot of HN simply takes as given that tech is a great, pleasant industry to work in, for everyone. Let's say that it isn't. If it isn't, then that might explain why people who have a good degree of financial/employment freedom would not choose to work in tech, leaving people with not a lot of financial/employment freedom (but good tech skills) as the ones who grin and bear a tech job.

I dunno about everyone else, but if “campground manager” had comp as good as tech, that’s sure as shit what I’d be doing instead.

Goes for a lot of other options, actually. Clerking a small store is often way more pleasant (depends on the store) than even relatively-good tech jobs, at least to me. But the pay’s not there.

It depends. In some countries (eg Iran) this is probably true from what I remember, in others there are other reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com