Do Women Only Initiatives Really Help Women?
nibletz.com
nibletz.com
Likewise, no man could say "Women in 21st century American cities are the privileged of the privileged," as the woman who wrote that article wrote, without being lambasted.
I don't know if I would say it so strongly, but the once-standard view that men succeed at women's expense seems to be crumbling as people recognize the glass cellar as powerful as the glass ceiling; that as much as men occupy the top echelons of business and politics, so do they occupy the bottom of homelessness; that as they dominate lucrative fields like engineering, so do they dominate fields that dominate workplace deaths like mining, construction, trash disposal, long-haul trucking, soldiers, etc; that as much as women have trouble entering STEM fields, so do men have trouble entering teaching, nursing, etc. Women are successful in the West -- more of them get college degrees, they live longer, no law forces them to register for the military (in the U.S. at least), the law doesn't imprison them nearly as much, the government has many programs to help them, and so on.
It seems that decades ago both men and women had to follow gender roles. Women's roles have since opened up, giving them more options. Men's roles have opened somewhat, but less so. I know a lot of fathers and I've never met one who didn't want to spend more time with his children, but they tend to have fewer options to.
Many of the initiatives the author of the article questioned could probably help more if they defined need around issues other than sex.
(EDIT: I hope people posting realize that HN weighting sinks stories with more posts than upvotes. If you want a discussion with many people participating, keep the number of posts below the number of upvotes the story gets. Otherwise it drops off the front page.)
also:
>Women are successful in the West
In what way?
>more of them get college degrees,
Oh, that actually is pretty good.
>they live longer,
Didn't they always? That's just biology, isn't it?
>no law forces them to register for the military (in the U.S. at least),
That's not a success of women, that's just a sexist (and common) law. Saudi women aren't drafted either.
>the law doesn't imprison them nearly as much,
Because they don't commit nearly as much crime? I don't understand this at all.
>the government has many programs to help them,
Yup. More would be even better.
>and so on.
So more than college, then?
GENDER
Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).
EDIT: Another: http://www.societyhealth.vcu.edu/Page.aspx?nav=29&scope=0&so...
Most homeless adults are men, but most homeless adults with children are women.
Single Homeless Adults: 76% Individuals in Homeless Families: 24%
male percentage of single homeless adults: 67.5% female percentage of single homeless adults: 32.5%
male percentage of homeless family members: 35% female percentage of homeless family members: 65%
single male percentage, all homeless: .675 * 76% = 51.3% single female percentage, all homeless: .325 * 76% = 24.7%
family male percentage, all homeless: .35 * 24% = 8.4% family female percentage, all homeless: .65 * 24% = 15.6%
male percentage = 51.3% + 8.4% = 60% female percentage = 24.7% + 15.6% = 40%
Ok, interesting...
----
AGE
In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population; 42% of these children were under the age of five (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2004). This same study found that unaccompanied minors comprised 5% of the urban homeless population. However, in other cities and especially in rural areas, the numbers of children experiencing homelessness are much higher.
----
minors, 42% of all homeless children under 5, .39 * 42% = 16.38%
So male, 60%; female, 40%; children under 5, 16%.
If I make the assumption that the children under 5 percentage is evenly split between male and female, and an additional assumption that homeless children are members of families, it means that of the 8.4% of males homeless in families, all but a remnant are under the care of a homeless woman.
That means that the portion of the homeless that are women and their children is around half.
I remember previously stumbling upon http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/c... - while I don't know to what extent the situation is similar in the US and haven't cross-checked the statistics, the data the speaker quotes seems to suggest that there is a significant disparity even if you control for that. (The relevant figures are all on the first two pages or so; beyond that, there isn't much to see apart from polemical banter)
Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield? Practically never, from my experience. Last time I saw it mentioned was an activist who was insisting on diluting military training to make it more accessible to women, which... is not a solution, I hope you realize that.
But for the most part, it's never discussed. After all, war is hell. If women are not encouraged to go out and die, that's a big advantage, even if a technically sexist one. It's an example of sexism that is actually beneficial to the group that experiences it. Why would they want to fix it?
Because they don't commit nearly as much crime? I don't understand this at all.
That or they get more lenient sentencing: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114
Also: "Interestingly, among women, white female defendants receive more severe sentence outcomes than black females."
Yup. More would be even better.
I guess they would if you value short-term hacks that give specific advantages to a group over actual long-term solutions.
Who cares what some strawman feminist thinks, especially since the strawman feminist didn't even support the ERA. I'm saying that characterizing this as a success of women is incoherent.
>That or they get more lenient sentencing: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49114
Could you summarize that, rather than throwing it out there?
>I guess they would if you value short-term hacks that give specific advantages to a group over actual long-term solutions.
And what are these long-term solutions?
This is the stupidest argument. Why is this same argument brought up every single time?
Feminists would say that selective service IS sexist, and that we should abolish it. In fact several women's organizations have helped challenge the legality of it to the supreme court (The American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project for one).
Remember in 1980 when Jimmy Carter urged congress against enacting male only registration and the 97% male congress enacted it anyway? How is this the fault of women?
If two people are running in a race, and one of them has been running the past 4 miles with a 50-pound weight on their back, taking the weight off isn't going to make the race fair. You've either got to give them some kind of help or put a weight on the other person's back.
If we're actually intelligent creatures, let's try and fix the underlying problems instead of just pushing them around for someone else to suffer from.
Everyone could do with programs to help unload their weights. No one needs or deserves more weight.
>But there’s something wrong when we treat half the population like a minority or special interest group.
There's also something wrong when we treat half the population like baby breeding kitchen help, too. We remediate the damage done by open sexism through targeted help. When it comes to management, ownership, and government, women are not only a minority, they are an extreme minority.
>Women don’t need all the help we can get because we’re women.
No, that's why a sexist would help women. Women need all the help that they can get because men run everything and often don't really think of women as completely human. Women need help because they are constantly under attack. Women sometimes need help because they are generally smaller and lack upper body strength. If you can get by without it, feel free.
There's a temptation as a member of a discriminated against group who has found some success amongst the dominant group to use their own success and the success of their friends to argue that merit will always rise to the top. Don't do this, because you will be paraded as evidence that discrimination is over, and it's alright to withdraw from the ghettos and set them on fire.
If a few millionaires are enough to say that discrimination doesn't matter anymore, racism against blacks must have ended before slavery.
Not sure if this is troll bait, but... are you serious? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
2. Men often don't think of women as human.
3. Women are under attack by men.
I don't think these points are controversial.
1. Women are 50% of the workforce, but 4.5% of fortune 1000 CEO positions.
2. Women didn't get the right to vote in America until 50 years after black people, who were officially only partially human.
3. Is a characterization.
Women earn the majority of bachelors, masters and doctorates:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
Women live longer than men:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
More women in the workforce have degrees than men:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/c...
And some non government research papers:
Women choose safer jobs than men (which may explain some income gap differences):
http://www.nber.org/papers/w8574
And a study that suggests that men and women are paid the same:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/payscale-study-wome...
Wonderful. Its good that the efforts that were made to help women in education have borne so much fruit that we're starting (or were starting in the 90s) to worry about boys falling behind. That's a sign that the supports might eventually be alright to take away.
>Women live longer than men:
Since the stone age. Is this a discussion of jealousy, or sexism?
>Women choose safer jobs than men (which may explain some income gap differences):
>And a study that suggests that men and women are paid the same:
For the same jobs. Probably. I believe these studies and hate the X cents on a dollar deceptive statistic. The fact is, women don't have the same jobs as men, they have lower level ones due to prejudice and childbearing. I'd also argue that there are many high-skill jobs that are traditionally dominated by women, and due to that domination are less respected and paid less. Even within female-dominated professions, management still somehow ends up dominated by men due to the "glass elevator."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-bigg...
It also appears the later differences in pay may have more to do with life choices. Such as raising a family, which believe it or not some women consider a higher priority than their careers. Blasphemy, I know, clearly a byproduct of the patriarchy.
Blasphemy, I know, but it was your link.
edit: This is exactly the case I made, and it is the conclusion to the reference. I don't know what kind of dissonance it takes to downvote me for pointing it out.
2. Same reasoning as above. This used to be true, and is not anymore. Yes, not giving women the right to vote was bad. But now, they have the right to vote. The problem was solved.
3. Not sure what the merit of it is.
Yes, you can. I would argue that being older means that you have had the time to accumulate skills, experience, and connections. What does being a man give you? Upper body strength?
>2. Same reasoning as above.
I missed that reasoning. Most companies are owned by old people (something that I'm not even sure is true), therefore there's no sexism?
Gross generalization. Clearly not true.
2. Men often don't think of women as human.
Another gross generalization, and your support for this is that a long time ago women couldn't vote, therefore often men don't think of women as human? By that twisted logic the statement Germany wants to invade France would still be true.
3. Women are under attack by men.
Laughably histrionic. Is that like the war on Christmas?
And do I think women are under attack by women? That's an interesting question, women do seem to be fairly angry and judgmental towards each other, anecdotally speaking. I dunno, that's a good question. Are women attacking women?
And clearly I think your uterus is unmoored. You nailed it in one. Bravo.
>And since you haven't refuted any of the facts I've posted
None of the facts that you posted speak to your point that "the world isn't nearly as bad as you seem to have been lead to believe." You haven't shown me anything that I didn't know, but I enjoy the condescension.
>men do not often think of women as less than human,
saying it again doesn't make it true.
>women do make the same money as men,
No, they don't. Read your own references. Women make the same money in the same jobs as men, early in their careers.
>more women get degrees than men,
True.
>women live longer than men,
Again, what does that have to do with sexism?
>and your generalization that men are attacking women is also not true.
Bullshit.
Not a gross generalization, just a generalization. How many women have you had as a boss?
>2. Men often don't think of women as human.
Note the word "often" which means that this is not a generalization, but an uncontroversial observation.
>your support for this is that a long time ago women couldn't vote, therefore often men don't think of women as human?
No, that's just a reminder that this was the mainstream point of view probably within the lifetime of a women you know. I'm not going to make an argument that men often don't think of women as human like themselves. I would if I were asserting this to a Martian, but not anyone who has lived in any modern society.
>Laughably histrionic. Is that like the war on Christmas?
Are you telling me that I think that women are constantly under attack by men because my uterus has become unmoored?
I have absolutely no cause other than a factual basis for policy and actions.
In 1800, the right to vote was based on wealth and gender (male). Less that 3 adults out of every 100 could vote. Since then, there have been some significant changes to the voting regulations:
1832 Reform Act. Extended the right to vote to certain leaseholders and householders. 5 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1867 Second Reform Act. Further extension of the voting regulations in counties and boroughs. 13 adults out of every 100 could vote, but still based on wealth.
1872 Secret Ballot Act. Introduced voting by secret ballot.
1884 Representation of the People Act. Any male occupying land or property with an annual rateable value of £10 could vote. 24 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1918 Representation of the People Act. All males over the age of 21 were given the vote. Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1969 Representation of the People Act. The voting age was reduced to all men and women over the age of 18.
1985 Representation of the People Act. Voters who, at the time of an election, are abroad, either working or on holiday, may apply for a postal vote.
2000 Representation of the People Act. Introduced changes to electoral registration and extended postal vote provisions.
In terms of the US you will probably find something similar that for the most part it was land owners only who could vote.
1. A group of men run most things.
2. A group of men often don't think of women as completely human.
3. I don't even know how to fix this.
I don't believe this. I don't know that there's a group of men that run things. What I'm saying is that as you move higher in the chain of management, you stop seeing women.
>2. A group of men often don't think of women as completely human.
I am not saying this. I am saying that often men don't think of women as fully human like themselves. I am not saying that there is a group of sexists that is causing all of the problems. I believe there are people who are very and openly sexist, and people that are less sexist and less open about it, and the bulk of us that just sometimes suffer from lazy thinking or ideological blinders.
>3. I don't even know how to fix this.
Support programs that help and encourage women.
or the shit men say about other men
or the shit women say about men
or the shit women say about women
... I hardly think it's inherent to men only to vent their frustrations or thoughts about a person, regardless of gender, to another person/group.
And in the case of male speaking about females, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're in general referring to sexually-undertoned comments about their appearances? I don't think anything will be able to take that away, since we are, as men, by nature (unless you're homosexual of course, but I'd say it's fair to call that a minority) attracted to women and vice verse...
> I hardly think it's inherent to men only to vent their frustrations or thoughts about a person
Or their disrespect, for that matter. What gets me the most is the difference between "public face" and "bro face" I've seen with some, it can be quite the abyss. Sure it's just anecdotal, but my anecdotes are what they are. As a woman on reddit put it: some men are gorillas wearing men suits, and women, once burned, have to make super extra sure to confirm they're not dealing with one of those before making themselves vulnerable.
I know to a degree this is true the other way around, too... like, I once had a SO who basically wanted to marry me, have kids, and sleep around behind my back (this is not speculation either, she basically ended up admitting as much), and I know another woman who stopped taking the pill because she wanted a baby from her SO, who didn't want one. Not cool at all, and that the child turned out great and they both love it, though they're not together anymore, doesn't change that. But still, for every one such story I know, I know 3 about things like cigarette burns or rape. Still anecdotal, sure, but those anecdotes do irk me.
Ask women close to you about this. Hopefully they will tell you I am full of shit. But maybe, just maybe, they will relate some things to you that will make your toenails curl up.
> And in the case of male speaking about females, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're in general referring to sexually-undertoned comments about their appearances?
No, I was thinking of more vicious things as that, more like something akin to racist jokes. Though reducing people to their sexuality sucks too, I guess that can go both ways. The power differential however, and the smugness and cruelty it results in for some men, doesn't, not really.
> I don't think anything will be able to take that away, since we are, as men, by nature (unless you're homosexual of course, but I'd say it's fair to call that a minority) attracted to women and vice verse...
I'm not talking about being attracted to, I'm talking about looking down upon, and seeking to control and use. And NEVER would I say "all men do this" -- but enough, too many men, did/do this around me, and the more intelligent a person is, the more subtle and convoluted it gets. Sometimes it's "just" a friendly, but condescending attitude.. not as bad as other things, but still not good enough.
Is that really your view of stay-at-home mothers?
I can't speak for the women groups, but I think the last sentence in the above statement has not, to their opinion, borne itself out. Thus, the need for groups that specifically advocate for them.
I'll say this as a member of an "empowered" minority group... I'm Asian, I've grown up in nearly-all-white communities in the Midwest, my family was technically low-income but otherwise, I never felt disenfranchised. And I did follow in the "model minority" path of working hard and doing well for myself, and Asians, overall, perform highly on tests of academic measure and personal wealth in America.
But let's ignore the thing of not all Asian immigrants being on equal footing (that is Chinese/Korean/Japanese is not the same as, say, Cambodian)...Asians, despite their empowerment, get roundly screwed in media portrayal and perception. In news coverage and in popular media. The only reason why I watch WAlking Dead from time to time is because it is so utterly astonishing to me to see a popular lead Asian character who is not at all exotic, not valued for his math skills, and doesn't appear to know martial arts. (there's also BD Wong in Law and Order SVU, but he's not as much in the spotlight as Steven Yeun's character).
A friend of my works in an Asian American advocacy group...we both ponder on how Asians are indeed a privileged group, yet at the same time, because collectively we do so little to be the greasy wheel, there are ways we get stepped on. But because the meritocracy seems to be working for us (as a group), there seems to be little desire to get involved in advocacy.
From http://www.oecd.org/inclusive-growth/Closing%20the%20Gender%...
"They reveal considerable gender differences among the self-employed, particularly those who are also employers. Figure 22.1 shows that across the 27 EU countries only 25% of business owners with employees are women (for definitions, see Annex IV.A1). The low share of women has only marginally grown over the last decade in the EU27, Canada and United States"
Let's not kid ourselves. Women face serious hurdles in entrepreneurship. They have less access to credit when starting new businesses for one. Women who own businesses are on average higher educated than there male counterparts yet they earn significantly lower salaries.
I will end by pointing out that women focused initiatives help everyone, not just women. There is a positive correlation between gender equality and GDP per capita, everyone wins in an equitable society.
I remember reading this I wish I had the link but it showed female business owners tended to take more time off than male counterparts and had a nicer work/life balance over money/growth/profit.
Are you suggesting that consumers are buying/consuming products/services from female run businesses?
When you control for working hours women entrepreneurs still earn less.
Read the full report if you'd like to learn more!
Page 280. Work-life balance is a motive for starting their business for more women than men
It is also very suspect that the study does not include any data for credit for women enterprises started in the US.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-bigg...
Now, I know that's not front page news -- there are how many of us? -- but if you care about things like wheelchair ramps and braille, you care about how structural decisions affect the ability of minorities to access a space.
In this case, the minority is being kept out by a conceptual barrier rather than (say) a pre-war flight of stairs, but it still really really sucks to be that minority.
Just another consideration. I'm actually undecided if inclusive, well-managed women-only (or _-only, where _ is a minority of your choosing) spaces are the best approach to the (serious) problem, but I know that some people benefit greatly from such spaces. So it's a question for sociology, really, not hand-waving debate (is there a way of preserving the benefits of these spaces while being more inclusive? what are the supposed benefits? How significant? For whom?)
With the exception of teaching in your examples, nobody really cares that there exist jobs that tend to attract one gender over another. What matters is if the better jobs only attract one gender.
I don't know how successful it was, but I would have jumped on it if I wasn't close to finishing a CS degree already.
Or to flip the question, if they were highly paid, what would stop men from taking them?
Traditional gender roles has been exploited in education in some part of the world for example. They decided to focus on little girls going to school, since they will be the ones caring for the family later in life, they will be the one spreading the knowledge to the kids, so if there is a choice is to be made, it's more efficient to send a girl than a boy to school.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/ho...
This sort of thing is happening in most western societies, majority of university students are women, but what we are most concerned about is which degrees they are choosing.
What exactly is your point?
People keep trying to have this discussion in the context of the 1950s, but we're in 2014, where women are, among other things, the majority of college graduates (and increasing). It is a obvious fact that in the past 20-30 years, every discipline has made a huge push to attract more women, with great success. The real problem today is that computer science/programming needs to attract women in a world of incredibly stiff competition.
Why is enrollment declining? Is it that unreasonable to suspect that the answer is "because computer science is being outcompeted by the dozens upon dozens of other disciplines making women better offers"?
I deliberately phrase this as "computer science" and not "computer scientists" because I'm unconvinced the problem is in the people. "But sometimes, there are misogynists in the computer world"... how is that unique? Every field had that problem. Today, computer scientists have been damn near actively begging for women, to the point that the solicitousness itself is becoming offensive, as the author points out. There gets to be a point where advocacy turns into trying to tell women what to do.
Unless both genders are precisely equally drawn to every single discipline, an idea which I think is itself rather offensively insensitive ("feminism" shouldn't be defined as "women are just funny-looking men" but my goodness is that a popular version if you really look at what people believe), there's going to be unbalanced disciplines.
This goes against some of the doctrines, and so I think people tend to put this argument when I make in the wrong bucket, but personally I think the question of whether we're trying to tell women what to like and how to like it is itself a feminist question. "So we should just stop trying because it's hopeless, huh?" No, I don't think that. Roll the carpet out, with all due honesty and openness, sure... but if nobody chooses to walk on it, that may very well simply be their decision (in aggregate). We have no right to run up to them and tell them they are wrong.
Might I also add that by sp332's own statistic, that the ratio has been falling since 2001, the idea that the field has been getting more misogynistic in the past 12 years is just patently absurd, and that is itself evidence that what's happening here isn't about the people.
Conversely, if a boy does not know what he wants to do, he is likely to go for CS, because that is the "usual" decision.
Not every boy who went to study CS was dreaming in code since elementary school. Most of them learned to code in college. However, CS girls I knew usually picked it up because they really wanted to do it.
Edit: do I really have to put "on average" every time I use the words "boys" and "girls"?
Please stop encouraging this lie. I've never been encouraged to go into tech, and I'd venture a guess that most people here weren't either. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite the opposite, because every time I was fiddling with a computer, I was told to "stop playing games" and do something "worthwhile".
Now, there's almost certainly nothing inherent about women and men that means they have to think that way, but no-one seems to really be interested in changing this; even groups pushing for more women in tech think this way.
Of course women can be just as good as men, but there is an inherit risk of not being good at the job even after putting in the effort (for both genders). Perhaps women are generally less willing to take that risk and opt for careers that are more welcoming to varying skill levels?
In turn, as they see the massive proliferation of computing, they tend to look at it from a superficial perspective: "Children playing their silly computer games and not getting out, as was back in my day." No matter how much you debunk their arguments, the inertia still sticks and you're often perceived as socially challenged.
So no, boys are not necessarily encouraged to go into tech. Some are, surely. Often for monetary motivations. But a lot are guided by their own passion without outside encouragement, excluding their online peers with likeminded interests.
This indicates that women want to take computer science and engineering to a lesser degree than the other physical sciences. And it appears to be a matter of choice.
This is incorrect - assuming these women don't displace men, inequality will go up.
Say a woman (or man) moves from a $50k/year office job to a $120k/year tech job. Income inequality will go up. Gini will go up and the "size of the middle class" (typically defined as % of the population between 50% and 150% of the median) will shrink.
Simple example: consider a world of 10 people with income of 50k. Gini is zero. Now double the income of one of them. Gini has gone up to 0.08, and size of the middle class has gone from 100% to 90%.
So given that you have the stated goal of reducing income inequality, and your proposed policy would actually increase inequality, do you now oppose bringing women into computing?
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/09/07/eliezer-yudkowsky/tru...
Is some force actually "leaving out" women in creating the future? Is there some force that's going to lay the smackdown on people like Jeri Ellsworth so that they never go anywhere?
You've shifted the goal posts a bit with the emphasis on having more women in positions of creating the future. Personally, I'd rather humanity had more people willing and capable of creating a better future, period, regardless of the other details of their identity. I think there's a shortage, and I regret that my own contributions will if anything likely only be financial to those doing the hard work. Anyway, why would the tech field, as a whole, be better off with more women, when most people in the tech field, male or female, actually don't actively contribute to steering the future?
(On your earlier point about income inequality, you might benefit from reading PG's views about that: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html)
The only thing that has changed is society's view of computer geeks, which has evolved from pathetic neckbeards to entrepreneurial wizards. And big surprise, now all of a sudden feminists are concerned about all the sexism and rampant harassment that's supposedly unique to tech.
Every conference I've been to, I've seen men falling over themselves to placate and humor the few women that do show up. Sexism? The vast majority is of the benevolent kind, the kind the feminists themselves constantly advocate for. The kind that makes men watch what they say when a woman enters the room, for fear of triggering another Adria Richards. And the kind that pisses off any capable woman with self-respect.
On top of that, engineering is one of the fields which has the largest attrition rate amongst its students. It's clear that just thinking you want to be an engineer is not enough to succeed at it.
Add to that the fact that women are inundated with the message that they absolutely should go into STEM, and I think you have a recipe for disillusionment that merely shifts the attrition further down the pipeline. Which is exactly what we find: after 10 years, many more women leave the field than men.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for any woman that does make it in the field, but they've pretty much all been the kind of atypical go-getter personalities that other, more girly women, feel intimidated by.
You mean to be dismissive of the wage gap or pay gap, or maybe more specifically the gender wage gap, or male-female income disparity.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that there is a healthy body of research on the topic, with researchers reaching different conclusions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_St...
Women in the mathematics, and engineering have long been underrepresented in tenured and full professor positions but overrepresented in untenured and junior faculty positions, even after controlling for publication productivity and institutional affiliation... Today, women faculty in science and engineering are still promoted more slowly and receive fewer honors and leadership positions.
77 percent say significant numbers of women and underrepresented minorities are missing from the U.S. STEM workforce today because they were not identified, encouraged or nurtured to pursue STEM studies early on.
"Persistent stereotypes that say STEM isn’t for girls or minorities" is one of the top causes of under-representation in STEM.
I remember reading this in HN:" How to detect female-ism? Don't just focus on the fancy job like CEOs, Founders who made million of dollars, you also need to look at mine workers, bus drivers these dangerous jobs." ask yourself why female-ism not talk about women need to work at those fields too?
Then, if you read "revenge of the nerd" by paul graham, you will understand more.
The plural of anecdote isnt data, because some people have managed to find success doesnt change the fact that women are leaving this fairly hostile field in droves.
Anyways, I doubt women-only-initiatives only help women in the great scheme of things, as that's not how things/communities/humans work. Women-only groups and incubators are wonderful, and of course they would support the world beyond because they exist in the same world.
I hate how in every social justice discussion, there's always people who rant about this and think it's some patriarchal conspiracy.
Perhaps the social justice warriors aren't the technologically literate, competent group they all think they are?
Sorry for the blatantly provocative statements, but this is a tired trope here by now.
The answer to her headline question appears to deviate from Betteridge's law, in that she concludes that some of the initiatives help women.
Im impressed.