There has been a lot of focus on the religion angle in the comments thus far. I think those are looking at Abby's story the wrong way.
First and foremost, Abby told her own story. She could have told a more abstract tale, by focusing upon the message rather than the messenger and (better) incorporating the message being delivered to other women, but then it would not be her story.
There are reasons why Abby telling her story is important. One is that in telling the story of everyone, of mixing experiences or of calculating statistical means, we end up telling the tale of no one. Those abstracted tales are valuable. They give us a better picture of the whole. On the other hand, they are also more difficult to relate to. You don't have to be a Mormon[1] to relate to Abby's story. You don't even have to be a woman, though men are likely to pull out a different moral. You simply have to be a person who has faced similar challenges.
[1] It is also worth noting that the site is directed towards Mormon women and gender minorities. See: https://exponentii.org/about-us/
I appreciate this being shared for the perspective. Despite the advances we've made in some places, it's always worth being reminded that the progress isn't universal and there are still cultural, religious, and traditional institutions in place that keep holding us back.
Towards the end the author says that "I hope the next generation of girls can forge a different path than mine was able to." and to that my first thought was, the only way to do it is to help pushing them along and getting involved in promoting the sciences to the next generation. This blog post is one of them.
Meanwhile, I meet lots of women at my place of work who come from Indian, Iranian, Turkish, Arab, Hindu and Muslim backgrounds, which are all cultures that are constantly accused of being sexist in the western media. And yet these women seem to have no issues living alone abroad and pursuing a STEM career.
Is generally not a good idea to extrapolate anecdotal evidence as fact. These individual women you know might have had “no problem”, and still these be sexist societies.
There was a study a while back which I recall finding that the more equal the society the less likely women were to pursue STEM careers. The places you listed had higher rates of women in STEM fields.
No big surprise, STEM is not considered manly to varying degrees in those countries either.
The whole gender concept as socially manifested only ever made sense in a pre industry society, so quite often people in countries which are behind the curve have these attitudes.
To believe in machismo or hyper femininity is pretty backwards, and has been thought as much since the mid 20th century.
As William Gibson famously wrote, the future doesn't arrive all at once.
I would be very concerned about what this is saying. I don't think it means these women experience less harassment. I suspect it means they have a higher tolerance for it from experiencing more of it. To me, this says we have a long way to go to improve workplaces for everyone.
Some interesting context to consider with stories like this one are that the overall (global!) picture is sub-replacement fertility. That suggests we're going to see a big realignment where parents tend to come from cultures that promote children as it is hard to see why they wouldn't just outbreed everyone else.
I'm a little sad that I might not be around to see the results, but I assume the winner will be one of (1) a cultural approached like what the article describes, (2) renegotiating the social contract between men and women or (3) just people just having a really strong instinct to have children.
It's known that generally, as a nation becomes more wealthy (and socially/technologically advanced), fertility tends to drop. Well-off populations have fewer kids. As you wrote: the vast majority of countries have already passed this point, or are heading there.
That implies there's fewer kids to care for. And thus fewer stay-at-home parents needed. Even if classical gender roles stay the same.
What will those now-not-parenting people do? All else the same, logical expectation: a large % of them adding themselves to the job market.
Ok there's also smaller families. But juggling 1 kid & (parttime?) job is still easier than doing same with say 3..5 kids.
In short: countries moving up the wealth/development ladder will logically cause traditional gender roles to shift.
Probably no coincidence that it's usually less-developed countries where women are forced into traditional roles.
It's so strange to read this, as I had an almost completely opposite experience growing up in the Netherlands.
Even though my family is ostensibly Catholic, and the church sort of pushes traditional values, they're no match for the public schooling telling all kids that girls are just as good as boys at everything. Sure, preferences exist, but jobs are not girl or boy specific. University is just as accessible to either, and after marriage you're both expected to share the load.
I just didn't know any better. I thought it was the same everywhere. In hindsight it was strange, because my aunts and mother were all stay at home moms. I just never had that expectation for my future wife. Sure, due to the cost of childcare I expected either me or her to stay at home, because it just made more financial sense, but I like to think I'd have been perfectly happy with either.
Then I moved to Japan, and things couldn't be more different. Traditional roles are heavily emphasized here, even if it's not motivated by religion. I'll go to some event with my child, and I'll just be the sole dad surrounded by mothers (on a Sunday!). Like, I dunno what all the fathers here are supposed to be doing.
My wife doesn't really like her job, and fantasizes about quitting and just becoming stay at home, but every time I ask her if she'd actually be happier sitting around all day playing with our son she very quickly reconsiders. I think it's both good for him to play with lots of different kids in kindergarden, and for mom to have some time to do adult things during work. Since kindergarden is free here it's also pure extra money.
When I was reading the title and I was wondering if this happened many decades ago when social norms/expectations were very different and gender discrimination was much worse. Turns out this woman is only a few years older than me, and in her time college/career isn't that much different from mine -- except the Mormon factor. The context here matters a lot. (And I imagine even among Mormons, people take it differently and prioritize their career differently -- but no use saying that now.)
Sadly the headline implies that she didn’t get into rocket science because she’s a girl, but then the article goes on to make it clear that the main thing that kept her from rocket science was her father being Mormon && her being a girl.
While all the women quoted within would absolutely have had systemic gradients acting against their access to STEM careers outside the LDS church, within it those gradients are nearly vertical, and are so by founder effect design and persistent and careful maintenance.
So the takeaway is that Mormon teachings caused her to forego what might have been an extremely successful career by staying home full time with her children.
Having children has a huge impact on many people’s lives. Are Mormon women far more likely than the general population to stop working after children? My hunch is that they’re probably slightly more likely to stop working, without a huge statistical disparity. But we need this statistic to have a productive conversation on the subject instead of just stereotyping an entire ethnoreligious minority group based on one personal anecdote.
42 is not too old to become an engineer or computer programmer or whatever.
Don't let ageism be the next barrier after sexism and religion and the expectations of others.
No-one can stop you doing what you want to do. Many careers require others to give you the chance to practice your chosen career - not computing - start learning and doing it.
If it's anything like learning a second language, then old people can sometimes successfully do it but the odds of success are a lot better for younger people.
>I probably had the smartest dad in the room and the best DNA for engineering, but I barely participated because I was convinced engineering was for boys.
Despite your "dna" your personality and preferences can override decisions you believe are somehow preordained in your genetics. Girls don't make "good engineers". Good engineers make good engineers and it often appears very early in life that they show an affinity for that kind of work
A girlfriend in high school told my dad that she was planning on becoming a mechanical engineer. She was driving her dad's car and he asked her what kind of engine was in it. She had no idea. I don't think my dad was being sexist and believing that she did not have a bent for engineering.
I'm not sure what she did after college, but failed out of her first choice with too much partying and too low test grades
It’s interesting, the grass is perhaps greener on the other side. My wife is planning on staying home with the kids when we have our second, and there’s a part of me that envy’s that freedom from worry on having to provide, being able to spend hours with our daughter while I may get a couple hours a night, our daughter is much closer to her mom already. In twenty years, the software I’ve written will likely have been long replaced — the bond invested in our children will be there forever.
I believe the article is correct to criticise the indoctrination that the LDS church targeted at her. But I also agree with you that grass is greener on the other side. Many of the comments cited in the article could be summarised as: I'm jealous that someone I knew 10 years ago is much more successful now.
I personally also know a few people from university where if I superficially look at their situation now, I'd think "that could have been me". And I'm a guy so in my case it wouldn't highlight a man/woman difference. But then, looking at the details, some of them made sacrifices that I would be unwilling to make. Or their starting position wasn't that similar, after all, e.g. I just didn't know 10 years ago that they were trust fund babies.
It's not too late for you to decide to spend more time with your daughter and less time working. You both could go part-time. If you are afraid that your career won't wait, remember that neither will your children. You might need to discuss with your wife about this, but it is a decision that you should make together, not her or you alone.
My wife and I have taken about equal share in raising our kids and honestly I am prouder to have managed to spend time with my children growing up and to be married to a woman who doesn't have to rely on me to survive than of anything I could have done in a slightly more successful career.
I once knew a couple, the man was a teacher and the woman a scientist. He could work virtually anywhere in the world. In any country. In anything from a tiny isolated town to a megalopolis. Her career would ultimately lead her to one of a handful of places. Teaching is also a career where one can pick-up their roots and reestablish themselves somewhere else at very little cost to their career. Science is usually a career where one must plan their next step carefully, else risk facing major setbacks in their career.
I bring up this story because, in the end, they ended up splitting up since he was unwilling to exploit the flexibility of his professional life to allow their relationship to flourish. I bring it up since I was to raise the question, a question that thinkski's comment triggered even though it is by no means directed their way: how often do we consider the aspirations and potential of our wife when deciding who is going to be the "breadwinner" and who is going to be the "care giver"? I am not saying that it is impossible to be both, but the reality is that compromises to a greater or lesser degree often have to be made for the sake of the family.
I don't agree that it's a case of grass being greener, the difference is that you as a family are able to make that choice, after having had the opportunity and privilege earlier in life.
> the bond invested in our children will be there forever.
It is entirely possible to bond with our children and still maintain a career. These are not mutually exclusive the way you've implied.
I’m a father and can tell you yes, there is stress, but when I look at life without children, I see mostly lives of temporary self indulgence.
Parties, skiing, Hawaii, toys, consoles, cars, motorcycles, vacation homes, etc.
Over time, most people I know grow tired of them. They have more friends yes, but even my friends know their “good time friends” wouldn’t stick around through hardship.
Kids aren’t the only way for sure. There are plenty of causes, but they are one thing that lasts longer than a few product cycles.
I don't think that's generally the case, many women put their career in parentheses in order to care for the family, which is unpaid and sometimes ungrateful work (it IS a real work).
Then if there is a dispute with the family provider, the person not working will be in a position of fragility: if he/she leaves, she has no career, no way to support herself, she has to abide by what the providing partner asks her to do, even if he is sometimes abusive
Yeah but if women go to work, the amount of available workers will more or less double, so if you where to apply the theory of supply and demand you'll find that this will make wages decrease, which is very good for extremely rich people ...
It's worth mentioning that Ezra Taft Benson, the prophet referred to in the article, was president of the Church from 1985 to 1994. He was far and away the most conservative church president of the last 50 years, and later church presidents have been much more moderate in their teachings.
HN is very US-centric, owing to the location of Silly Valley and big tech.
Utah, LDS central, is right on the other side of Nevada from California, and California and the Bay Area is the nearest interesting/fun place for those fleeing SLC.
[+] [-] II2II|1 year ago|reply
First and foremost, Abby told her own story. She could have told a more abstract tale, by focusing upon the message rather than the messenger and (better) incorporating the message being delivered to other women, but then it would not be her story.
There are reasons why Abby telling her story is important. One is that in telling the story of everyone, of mixing experiences or of calculating statistical means, we end up telling the tale of no one. Those abstracted tales are valuable. They give us a better picture of the whole. On the other hand, they are also more difficult to relate to. You don't have to be a Mormon[1] to relate to Abby's story. You don't even have to be a woman, though men are likely to pull out a different moral. You simply have to be a person who has faced similar challenges.
[1] It is also worth noting that the site is directed towards Mormon women and gender minorities. See: https://exponentii.org/about-us/
[+] [-] politelemon|1 year ago|reply
Towards the end the author says that "I hope the next generation of girls can forge a different path than mine was able to." and to that my first thought was, the only way to do it is to help pushing them along and getting involved in promoting the sciences to the next generation. This blog post is one of them.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dachworker|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] senorrib|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] elcritch|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonm23|1 year ago|reply
The whole gender concept as socially manifested only ever made sense in a pre industry society, so quite often people in countries which are behind the curve have these attitudes.
To believe in machismo or hyper femininity is pretty backwards, and has been thought as much since the mid 20th century.
As William Gibson famously wrote, the future doesn't arrive all at once.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xracy|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] withinboredom|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] croes|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] haunter|1 year ago|reply
Maybe because they are abroad and not at home?
[+] [-] roenxi|1 year ago|reply
I'm a little sad that I might not be around to see the results, but I assume the winner will be one of (1) a cultural approached like what the article describes, (2) renegotiating the social contract between men and women or (3) just people just having a really strong instinct to have children.
[+] [-] RetroTechie|1 year ago|reply
It's known that generally, as a nation becomes more wealthy (and socially/technologically advanced), fertility tends to drop. Well-off populations have fewer kids. As you wrote: the vast majority of countries have already passed this point, or are heading there.
That implies there's fewer kids to care for. And thus fewer stay-at-home parents needed. Even if classical gender roles stay the same.
What will those now-not-parenting people do? All else the same, logical expectation: a large % of them adding themselves to the job market.
Ok there's also smaller families. But juggling 1 kid & (parttime?) job is still easier than doing same with say 3..5 kids.
In short: countries moving up the wealth/development ladder will logically cause traditional gender roles to shift.
Probably no coincidence that it's usually less-developed countries where women are forced into traditional roles.
[+] [-] Aeolun|1 year ago|reply
Even though my family is ostensibly Catholic, and the church sort of pushes traditional values, they're no match for the public schooling telling all kids that girls are just as good as boys at everything. Sure, preferences exist, but jobs are not girl or boy specific. University is just as accessible to either, and after marriage you're both expected to share the load.
I just didn't know any better. I thought it was the same everywhere. In hindsight it was strange, because my aunts and mother were all stay at home moms. I just never had that expectation for my future wife. Sure, due to the cost of childcare I expected either me or her to stay at home, because it just made more financial sense, but I like to think I'd have been perfectly happy with either.
Then I moved to Japan, and things couldn't be more different. Traditional roles are heavily emphasized here, even if it's not motivated by religion. I'll go to some event with my child, and I'll just be the sole dad surrounded by mothers (on a Sunday!). Like, I dunno what all the fathers here are supposed to be doing.
My wife doesn't really like her job, and fantasizes about quitting and just becoming stay at home, but every time I ask her if she'd actually be happier sitting around all day playing with our son she very quickly reconsiders. I think it's both good for him to play with lots of different kids in kindergarden, and for mom to have some time to do adult things during work. Since kindergarden is free here it's also pure extra money.
[+] [-] pquki4|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] yawpitch|1 year ago|reply
While all the women quoted within would absolutely have had systemic gradients acting against their access to STEM careers outside the LDS church, within it those gradients are nearly vertical, and are so by founder effect design and persistent and careful maintenance.
[+] [-] telesilla|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gghhjjy|1 year ago|reply
Having children has a huge impact on many people’s lives. Are Mormon women far more likely than the general population to stop working after children? My hunch is that they’re probably slightly more likely to stop working, without a huge statistical disparity. But we need this statistic to have a productive conversation on the subject instead of just stereotyping an entire ethnoreligious minority group based on one personal anecdote.
[+] [-] andrewstuart|1 year ago|reply
Don't let ageism be the next barrier after sexism and religion and the expectations of others.
No-one can stop you doing what you want to do. Many careers require others to give you the chance to practice your chosen career - not computing - start learning and doing it.
Start now, do it.
[+] [-] lupusreal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] n4r9|1 year ago|reply
We didn't need religion to quash women's ambitions back in the day!
[+] [-] indigo0086|1 year ago|reply
Despite your "dna" your personality and preferences can override decisions you believe are somehow preordained in your genetics. Girls don't make "good engineers". Good engineers make good engineers and it often appears very early in life that they show an affinity for that kind of work
[+] [-] readthenotes1|1 year ago|reply
I'm not sure what she did after college, but failed out of her first choice with too much partying and too low test grades
[+] [-] thinkski|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] fxtentacle|1 year ago|reply
I personally also know a few people from university where if I superficially look at their situation now, I'd think "that could have been me". And I'm a guy so in my case it wouldn't highlight a man/woman difference. But then, looking at the details, some of them made sacrifices that I would be unwilling to make. Or their starting position wasn't that similar, after all, e.g. I just didn't know 10 years ago that they were trust fund babies.
[+] [-] aaplok|1 year ago|reply
My wife and I have taken about equal share in raising our kids and honestly I am prouder to have managed to spend time with my children growing up and to be married to a woman who doesn't have to rely on me to survive than of anything I could have done in a slightly more successful career.
[+] [-] II2II|1 year ago|reply
I bring up this story because, in the end, they ended up splitting up since he was unwilling to exploit the flexibility of his professional life to allow their relationship to flourish. I bring it up since I was to raise the question, a question that thinkski's comment triggered even though it is by no means directed their way: how often do we consider the aspirations and potential of our wife when deciding who is going to be the "breadwinner" and who is going to be the "care giver"? I am not saying that it is impossible to be both, but the reality is that compromises to a greater or lesser degree often have to be made for the sake of the family.
[+] [-] politelemon|1 year ago|reply
> the bond invested in our children will be there forever.
It is entirely possible to bond with our children and still maintain a career. These are not mutually exclusive the way you've implied.
[+] [-] david38|1 year ago|reply
Parties, skiing, Hawaii, toys, consoles, cars, motorcycles, vacation homes, etc.
Over time, most people I know grow tired of them. They have more friends yes, but even my friends know their “good time friends” wouldn’t stick around through hardship.
Kids aren’t the only way for sure. There are plenty of causes, but they are one thing that lasts longer than a few product cycles.
[+] [-] oulipo|1 year ago|reply
Then if there is a dispute with the family provider, the person not working will be in a position of fragility: if he/she leaves, she has no career, no way to support herself, she has to abide by what the providing partner asks her to do, even if he is sometimes abusive
[+] [-] croes|1 year ago|reply
That's not guaranteed.
[+] [-] rijoja|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gghhjjy|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SeanLuke|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gghhjjy|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sneak|1 year ago|reply
Utah, LDS central, is right on the other side of Nevada from California, and California and the Bay Area is the nearest interesting/fun place for those fleeing SLC.
It makes sense.
[+] [-] seanhunter|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Boatfaceing|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]