Tunisian female here. The answer is simple for Tunisian women. The highest paying jobs are in Engineering and Medicine and all of the other jobs are miserable. That combined with a free-ish education where you can choose any field, makes the choice obvious.
I personally see the lack of women in STEM in Western countries as a good thing, it means that they are doing well economically and don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload.
"I asked Wendy Williams, founder and director of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, what she makes of these findings. She wrote that if girls expect they can "live a good life" while working in the arts, health or sciences, then girls choose to pursue what they are best at—which could be STEM, or it could be law or psychology. She added, "However, if the environment offers limited options, and the best ones are in STEM, girls focus there...""
>>> I personally see the lack of women in STEM in Western countries as a good thing, it means that they are doing well economically and don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload.
I personally would like the same freedom applied to men.
"don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload."
I wouldn't call my STEM education tedious. Demanding more like it. Tedious gives impression of rote learning and abstract concepts separated from practical considerations and lack of joy of discovery and achievement. I could call the curriculum of my MSc in physics a decade ago by many things (I was straining at several points) but not "tedious".
Perhaps there is regional variation in the curriculum, culture and method of education (my university training was in Finland).
I think what's really missing from the discussion is the simple fact that if creative jobs (artist, writer) or less technical jobs paid as well as Soft Eng jobs then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company. Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
It's kind of sad. There are jobs I'd rather do, but I've consciously chosen one that I like less because it has more status and pays more, in significant part because it has improved my dating prospects.
It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the pay gap/high status job gap comes from different sociosexual incentives, though I have a hard time imagining a good way to measure that.
> I think what's really missing from the discussion is the simple fact that if creative jobs (artist, writer) or less technical jobs paid as well as Soft Eng jobs then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That's largely a function of markets. You make it sound like it's a policy of some kind, or some kind of social problem that needs fixing. Also, you yourself are guilty of exaggerating the value of money.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
Who's judging you? Some people might, but what do you care? Associate with people that value similar things, not with people whose highest values are cars and money.
> I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company.
Again with the money. If you want to be a sculptor, be a sculptor.
> Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
Set up? Nothing is "set up". You seem to be living under the impression that there's this abstract looming thing called "society" that lords over the affairs of man, and that you are this lone ego occupying its center. Society is the set of individual human beings in a network of a variety of relationships. Money doesn't fall from the sky. Who's going to pay you for your sculptures? Are people supposed to pay you just so you can do what you want, market demand be damned?
(Btw, some sculptors make ludicrous amounts of money. Many probably make okay money, though apparently the avg. salary for sculptors, painters and illustrators in Delaware is the same as the average for software engineers.)
Same here. I’d have a hard time making half as much doing anything else. If I could, I would program as a hobby instead of the other way around. I consider software development low QOL as a full time job.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
They don't. They judge the success by the succession of success. Money is just a byproduct and used as proxy. Perhaps that's more pronounced where-ever you are. But boasting about money increases the chances that it will be lost soon.
I would disagree that our society (presumably, North American society) judges a man's success solely by his wealth. Our society values men who are responsible - who can provide the best life for their family and protect them. I imagine if you had a ton of wealth but spent it only on yourself and didn't take care of your family, society would not deem you a success.
In a way it is. Look at what some actors/musicians and athletes get paid, it depends on what people want to buy the most/what entertains them the most. The fact that society doesn't pay more for sculpture, writing (unless you get really famous) or whatever speaks to our preferences. Or speaks to what has already been established as profitable.
Another way to look at the same question: Why are there so many males in these fields?
My one data point: I'm basically in it for the money. In fact the state, through child support enforcement, made it very clear that at least in my case, the meaning of my life is and shall be, to earn as much money as possible to support the children. If I had a spouse supporting me, I would probably be doing something fun and artistic. (Not that there aren't fun and artistic elements in my work sometimes. And not that there aren't elements of methodical discipline required to be a good artist.)
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I wanted to ask your opinion since you're in a similar state to me. For my first marriage I felt like my wife was with me and part of building my career. So I felt no pause whatsoever about our differing pay scale. Now that I've been divorced 6-ish years differential income is one of my biggest hurdles. I feel like virtually any long term relationship I'm in will mean significantly subsidizing someone. From an economic standpoint there's so very few options where we're on an even footing. And frankly, women who make the same as me are likely going to be looking for mates who make even more. It's made it very difficult to find a relationship I feel is equitable and/or equally beneficial to us both. I've tried to "get over it" but haven't been able to. Women are fine, but women + the state is terrifying to me. Now I have a daughter to protect my assets for. Have you struggled with any of the same things?
My data point: I suspected that I'd work in software when I was about 10, and knew that it's what I'd go to college for when I was 15. If my wife was the breadwinner, it's what I'd still be doing (granted, less software that's useful for business, more emulation, game modding software, and reverse-engineering game engines). The money's a definite bonus, and it has made our lives much easier, but it's not why I chose my career.
I had a quick read of the actual paper (after seeing it covered much more thoroughly in The Atlantic last month). Two things that leapt out at my fairly untrained eyes are that the correlations are really weak, and there was no attempt to account for other factors which vary across the world.
If you look at the scatter plots and (visually, unscientifically!) pull out subsets of countries in the same region (southeast Asia, the nordics, mediterranean Europe, southeast Europe, etc), there appears to be no correlation between general equality and STEM bias. For example, Vietnam has about the same level of inequality as Thailand, but 50% more women STEM graduates. That makes me suspect that there's some other factor at play. I could be completely wrong about that - but i didn't see anything in the paper which rules it out. Please do correct me if i missed it - it was a quick read, i'm not a social scientist, and i have a cold.
> That makes me suspect that there's some other factor at play.
That gender preferences explain much of the STEM gender gap is worth reporting on, as the article does, because it's not well known. That doesn't mean there aren't other factors, which of course there are.
Susan Pinker even addresses the larger issue very specifically:
> Q: Are these differences the result of biological or cultural differences? A: I think that both play a role. It’s simplistic and scientifically untrue to say it’s one or the other.
”If we focus our telescope on what men have traditionally valued, which is high-income and STEM jobs and long work-hours, say over 60 or 70 hours a week, then yes, women are not there, at 50/50, and I don’t think they will ever be—even if we had the most gender-neutral society possible. But if we aim our lens on lifespan, career satisfaction, and close personal relationships nurtured over decades—relationships that have been shown to protect cognition, resilience, and immunity—then men, on average, trail well behind women. If men want to live longer, happier lives, they have a lot of catching up to do. It all depends on the outcomes you value most.”
It’s extremely refreshing to see this discussed. It seems intersectional feminism is laser focused on prioritizing career and monetary success and nothing else. There’s so much more to life than spending your life earning a paycheck. Raising a healthy family, building a community and many other non-career based objectives seem entirely missing from the conversation. Instead the goal seems to be everyone becoming an office worker and mass consumer. I’d love to see other dimensions recognized as success.
If given the choice people will usually pick the field they find interesting. If however you live in an impoverished country where getting a job in a STEM field could be the ticket out, you are way more likely to consider picking those fields. My (original) country is rather poor for example, but the education is free and a lot of people in college that were studying with me picked EE & CS just because it could give them a good paying job, they didn't care about the field nor did they in most cases enjoy it all that much, those who didn't change their mindset usually didn't graduate or it took them more because they were forcing themselves, anyhow in those living conditions the male to female ratio in STEM fields was always close to 1 : 1. But that might not be the case were OP lives, because in a rich country people get to choose with far less pressure and in the end it still holds true that most girls just don't find those fields to be interesting.
I came here prepared to rant on the ridiculousness of typical modern journalistic attempts at explaining gender gaps while avoiding the taboo of biological influence.
This was a refreshing, relatively balanced perspective. I'm glad to see an article acknowledging both nature and nurture, and not blindly insisting that all differences are purely social constructs.
Whenever people want to discuss nature along with nurture, I'm reminded of what Neil Degrasse Tyson said about biological influence on gender roles in science.
"Given that there’s an overall female advantage in school—one largest in language courses, smallest in math courses, according to the paper—why isn’t there a corresponding advantage, in terms of pay and high-powered positions, for females later, at work?"
Maybe simply because the workplace has nothing to do with how school is organized?
"But when they examined individual students’ strengths more closely, they found that the girls, though successful in STEM, had even higher scores in reading. The boys’ strengths were more likely to be in STEM areas. The skills of the boys, in other words, were more lopsided—a finding that confirms several previous studies.
If boys chose careers based on their own strengths—the approach usually suggested by parents and guidance counselors—they would be most likely to land in a STEM discipline or another field drawing on the same sorts of skills. Girls could choose more widely, based on their own strengths."
What's more infuriating is that this explanation persisted in spite of women's gains in the fields of psychology, law, and medicine, just to name a few. The idea that computer science men perpetrated some special and successful conspiracy against women in their field that doctors and lawyers were unable to do in their field is so patently ridiculous as to be on the level of flat earthers.
Take it as a learning experience to never blindly listen to the proponents of the turbocharged game of gender politics. Like most things, ask who benefits from pushing a narrative and do your own independent research.
What does the income to children ratio look like for men and women? E.g. how does each extra dollar earned effect the number of children that men versus women can expect to have?
For the same reason why there are more female kindergarten teachers than male ones. Equal distribution of gender across jobs is nonsense, equal opportunity is welcome though (see Scandinavian countries)
The bias against male early education teachers is strong. My girlfriend worked at bright horizons temporarily and most of parents would look at the male teachers as if they were a pedophil which really drives them out.
Do you really mean “equality of opportunity?” It seems self-evident that the term requires substitutability: someone would have the same experience going into STEM if you switched around the gender.
My recollection of engineering school was that the experience was not substitutable. The five women in a class did not have the same experience as the 45 men. For example, as a man I never tried to make a professional connection with someone, but then realized that they wanted a date instead.
One thing that bothers me is that fact that STEM degrees are consistently more difficult. Sure, there's a lot to learn, and the amount has increased as we've moved forward, but the same should be true of an English major. There has been an explosion of writing and more than ever to learn about.
It feels like we must be letting the liberal arts majors down by setting lower expectations.
I wonder if Google would ever bring the author of this book on to their campus for a talk about some of the biological differences between the sexes? I'd love to be in the audience for that presentation.
This is an interview with Susan Pinker. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16510442 is an op-ed by Susan Pinker. I'm going to merge these threads as soon as I've eaten breakfast. Which article is better?
Edit: the Nautilus article wins. We moved most comments from the other thread hither.
My impression is that in the West, there used to be more women in computer science (than there are now) at least until sometime in the 80s, if not a bit later.
The best theory is based on the fact that males can have an unlimited number of children while females can only have one every nine months.
Hence, being an extremely sexually successful male is much more rewarding for the propagation of their genes than being an extremely sexually successful female.
Thus, males evolved to take more risks than females since there is a much bigger payoff for them: if a male can become an "omnipotent king" he can father children with every woman and spread his genes a lot, while a female "omnipotent queen" still can only make one child for every nine months.
Hence, males have more variance, meaning that the top in any field are very likely to be males, but also there are going to be much more men who are extremely unsuccessful.
This also means that women are probably better off on average, since psychological (as opposed to genetic-propagation-related) utility is logarithmic and thus reducing variance is advantageous for the individual.
Even though the stereotype of STEM is single men who cannot get dates? That does not sound like "omnipotent king", but it does sound like a story we might tell ourselves.
I can't read the article (paywall), so in classic HN style I'll just comment on the title.
The NSF keeps track of "Science and Engineering Degrees" in higher-education in the US, which basically translates to STEM degrees [0]. Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, 50% of STEM bachelor's degrees are awarded to women [1], and 40% of STEM phds are awarded to women [2]. However, CS and engineering stand out: they are closer to 20% (for both bachelors and phds). So this isn't really a STEM issue, it's a CS and engineering issue.
(For some reason, these tables group CS and math together. There's a separate table that breaks them down, and shows that most of the gender imbalance comes from CS; math is closer to balanced.)
> in classic HN style I'll just comment on the title.
Please don't! That makes HN worse. It leads to the sort of generic, predictable threads that sink discussion into mediocrity and which we're most trying to avoid here. Plenty of explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... if anyone wants more.
[+] [-] curiousgal|8 years ago|reply
I personally see the lack of women in STEM in Western countries as a good thing, it means that they are doing well economically and don't have to deal with the tedious STEM education and workload.
[+] [-] montrose|8 years ago|reply
"I asked Wendy Williams, founder and director of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, what she makes of these findings. She wrote that if girls expect they can "live a good life" while working in the arts, health or sciences, then girls choose to pursue what they are best at—which could be STEM, or it could be law or psychology. She added, "However, if the environment offers limited options, and the best ones are in STEM, girls focus there...""
[+] [-] vilmosi|8 years ago|reply
I personally would like the same freedom applied to men.
[+] [-] fsloth|8 years ago|reply
I wouldn't call my STEM education tedious. Demanding more like it. Tedious gives impression of rote learning and abstract concepts separated from practical considerations and lack of joy of discovery and achievement. I could call the curriculum of my MSc in physics a decade ago by many things (I was straining at several points) but not "tedious".
Perhaps there is regional variation in the curriculum, culture and method of education (my university training was in Finland).
[+] [-] lobotryas|8 years ago|reply
I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company. Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
[+] [-] scarmig|8 years ago|reply
It'd be interesting to see what proportion of the pay gap/high status job gap comes from different sociosexual incentives, though I have a hard time imagining a good way to measure that.
[+] [-] badpun|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobthechef|8 years ago|reply
That's largely a function of markets. You make it sound like it's a policy of some kind, or some kind of social problem that needs fixing. Also, you yourself are guilty of exaggerating the value of money.
> Alternatively, we wouldn't be having this discussion if our society did not largely judge a man's success in life by his wealth (and the things money can buy, like a nice car).
Who's judging you? Some people might, but what do you care? Associate with people that value similar things, not with people whose highest values are cars and money.
> I guess what I'm saying is that, if I had the choice, I would rather be a sculptor making the same salary as a Senior Soft Eng than an engineer at a large company.
Again with the money. If you want to be a sculptor, be a sculptor.
> Too bad our society isn't set up like that, eh?
Set up? Nothing is "set up". You seem to be living under the impression that there's this abstract looming thing called "society" that lords over the affairs of man, and that you are this lone ego occupying its center. Society is the set of individual human beings in a network of a variety of relationships. Money doesn't fall from the sky. Who's going to pay you for your sculptures? Are people supposed to pay you just so you can do what you want, market demand be damned?
(Btw, some sculptors make ludicrous amounts of money. Many probably make okay money, though apparently the avg. salary for sculptors, painters and illustrators in Delaware is the same as the average for software engineers.)
[+] [-] psyc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] posterboy|8 years ago|reply
They don't. They judge the success by the succession of success. Money is just a byproduct and used as proxy. Perhaps that's more pronounced where-ever you are. But boasting about money increases the chances that it will be lost soon.
[+] [-] jm__87|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odessacubbage|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lulmerchant|8 years ago|reply
Congratulations, you’ve invented communism.
[+] [-] skookumchuck|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deviationblue|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdiddly|8 years ago|reply
My one data point: I'm basically in it for the money. In fact the state, through child support enforcement, made it very clear that at least in my case, the meaning of my life is and shall be, to earn as much money as possible to support the children. If I had a spouse supporting me, I would probably be doing something fun and artistic. (Not that there aren't fun and artistic elements in my work sometimes. And not that there aren't elements of methodical discipline required to be a good artist.)
[+] [-] Consultant32452|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] khedoros1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twic|8 years ago|reply
If you look at the scatter plots and (visually, unscientifically!) pull out subsets of countries in the same region (southeast Asia, the nordics, mediterranean Europe, southeast Europe, etc), there appears to be no correlation between general equality and STEM bias. For example, Vietnam has about the same level of inequality as Thailand, but 50% more women STEM graduates. That makes me suspect that there's some other factor at play. I could be completely wrong about that - but i didn't see anything in the paper which rules it out. Please do correct me if i missed it - it was a quick read, i'm not a social scientist, and i have a cold.
[+] [-] brighteyes|8 years ago|reply
That gender preferences explain much of the STEM gender gap is worth reporting on, as the article does, because it's not well known. That doesn't mean there aren't other factors, which of course there are.
Susan Pinker even addresses the larger issue very specifically:
> Q: Are these differences the result of biological or cultural differences? A: I think that both play a role. It’s simplistic and scientifically untrue to say it’s one or the other.
[+] [-] malvosenior|8 years ago|reply
It’s extremely refreshing to see this discussed. It seems intersectional feminism is laser focused on prioritizing career and monetary success and nothing else. There’s so much more to life than spending your life earning a paycheck. Raising a healthy family, building a community and many other non-career based objectives seem entirely missing from the conversation. Instead the goal seems to be everyone becoming an office worker and mass consumer. I’d love to see other dimensions recognized as success.
[+] [-] arialeks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allthenews|8 years ago|reply
This was a refreshing, relatively balanced perspective. I'm glad to see an article acknowledging both nature and nurture, and not blindly insisting that all differences are purely social constructs.
[+] [-] kelukelugames|8 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Mwtkod_VM
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
So, for example, if you see quotes that aren't in the OP, it's because they came from the other OP.
[+] [-] dudul|8 years ago|reply
Maybe simply because the workplace has nothing to do with how school is organized?
[+] [-] montrose|8 years ago|reply
If boys chose careers based on their own strengths—the approach usually suggested by parents and guidance counselors—they would be most likely to land in a STEM discipline or another field drawing on the same sorts of skills. Girls could choose more widely, based on their own strengths."
[+] [-] epx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ntuch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pentae|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ldiracdelta|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NiklasMort|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrep|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|8 years ago|reply
What is the reason?
[+] [-] rayiner|8 years ago|reply
My recollection of engineering school was that the experience was not substitutable. The five women in a class did not have the same experience as the 45 men. For example, as a man I never tried to make a professional connection with someone, but then realized that they wanted a date instead.
[+] [-] nitwit005|8 years ago|reply
It feels like we must be letting the liberal arts majors down by setting lower expectations.
[+] [-] ipsocannibal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
Edit: the Nautilus article wins. We moved most comments from the other thread hither.
[+] [-] neonate|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _emacsomancer_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hbk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devit|8 years ago|reply
Hence, being an extremely sexually successful male is much more rewarding for the propagation of their genes than being an extremely sexually successful female.
Thus, males evolved to take more risks than females since there is a much bigger payoff for them: if a male can become an "omnipotent king" he can father children with every woman and spread his genes a lot, while a female "omnipotent queen" still can only make one child for every nine months.
Hence, males have more variance, meaning that the top in any field are very likely to be males, but also there are going to be much more men who are extremely unsuccessful.
This also means that women are probably better off on average, since psychological (as opposed to genetic-propagation-related) utility is logarithmic and thus reducing variance is advantageous for the individual.
[+] [-] yters|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinpombrio|8 years ago|reply
The NSF keeps track of "Science and Engineering Degrees" in higher-education in the US, which basically translates to STEM degrees [0]. Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, 50% of STEM bachelor's degrees are awarded to women [1], and 40% of STEM phds are awarded to women [2]. However, CS and engineering stand out: they are closer to 20% (for both bachelors and phds). So this isn't really a STEM issue, it's a CS and engineering issue.
[0] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/#chp2
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/tab11.pdf
[2] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/pdf/tab25.pdf
(For some reason, these tables group CS and math together. There's a separate table that breaks them down, and shows that most of the gender imbalance comes from CS; math is closer to balanced.)
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
Please don't! That makes HN worse. It leads to the sort of generic, predictable threads that sink discussion into mediocrity and which we're most trying to avoid here. Plenty of explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... if anyone wants more.
(People generally post workarounds to paywalls in the threads, which means that it's ok to submit such articles, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 and in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.)
[+] [-] WalterSobchak|8 years ago|reply