What 'Lean In' Misunderstands About Gender Differences
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Sandberg has a right to her own opinions about how things work for her as a leader and a parent. Just like everyone here has their own opinion about pretty much everything.
These articles are typically published in rags like the Atlantic, which I would imagine have fairly equal gender-distributed commenters, or even skewing female. Or if you mean comments on HN, how do you know the genders of the people who are commenting? Not everyone mentions their gender in their comment / profile.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2175603
There was a similar poll this year with similar results but I can't find it.
"Series of tubes"
Those are my limited experiences, anyway. I'm sure some one will say that I've only encountered the most bigoted communities for me to have this impression.
One can try to visit tech websites, or even tech offices. I am a woman, and I'm often left with a feeling of being 'the other', sometimes unfavourably so. The most obvious cause is that it is often a community of mostly men discussing both male and female characteristics. A more subtle clue is that it seems that they refer to women as "females", but men as simply "men". Some communities are even hostile to the idea of feminists - in turn some feminists forego speaking up about their feelings, and pretending to be "just another bro".
One crucial difference is, of course, that feminists only talk about gender and things that are related to that. Tech-communities might sometimes talk about gender, but most might only talk about it when it is somewhat relevant to their tech-interests. Feminists, on the other hand, have a practical monopoly on gender-opinions as far as mainstream opinion is concerned. And they're mostly women, and might even reject men into their circles. Programmers being mostly men might bias things like technological choices, but the bias towards women in gender-theory (might as well say feminist-theory) doesn't change a niche thing such as what programming language powers the client-side web, it heavily influences popular opinion on what men are and what they should be like, even though they are not really a represented group. That might not be a problem if some vocal feminists didn't try to work against alternative paradigms of gender theory, but in my experience, they do.
Your last point would be more analogous to my own if you said that some communities are even hostile to the idea of women programmers (if that is indeed true).
I work at a top tech company in Silicon Valley, in a team of 200 men and 10 women. The men aren't intentionally hostile towards me at all, but they are blissfully ignorant of how their comments and behavior genuinely makes it hard for the few women around them to succeed and be considered equals.
And here on HN it's invariably 'guys' and 'girls'. Women get the diminutive form. It's a little emasculating, yes.
But being other means you are special and provided some sufficient open mindedness, you can bring a fresh point of view to the discussion.
One thing that is quite special in my life: I have the honour to be around several young girls via my family and friends, and they don't treat me any different at all and often tell me pointedly how they know more about their devices than I do (I don't play games so they delight in showing me the details and beating me).
In lean-in, she paints this rosy world in which ambitious women can achieve whatever they want to. Reality is, most people (men included) just don't have the financial freedom, support system, recognition etc. to take huge risks. Even when we take risks, statistically, we fail most of the time.
Most men and women never grew up in a family where both their parents are successful. Heck, many American kids grow up in broken families with parents divorced. Sheryl has had a lot of institutional support that she could take for granted.
Of course, this does not mean women should not have the freedom to do what they want. In fact, I really want to see more women focus on smarts and take leadership positions in the hard stuff (military, congress etc.).
But, just because things worked out for Sheryl, she's talking through a lens of privilege and success. Unfortunately, these lenses are not readily available.
I'd say more from my (very anecdotal) experience: I'm in a male-dominated and technical field, but among (very competent) women that we do have, it seems that growing up in a family where mother is decidedly more successful than the father is quite a common trait. Good role models to follow -- and not just abstractly good, but examples that suggest that women can compete as equals and win on merits in real life -- do matter for confidence, and confidence matters for everything else.
Does anyone know what Jack Welsh's parents did? Does it matter? Do any articles about Larry Page emphasize his parents' support as the reason for his success? I didn't think so. So how come people are actively looking to credit Sandberg's success to anything but her actual work? Because she's a woman.
Sincerely, A female tech worker with divorced, middle-class parents.
What I simply implied was that having institutional advantages makes the whole effort much easier, as compared to another woman who did not grow up with such support.
This is not very hard to see. For every woman like Sheryl Sandberg, there are tons of other women who worked as hard as her. There are tons of women who are as smart as her. But they could not make it as big as Sheryl, simply because of institutional disadvantages.
I could give the example of my mom. Her dad was a railway repairman. The family was not well-educated/privileged as a whole. So, she received little/no guidance on her future. But she studied her socks off when she was a kid. As a result, she started her career as a receptionist in a bank. Steadily, she grew on to become a Foreign Exchange manager.
If she would've had some advantage, say ability to afford Harvard instead of no-name-state-school, she could've started at a higher position rather than a receptionist.
In addition, she also took amazing care of my little brother and me. She couldn't afford to hire a personal babysitter, so she sacrificed her career to raise us. I would argue that my birth was the single biggest reason she couldn't achieve more.
Her work ethic was tremendous. Her ability to pick up concepts beyond her expertise was excellent. But institutional disadvantages ensured that she couldn't start well.
I could give my own example. I am now doing stuff of an engineer's dreams. I had the advantage of great parents who gave me things like a computer at a very young age. This single event is the biggest leg up in my career. Now, I am a happy programmer making shit-load of money. But my friend whose parents bought him a computer 7 years after me, languishes behind.
Why should he be languishing behind when we went to the same school with same classes? We did our homework together too. He got the same grades as me in high school. We were equal by all measure.
All he couldn't decide was where to take his career, whereas, my computer advantage made sure I knew what I loved.
Sorry for the long post. All I want to say is that while I do not discredit Sheryl for her success, I have to say that institutional advantages gave her a leg up. And when she wrote this book, she wrote it without having experienced a big disadvantage.
EDIT: Spelling and grammer
The submission attributes Bill Gates's success first and foremost to his grandparents and parents. This is part of a very common pattern of attributing success to everything but work.
"Gender differences can sometimes be symptoms of oppression and subordination."
And that's true. Oppression, subordination, etc exist. And so do innate differences between men and women. There doesn't have to be a hard-and-fast dichotomy here.
I think the author is right to criticize Sandberg, since Sandberg apparently says:
"A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes."
which is contradicted by the research mentioned in the article. To take Sandberg's position would be sticking to one half of the dichotomy that I am alleging is a false one.
That said, I think perhaps this author underestimates the extent to which oppresion exists and to which gender roles are contingent (i.e. not innate). Or, at least, the tone of the article could lead to that sort of interpretation. IMHO, better to put that acknowledgement up front rather than at the end of the article.
I don't think she's saying that at all. It's not one caveat at the end - the rest of the article is described as presenting a possibility, not an absolute truth. Hence she uses the words "hypothesize", "far from conclusive", "what if", etc. etc.
Of course since she is arguing against the point of view that cultural factors are everything, she focuses on the other possibility. But she writes well and is very careful to not say that cultural factors are nothing - which is a correct position to take, because scientific research into this area, as she points out, is ongoing. We just don't know the answer to where things are along that continuum.
One theory, purely my own.
It is well known that women are portrayed a certain way in fiction (TV, movies, books) that reinforces and may even create some ideas of gender roles. When a country's economic status increases, they have access to more American media, so their children start to internalize these roles.
TV and movies are written and produced by mostly men from mostly a man's prospective.
I tried not watching any TV or media for about 6 years, and after that period I saw a commercial at a friend's house, I thought "Holy cow! That is so incredibly sexist! When did they start running those commercials?" ... no one else in the room had that reaction, it was only from lack of exposure that it seemed so surreal and over the top to me.
Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946.
Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.
Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female.
From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.
All facts are supported by research conducted by Dr. Stacy Smith, Ph.D. at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
MYTH: Boys and girls are equally represented in film and television.
FACT: Even among the top-grossing G-rated family films, girl characters are out numbered by boys three-to-one. That's the same ratio that has existed since the end of World War II. For decades, male characters have dominated nearly three-quarters of speaking parts in children's entertainment, and 83% of film and TV narrators are male. The Institute's research indicates that in some group scenes, only 17% of the characters are female. These absences are unquestionably felt by audiences, and children learn to accept the stereotypes represented. What they see affects their attitudes toward male and female values in our society, and the tendency for repeated viewing results in negative gender stereotypes imprinting over and over.
MYTH: Family entertainment is a safe haven for female characters.
FACT: Astoundingly, even female characters in family films serve primarily as "eye candy." Female characters continue to show dramatically more skin than their male counterparts, and feature extremely tiny waists and other exaggerated body characteristics. This hypersexualization and objectification of female characters leads to unrealistic body ideals in very young children, cementing and often reinforcing negative body images and perceptions during the formative years. Research shows that lookism still pervades cinematic content in very meaningful ways.
MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera.
FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry. Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it's a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute's research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1.
MYTH: Girls on screen compare favorably to their male counterparts.
FACT: Messages that devalue and diminish female characters are still rampant in family films. Gender stereotyping is an inherent problem in today's entertainment landscape, and children are the most vulnerable recipients of depictions that send the message that girls are less valuable and capable than boys. The Institute's research illustrates that female characters who are lucky enough to garner speaking roles tend to be highly stereotyped. From 2006 to 2009 not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in the law, or in politics. 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real-world statistics of women comprising 50% of the workforce. With repeated viewings, young audiences may fail to realize this lopsided view is not, in fact, reality and believe there is no need for gender parity or industry change. Today's children will be our future business leaders, content creators and parents and the ones who need to lead the charge for future generations.
MYTH: Gender imbalance issues have gotten better over time.
FACT: Statistically, there has been little forward movement for girls in media in six decades. For nearly 60 years, gender inequality on screen has remained largely unchanged and unchecked. Without an educational voice and force for change, this level of imbalance is likely to stay the same or worsen. Only through education, research, and advocacy both from within the studio system and entertainment industry, and with parents and kids, can we effect real change in this heavily gender-biased media landscape.
Then we have the Bechdel test for works of fiction. It is a simple test that says the work of fiction:
1) It has to have at least two women in it,
2) who talk to each other,
3) about something besides a man.
in order to pass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
Here's a crowdsource list of movies and how they score on the Bechdel test http://bechdeltest.com/ out of the 4416 movies in the database, only 55% pass.
The author waits until the very last paragraph before acknowledging:
"Gender differences can sometimes be symptoms of oppression and subordination."
And that's true. Oppression, subordination, etc exist. And so do innate differences between men and women. There doesn't have to be a hard-and-fast dichotomy here.
I think the author is right to criticize Sandberg, since Sandberg apparently says:
"A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes."
which is contradicted by the research mentioned in the article. To take Sandberg's position would be sticking to one half of the dichotomy that I am alleging is a false one.
That said, I think perhaps this author underestimates the extent to which oppresion exists and to which gender roles are contingent (i.e. not innate). Or, at least, the tone of the article could lead to that sort of interpretation. IMHO, better to put that acknowledgement up front rather than at the end of the article.
"""
She would probably say that she is part of a privileged group. But she is also a former feminist, so she is familiar with the most common theory of gender inequality.
The article notes that the gender differences are smaller in less developed societies and the authors conjecture that actualization could be the cause. Sure. It could be. It could also be that less developed societies generally have less specialization and fewer members, and thus less hierarchical groups, meaning that women don't feel the need to conform to a social strata within their society.
All three explanations seem possible to me. Given this, I'm barely more informed than when I started. I'd have liked this piece to put in a little more sweat in actual verification and less hand-wavy brainstorming.
I actually think it's valuable to examine if, when X occupation is 80% male, does that mean that 80% of the people entering the occupation are men?
Do the women:
- drop out (possibly sexist work requirements, hours etc.),
- get pushed out (obvious sexism),
- or are there just a small number of them pursuing that path to begin with?
And if it's the latter, is this actually an issue? And if it is, is it the fault of the industry, or does the problem start with girls not finding science (for example) very interesting at eight?
Witness the many TV shows making fun of STEM-concentration people, The Big Bang Theory, The IT Crowd, etc. In any film, the hacker will typically be shown as the over-eager, quirky, physically weak character (think Charlie Day as the kaiju scientist in Pacific Rim). Unless the film is something edgy like the Matrix, people always expect to see computer professionals as low-status individuals.
In my opinion, this results in women being afraid to enter these fields, because they are painted as having low social worth even if they have high economic worth. (BTW, if you live in Silicon Valley and are used to coffee-shop discussions about your favourite JS libraries, remember that it is a distorted reality field; if you are male and work in tech elsewhere in the States, the most people will come up with is "Do you work in IT? Oh, I see...")
On the contrary, in the former Soviet Union, scientists and technologist had a high social worth. Boom, 58% of engineers were women, as the article says.
Perhaps its a combination of CS being predominantly male-oriented with all the trouble that brings for a woman trying to 'break in', and low-status as well.
High-status occupations are sought after and reach gender equity even when there's a high barrier to entry. Examples would be law, and medicine (doctors).
Secondly, no woman in the several most recent crop of graduates (from the US) I know has been trying to get into a call center job. The one I most hear is "I want to work in a non-profit job in DC / New York / <insert big city here>".
Thirdly, with the more or less egalitarian society for people under 30 in urban areas, social status is much more important than economic status. There isn't any society-wide mocking of people who work in call centers, but there is some of people who work in tech. Ergo, less people (and specially women) go into tech in their 20s.
https://www.usenix.org/blog/my-daughters-high-school-program...
And it comes from all over:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...
Well, there are studies demonstrating the effect of sex hormones on cognition. Also, if there weren't gender differences, there wouldn't be genders.
I espouse gender differences in genitals, secondary sexual characteristics, and levels of various hormones.
Can this be ripped to pieces?
Throughout the world, women tend to be more nurturing,
risk averse and emotionally expressive, while men are
usually more competitive, risk taking, and emotionally
flat.
Would these results hold in a matriarchal society? Is the causation genetic (unlikely in my estimation) or just cultural?
If the causation lies in cultural norms, wouldn't a "Lean-In" type push shift the line over time?
I would say it's a basic genetic trait that the males of a species are more risk-accepting.
Of course one has to ignore the folk beliefs one's culture holds about gender if one is going to have any sort of a productive, scientific conversation - otherwise you are just rephrasing the same crap your parents learned from their grandparents, which is about as scientific as bloodletting or astrology.
Hell, I'm willing to even look past those two. You just let me know when everyone suddenly turns bi-sexual. Until then, the differences are right in front, naturally occurring.
It is an entirely unsettled question as to what degree these mental characteristics are correlated with physical sexual differences, and to what degree any such correlation derives from cultural influences; that is the whole point of this thread.
I've yet to encounter a software house where birthing or nursing babies formed any part of anyone's job description...
Also I remember seeing in the opening of a openly feminist franchise, a women describing a certain matriarchal society that exists in modern day (I forgot their name though :( but it is somewhere in backwater asian Russia), and I got curious and went to research and...
Actually, only the commoners of that society are matriarchal, nobles follow a more or less patriarchal system (men inherit form men, and women from women, most political power of the nobles are with the men though, but there is no formal rule against women having it too), and the nobles enforce matriarchy on the commoners (people do not remember anymore why they do it, but research suggests that the reason was to keep commoners tame and keep them from rebelling)
Read some real anthropological texts, research Sumerians and Ancient Celts. Read Sex at Dawn, there is a lot more to this discussion about gender roles in historical societies than you are touching on.
A study did show that a matriarchal society had men who were more risk averse, and women who were less risk averse which implied that it is cultural.
The simple fact that mothers have to breast feed could well explain that a risk seeking behavior from them was more harmful to the community than from men.
So I question the idea that gender difference was different in matriarcal societies.
I have two young nieces that I look after quite a lot, one's almost 2 years old and the other's 3. They have a variety of toys at their disposal: little cars/trucks, barbie dolls, puzzle games, cooking playsets, action superheros, etc. I have myself tried in some capacity to steer them towards playing with the traditionally boys' toys: I display extra excitement when we're working the little car, I walk them through programming basics like for loops in goofy and fun voices, I try to spice up games involving superheros (hey, they can do more tricks than the barbie dolls, so that's easy!). But yet, they do have some sort of natural preference for girl toys. They love the cooking playset and the dolls. The cooking playset is the go-to-toy when they're mad and crying -- it's the thing that works, can't explain how.
I understand that this anecdote is worth only 2 cents. I'm not going to make any conclusive statements because I'm not a female. I just want to tentatively say that in my observations girls and boys are wired a little differently -- and maybe it just so happens that the woman's propensity to seek stability over excitement, security over competition lowers the chance of success in the current capitalistic system. But mind you I don't like the current capitalistic system, precisely because the winning players are so often very risk-prone, resulting in the system being very unstable and unsafe for society at large. If we step away from a capitalistic system and step toward something more communal -- a society in which values are emphasized, I think woman (along with the rest of society) would probably do exceedingly well (or at least that's my pet theory anyway).
What he do is get newborn babies as soon as he can, and give them human-looking toys, and mechanical-looking toys (ie: human looking are dolls of all sorts, and animals, mechanical toys range from simple geometrical shapes, like boxes and cylinders, to vehicles, machines, etc...)
And the reaction from the babies to the toy is so precise, that you can predict what baby is male or female by toy preference alone. (ie: female babies always drift toward liking animal/human looking toys, while male babies go for the non-alive stuff)
And the question is whether "woman's propensity to seek stability over excitement, security over competition" is socially driven, perhaps exactly because it lowers their chances of success.
I wrote up the following response and then realized that I was answering a different question than the one you asked. The following is an investigation of whether the tendency for child-raising to be "womens' work" is caused by genetic or cultural factors. This isn't directly related to the question of whether the personality traits are caused by genetic or cultural factors. I'm posting it anyway because I spent an hour writing it up and don't want to throw it away.
I did some quick research and found that even in "matriarchical" societies, women are usually more involved in infant care than men. I started with this article: <http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/05/where-women-rule-the-world-mat... and went down the list:
* Regarding the Mosuo, this Wikipedia article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo> writes that "Children of such relationships are raised by their mothers and the mothers' families." However, men are involved in raising their nieces and nephews.
* While men are heavily involved in child-raising in Aka societies, this source: <http://books.google.com/books?id=21z2hbOuTcEC> writes that "The Aka are exceptional in comparison to other societies in that fathers are actively involved with infants and are second only to mothers in the amount of direct care to their infants." (pg. 5)
* Despite the existence of sworn virgins, Albania is patriarchical, according to this article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins>
* I wasn't able to find sources regarding childcare in Iceland or Meghalaya.
In addition, the fact that there are so few matriarchical societies in the world is notable in and of itself.
My hunch is that the reason why women are more involved in childcare than men is due to cultural factors which are caused by genetic factors. One could certainly imagine a culture in which as soon as a woman gives birth, she hands the infant off to the father, and then has no further involvement in its care. So there is no immediate reason why women must be the caregivers. But that hypothetical society would require that babies be bottle-fed, which is a recent invention; historically, children had to be breast-fed, and genetic factors are certainly responsible for the fact that women are much better than men at producing milk. So the women would have had to be involved in caring for their children at least at the beginning. This could lead to a cultural norm for women to remain involved in childcare even after it is no longer necessary to breast-feed.
Of course, that's not to say that childcare should be "womens' work". Even if women do turn out to have a genetic propensity towards childcare, that doesn't mean that we as a society have to let that dictate our gender roles.
1) Incapacitation during late pregnancy and feeding infants
2) Differences in musculature and stature after puberty - two or three SD's sexual dimorphism
3) Differences in neurological activity of hormones - testosterone vs estrogens
4) Differences in how memetic evolution favors different ways tribes assign the highly limited egg+womb vessels versus the vessels for relatively unlimited sperm. A tribe that has the risky roles played by the egg+womb vessels will tend to reproduce less, particularly in tough times, than a tribe which assigns them to the sperm vessels. Matriarchal-warrior societies are fragile because a war which depletes 3/4 of the warriors also depletes 3/4 of the wombs, while a patriarchal-warrior society which depletes 3/4 of the warriors only ends up polyamorous for a generation or two.
These four elements conspire throughout prehistory to make 'traditional female roles' the supermajority of scenarios, without any need whatsoever for a modern cultural warfare.
Feminism, the notion that men and women can and should be similarly endowed with professional achievement, respect, and choices about their lives, is possible only because of a combination of a bunch of very recent changes in human society. They tend to be the ones associated with vastly lowered infant mortality, vastly lower pregnancy rate, vastly lowered rate of risky adult behavior like war & hunting, and the demographic transition: Baby formula is icing on the cake, ruminant domestication and lactose tolerance came long, long before (but still recently on evolutionary timespans).
Feminism attacks the natural order of things - and that's great in the same way that antibiotics attacks the natural order of things - we get to do things we couldn't do before.
It is a unique achievement to be celebrated that we have come so far beyond our "traditional"-ly limiting roots, when a woman can be a CEO and a single father can raise an infant.
I am highly skeptical, however, of anyone who tries to retcon history, ignoring the above factors, to suggest that this hasn't been the natural order of things to some degree.
---
The Patriarchy, on the other hand, is a real aspect of modern culture, in some societies much more than others. I believe David Graeber's explanation deserves some attention: Patriarchal urges to restrict and protect women beyond the scope of merely risky occupations, and the rise of heroic male chauvinism, is linked to the rise of fungible currency and its tendency to focus lendor-debtor relations into formal contractual relations between strangers - the only guarantee of which is slavery. Eventually the only type of slavery that was commoditized with standard value tended to be female sexual slavery.
When she was about 3 my wife and I were discussing a birthday gift. My wife wanted to get her a kitchen play set (stove, dishes, etc) and I disagreed, purely on gender role grounds.
A week later we were visiting with my sister, whose daughter did have one of these play sets. My daughter spent the entire visit playing with that set, and asked for one when we left. My wife looked smug.
In retrospect my thinking was dumb. My own life experience should have clued me in. Most of Western society is built to cater for the white male. Those who aren't are told that 'success' is dependant on behaving more like a white male. That is only true if there is only one type of success, the white male type.
I'm not saying this is down to gender - he could have had the exact same reaction were he a girl - but I am saying this is a genetic predisposition evident in him. Nothing cultural about his love for cars.
Whether this (and other) inherent traits correlate with gender is a question whose answer I don't know. My only point is that culture is not everything - clearly genetics play a big role in what people are interested in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14038419
hn discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3831429
another The Atlantic article on the subject:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4903247
a story on women making less than men in programming:
Noticing his interest I asked him if he wanted one. He looked at me as if I was an idiot. Pink is for girls he explains. I think that's the end of it but no, he goes on to say he'd like a blue one.
Clearly he hadn't fully internalised the cultural rules at that point. Not long afterwards I can remember him becoming acutely embarrassed by the pink play house he'd inherited from a cousin that he'd previously enjoyed playing with.
For example, the US has a very low proportion of elected representatives who are women, in relation to other developed countries.
If you take this article at face value, the involvement statistic could be an indicator of how we conduct our political affairs, more than an indicator of women's empowerment.
Ya right.
Really disappointing to see pg link to this.
That's what the quoted study appears to suggest, yes. Disputing those claims requires slightly more effort on your part than "ya right".
>Really disappointing to see pg link to this.
pg didn't link to it.
It might sound crazy, but when you are a little older, married, and have kids, it will make more sense.
And for the ~40% of women who want to go back to work - AWESOME. Go hire them. Make it easy to leave and come back. But stop judging and just let women do what they want.
The actual quote from the report is:
Among women who say they “don’t even have enough to meet basic expenses,” about half (47%) say the ideal situation for them is to work full time.
which is very different. 'Ideal situation' based on economic conditions, not a preference.
The report summary keeps on referring to economic considerations:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/modern-parenthood-...
My wife is a stay at home mom, and she works her ass off to do the most important job in the world: creating new, productive citizens.
What sucks is how she has to deal with social pressures which increasingly make her feel like a loser if she isn't pursuing a career outside of raising our children. Feminism is about giving women and men the same choices. Hell, I wish men could stay home with kids without being viewed as "not real men" in the majority of this country.
There are huge systematic biases that push women towards less powerful roles in society.
I think that's where the disconnect between the Feminists and the Reddit-type Men's Rights people are(not talking about the psychos on there). The MRA guys aren't saying men need more paths to power. They just want more choices, while the Feminists want a society that isn't constantly steering women to subservient roles, no matter what choice they make.
On the other hand, you've got someone complaining about their hang nail and saying it's just as big of a deal.
She had been awarded sole custody of us in my parent's separation, by default, and was subsequently given full custody, despite a well known history of public fits of violence against my father. Out of five kids, none of us talk to my mother. She is dying of emphysema induced heart failure, and will die alone. My sisters are old enough to remember her letting my twin brother and I starve in our crib all day. They hate her.
The state only gave my father custody after the neighbors called the police 3 separate times. The 3rd time, because my sisters were locked out of the house in the snow after returning home on the school bus to a locked house with only my brother and me inside.
So fuck you for making light of a situation that, on a daily basis, negatively affects children's lives by awarding custody to the lesser of two parents.
There's also a lot of discussion about how men don't have the same choice to be primary caregivers the way women do. I was skeptical, but it was a good read.
To me, the real question is -- are we sure that women in the workplace is progress or will we look back 50 or 100 years from now and laugh at how silly we were to try to ignore gender difference.
According to the article, some studies suggest that where women have greater opportunities typically they will pursue interests that are not strictly tied to high power/earnings as they reach certain earning thresholds. This level of earning need is less than that of men on average.
It's an interesting article and worth a read, regardless whether one thinks the data is accurate.
Trolling does nothing to advance an issue you claim to care about. As a C-level executive, perhaps you are a better example than you realize of why women are under represented in your ranks.
People all along the opinion spectrum overgeneralize and end up making others feel this way. Even your comment may easily alienate someone who has actually made the choices you dismiss so easily.
When I read a piece like this, what sticks out in my mind is one question: "Hey guys, are you sure A, B and C are what everyone of gender X should be / do / value?"
What if wealth just frees people from the necessity of subsistence labor efficiency enough that they can indulge themselves with arbitrary rule-following and role enforcement and not starve to death?
I'm not sure if a culture can afford much moral policing overhead until it reaches a certain point.
It's entertaining watching this vacuum effect in the tech community as we take on nastiness.
Next up, mandatory 9-5 drugs that suppress our evolutionary desires! Finally, real equality in the workplace!
This study shows that more questioning and investigation should happen, it most certainly does not "prove" that women are e.g. inherently less interested in engineering. The title is conjecture, Sandberg may be totally correct.
Interesting study tho, nice to see this complicated question get investigated more.
Very little comes out of the AEI that I have any respect for. I am now paranoid that this article is a stalking horse for conservative "save the nukular family gays are destroying marriage drop bombs on brown people" values.