News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The pay gap between men and women

Started by PickelledEggs, August 10, 2016, 06:41:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

doorknob

#15
actually durring world war II when the men were away women assumed many Science jobs. In fact women primarily worked development of computers during the war. I think the war was what started making women aware that we are capable of some of the same jobs men are and deserving of equal treatment. With the exception of hard labor and even then some times for the most part women are equally capable of jobs prominently run by males. In the business world is a good old boys club though so no, women are far less likely to get a high ranking ceo position.

doorknob

I'd also like to say this.

I was in college for electronic engineering. I was the ONLY girl in the class.

Mermaid

I had someone tell me she didn't believe in college for girls, unless it was one of those administrative assistant schools.

It is definitely about conditioning from an early age.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Nonsensei

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 26, 2016, 08:41:04 AM
I snipped the part you addressed to Shiranu.

First of all, I agree with you on that people -men or women- need to admit this issue is also about interests. But claiming that there is no hard condtioning from early age about fields of interests is also wrong. They are both black and white evaluations.

The idea that 'men and women are inherently interested in different stuff' because the nature of their genders is based on the traditional gender norms which also define males as,

-natural perpetrators
-prone to violence and commiting crimes by gender
-active and prone to take action
-disposable in every level of protection (individual, national)

females as

-natural victims
-natural care givers and car takers
-passive and needs to be taken care of and protected


This is not just incorrect but also wrong. These qualities, exactly like interests have nothing to do with gender, but what society approves or praises. For example, just because of this general understanding until a few decades ago women weren't even considered as potential serial killers or psyhcopaths while among all serial killer groups they make up the most efficient killers. But as the norms suggest women are generally the care givers and males are more violent than females, right? Wrong.

About early age conditioning, you can easily make an observation for yourself about the choices of toys offered to little girls and boys just by visiting a standard toy shop. Just walk around. Pay attention to the difference in colours and toy kits designed for girls and boys. You'll see it is nowhere near that vague or an empty accusation made up by feminists.

The important point is we do not have a much independence in shaping our interests and choices as we'd like to think, because we humans are nowhere near free as we think with our actions and choices in our lives. Among many different reasons and causes that shape our interests and choices, a very strong one is to be selected by the gender we are attracted to and fit in the norms that society approves. Strong, independent women with a good profession of any kind, let alone STEM are not the best group that get selected by mates. On the other hand women that fits in the traditional norms and occupations have a very high chance to get lucky in many levels. But you need to be pretty tough and competitive to be successful in the fields we are talking about and these women are naturally high maintenance AND do not fit the standard norm. (Highly intelligent and educated people are generally high maintenance, they also have high standards.)

Yes, speaking about it in ideal terms, why wouldn't everyone do what ever they want and owned up to it and be happy? Because at most times people act in the way to seek approval even they do not do it consciously.


A woman's intelligence is not often seen as her first quality. But her being a woman with that intelligence is. You cannot get rid off your gender or its desired physical qualities that you have or not doesn't matter how intelligent or talented you are at something. This the ugly truth. It is actually the main beef of every kind of feminism to begin with. And while it is about being a woman that is in contrast/against being male. That's the head of the monster. And the root of the desire to be evaluated free from that first unbreachable barrier of being seen as a woman first whatever you do.

Some of other dynamics are

-You people -also many feminists- expecting too much from this issue, because it is just a human life span away that women were kept away from science by law
-Their contributions weren't just taken granted, but there are even women who recieved nobel prize after they are dead, completely ignored/forgotten before outside pressure.
-When a woman accomplishes something or attempt to do something big, it is always first about how they look or how sexy they are or not.
-Has anyone ever asked or seen anyone asked a man how does he manage his kids with his work? I doubt it. When you are a woman, you are always under that threat and scrutiny.
-As women are in the minority in major leagues of works -not just STEM- they are always critcised more by other women and men. A competitive and tough woman who dedicates his life to his carrier is a 'frigid bitch', 'dragon lady'.
-Compared to men they need to put up a whole different levels of bullshit, men are not even aware that they exist.

These problems are real roblems women deal in every day life. Not made up stories by feminists as most men tend to think. Social media anger fueled by emotionally abusive propaganda is distracting people from real issues. With or withuot SJWs or MRAs or feminists these are real problems.

I guess it is natural for most men, -esp. young ones not to get this picture, because they are 'things' to live through or experience more than recognise in your environment about others. I am happy to say I know men from very different cultures that do though.


But unfortunately, it is never simple as 'women are not interested in STEM why can't we accept this'. Because if that was the case, gaining rights and freedom wouldn't result in rise of women stepping in to STEM fields, but simply going in one way, choosing easier paths. But that's not what they are doing, is it?



I don't know, DS. Is it what they are doing? For the first time in history, women are now more likely to hold a college degree than men. STEM employers are enthusiastic to hire these women, and yet the gender gap in certain areas of STEM remain essentially constant. Is it really childhood brainwashing, or the perception of society's expectations, or the drive to be as attractive to a potential mate as possible, or maybe just the good old fashioned mean boys club that is keeping women out of these fields despite being both enabled and desired to become STEM employees as they have never been before?

If it really is all of those things keeping the gender gap in STEM constant, then what about that 18 - 22% of women that are in computer science and engineering despite all of the above factors? What is it about them that lets them enter and presumably thrive in these professions? to be clear we are talking about many thousands of women. Its less women than men, to be sure, but its still quite a lot of them. How can this many women get past all the tangible and intangible barriers that are supposedly in place to stop them while other women cant? What is the factor that enables some women to overcome these things, but not others.

More to the point, how can you be sure the answer is not simply that these women in the STEM fields were interested in getting into computer science and engineering while other women were not?

You say that people have less control in shaping their own interests than they want to believe. So how did these women manage it? How did they manage to get past the gendered childhood indoctrination, the overwhelming societal pressure to conform, the even worse pressure to adopt certain attributes in order to attract a mate, and finally leap over the dubious barrier that is the patriarchal boys club protecting computer science and engineering from the advances of the lady folk? How did they manage to overcome all of that and still end up in STEM? Not just some women, or a lot, but THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of them.

If computer science and engineering were 99% male dominated I feel like your might be on to something, but it isnt. Something else is going on here that goes beyond all of these blanket factors. Before I take that final step and agree that this is the result of things that feminists see as bad for women, I want to know what that something is.

PS: I fancy my balls retaining their current location. Don't hurt me.
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Baruch

Quote from: doorknob on August 26, 2016, 01:18:00 PM
actually durring world war II when the men were away women assumed many Science jobs. In fact women primarily worked development of computers during the war. I think the war was what started making women aware that we are capable of some of the same jobs men are and deserving of equal treatment. With the exception of hard labor and even then some times for the most part women are equally capable of jobs prominently run by males. In the business world is a good old boys club though so no, women are far less likely to get a high ranking ceo position.

Not knocking my mother and her mother ... who were Rosies.  But the girls in the US and Britain, were in charge of pulling the drums offf and on the Turing machines ... for each run.  Like we did later with magnetic tapes.  Admiral Hopper (a woman) they were not.  And most of the men weren't Dr Turing (a gay man) either.  People were chosen based on ability, and assigned based on there specific abilities, not because of their sex or gender.  But only during the war ... necessity you know.

On the other hand, many students of both sexes are discouraged in school ... but that is a different problem.  There are women who can do it, I have known a few.  But most people male and female are dumb as sticks.

In business, it is an insider's club.  Most of the insiders happen to be men.  Most of us men are with you, on the outside looking in.  The are women insiders ... Hillary is one.  I have never gotten an advantage for being male ... because there are too many other qualified males.  I was lucky ... I never earned any position.  But it is self fulfilling, because experience tells, and once you get experienced, you are both type caste, and on the inside for positions.  But it is a chicken vs egg problem, you can't be an executive, unless you already are one.  Those positions are reserved for the Ivy League anyway.

Most people don't have what it takes to be STEM ... and that is a good thing.  STEM doesn't pay that well anyway ... it did before there were so many college graduates, say pre-1970.  The last thing executives like, are well payed STEM workers.  I would only recommend STEM to kids who are too geeky to get any other kind of job, and aren't interested in doing anything else.  Monomaniacs.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2016, 06:53:28 PM
Most people don't have what it takes to be STEM ... and that is a good thing.  STEM doesn't pay that well anyway ... it did before there were so many college graduates, say pre-1970.  The last thing executives like, are well payed STEM workers.  I would only recommend STEM to kids who are too geeky to get any other kind of job, and aren't interested in doing anything else.  Monomaniacs.

The engineers who really make money are the ones who go into management. Everyone is advocating people pursue STEM careers but as someone who started out studying nuclear engineering, it isn't for everyone. Students, male or female, really need to understand what they will be doing on a daily basis before pursuing a STEM career.

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

doorknob

I failed but not because I couldn't do the electronics or the math. I failed because I'm not a writer and I couldn't handle lab reports.

Other wise I was doing awesome. I had 90% test scores and 90% home work. But half the grade was those damn lab reports so I didn't do so good.

drunkenshoe

#22
Obviously men and women are different. Socialisation and, playground, toy design affect tendencies of children. Certainly there are many other reasons before and after reaching the adulthood. For anyone who doesn't see some opinion on the subject as an assault on male genitalia, there are two related researches:

This is not a political organisation motivated to miantain some propaganda for any side, but an organisation dedicated to high quality education in early age children.

About NAEYC
QuoteThe National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is a professional membership organization that works to promote high-quality early learning for all young children, birth through age 8, by connecting early childhood practice, policy, and research. We advance a diverse, dynamic early childhood profession and support all who care for, educate, and work on behalf of young children.
The association comprises nearly 60,000 individual members of the early childhood community and more than 300 regional Affiliate chapters, all committed to delivering on the promise of high-quality early learning. Together, we work to achieve a collective vision: that all young children thrive and learn in a society dedicated to ensuring they reach their full potential.

What the Research Says: Gender-Typed Toys

QuoteTell us about your toy research.

Professor Blakemore: We identified more than 100 toys and classified them to indicate how much each toy was associated with boys, girls, or neither.

In general the toys most associated with boys were related to fighting or aggression (wrestlers, soldiers, guns, etc.), and the toys most associated with girls were related to appearance (Barbie dolls and accessories, ballerina costumes, makeup, jewelry, etc.).

We then divided the toys into six categories, based on these ratings: (1) strongly feminine, (2) moderately feminine, (3) neutral, (5) moderately masculine, and (6) strongly masculine. Toys were then rated according to their characteristics, such as able to be manipulated, exciting, educational, aggressive, musical, etc.

We found that girls’ toys were associated with physical attractiveness, nurturing, and domestic skill, whereas boys’ toys were rated as violent, competitive, exciting, and somewhat dangerous. The toys rated as most likely to be educational and to develop children’s physical, cognitive, artistic, and other skills were typically categorized as neutral or moderately masculine. We concluded that strongly gender-typed toys appear to be less supportive of optimal development than neutral or moderately gender-typed toys.


What message do you think early childhood teachers and other educators could take from your research?

Professor Blakemore: If you want to develop children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills, toys that are not strongly gender-typed are more likely to do this.


What message about toys do you think families of young children could take from your research?

Professor Blakemore: For parents, it’s the same message as for teachers: Strongly gender-typed toys might encourage attributes that aren’t ones you actually want to foster. For girls, this would include a focus on attractiveness and appearance, perhaps leading to a message that this is the most important thingâ€"to look pretty. For boys, the emphasis on violence and aggression (weapons, fighting, and aggression) might be less than desirable in the long run.

Also, moderately masculine toys have many positive qualities (spatial skills, science, building things, etc.) that parents might want to encourage in both boys and girls. Perhaps, to some extent, it is the same for some moderately feminine toys (nurturance, care for infants, developing skills in cooking and housework).


What's the most surprising thing you think your research tells us about children, toys, and play?

Professor Blakemore: I am not sure how surprising this is to me but it might be to parents: Moderately masculine toys encourage children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills more so than moderately feminine ones.



What the Research Says: Impact of Specific Toys on Play

Quote: Tell us about your toy research.

Professor Trawick-Smith: Studies have looked at the impact of peers, teachers, families, and classroom and home environments on play interactions. But few studies have looked at the effects of individual toys on play activities. This is surprising, since about 90 percent of preschool children’s play in the United States involves a toy. So, our center conducts an annual study in which we observe children playing with a variety of toys-nominated by teachers, parents, researchers, and even childrenâ€"in a free play setting in preschool classrooms. We code children’s use of the toys in three areas, using a coding instrument that we have developed: thinking/learning/problem solving, social interaction, and creativity.



: What message do you think early childhood teachers and other educators could take from your research?

Professor Trawick-Smith: The most important finding emerging from our studies is that different toys impact children’s behavior in different ways. Some toys have a powerful influence on children’s thinking, interaction with peers, and creative expression. Other toys do not. Some of the toys that look most interesting to adults are not particularly effective in promoting development. This suggests that teachers can make decisions about toys as thoughtfully as they do when making decisions about any other area of the curriculum. Once toys are selected, teachers can carefully observe their impact on children’s play. Do toys elicit a good balance of play behaviors, across social, intellectual, and creative areas of development?

: What message about toys do you think families of young children could take from your research?

Professor Trawick-Smith: We are cautious about recommending specific toys to families. This is because play interests vary greatly across cultures, children and families. However, one trend that is emerging from our studies can serve as a guide to families as they choose toys: Basic is better. The highest-scoring toys so far have been quite simple: hardwood blocks, a set of wooden vehicles and road signs, and classic wooden construction toys. These toys are relatively open-ended, so children can use them in multiple ways. Also, they have all been around for a long time. There may be a reason these toys have been enjoyed by children over the generations! Simple, classic toys would be our recommendation for families.



: What's the most surprising thing you think your research tells us about children, toys, and play?

Professor Trawick-Smith: We have found some surprising gender differences in our study. Many of the toys nominated by parents and teachers were used most often and in the most complex ways by boys. This included items that seemed gender-neutral from an adult perspective. What set the highest-scoring toys apart was that they prompted problem solving, social interaction, and creative expression in both boys and girls. Interestingly, toys that have traditionally been viewed as male orientedâ€"construction toys and toy vehicles, for exampleâ€"elicited the highest quality play among girls. So, try to set aside previous conceptions about what inspires male and female play and objectively observe toy effects to be sure boys and girls equally benefit from play materials.


Professor Trawick-Smith directs the TIMPANI toy study, which looks at how young children in natural settings play with a variety of toys.


This is why I wrote about paying attention to colour walking around in a toy shop in my first post in the thread.

How gender-specific toys can negatively impact a child’s development

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/08/12/how-gender-specific-toys-can-negatively-impact-a-childs-development/
Some psychologists are applauding Target’s decision to remove gender-based labels in children’s bedding and toy aisles, but say more changes are needed

QuoteBetween the 1970s and the 1990s, while women in the U.S. were closing the gap in education and employment and breaking into the top ranks of politics and industry, one sector was moving in the wrong direction. “The world of toys looks a lot more like 1952 than 2012,” Elizabeth Sweet, a sociologist studying children and gender inequality at the University of California, Davis wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed a few years ago. In the 1970s, according to Sweet, few children’s toys were targeted specifically at boys or girls; nearly 70 percent of toys had no gender-specific labels at all. Many toy ads seemed to deliberately flout gender stereotypesâ€"depicting girls driving toy cars and airplanes and boys playing with kitchen sets and dolls.

By the mid-1990s, however, gendered advertising had returned to 1950s-levels, and it continued to grow in the 2000s. Critics blame the backlash on second-wave feminism, the nostalgia of gift-giving grandparents and shrewd marketers, who realized they could convince parents of boys and girls to buy two versions of the same product.

In the past couple of years, the tide has finally begun to turn. WalMart and Toys R Us have recently agreed to tone down their gender-specific children’s marketing strategies, and in a blog post on the company’s website last week, Target announced plans to get rid of gender-based labeling in the children’s bedding and toy aisles: they’ll phase out explicit references to gender as well as the use of pink and blue colored paper on the shelves. “As guests have pointed out, in some departments like Toys, Home or Entertainment, suggesting products by gender is unnecessary,” Target said in the post. “We heard you, and we agree.”

Pressure from customers, as well as the example set by its competitors, seems to have played a role in the retail giant’s decision. In June, an Ohio woman tweeted a picture of a sign advertising “Building sets” and “Girls’ building sets,” with the caption, “Don’t do this, @target”; it’s been retweeted more than 3,000 times.

Some psychologists are applauding Target’s move. “The decision to remove gender labels is a big first step in reducing gender stereotypes,” says Lisa Dinella, a psychologist at Monmouth University. Several studies show that children prefer toys they believe are intended for their gender. Just last year, a paper co-authored by Dinella suggested that color can also be used to manipulate children’s perceptions of what toys they should play with; Dinella and her co-authors, Erica Weisgram and Megan Fulcher, showed that girls were much more likely to opt for traditionally male toys, like airplanes, if they were pink.

Girls’ preference for pink is learned, not innate; cognitive research suggests that all babies actually prefer blue. (According to Jo Paoletti, author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America, the association of boys with blue and girls with pink dates to the 1940s.) In 2011, Vanessa LoBue and Judy DeLoache undertook a study of a group of boys and girls between the ages of seven months and five years. Each child was tasked with choosing between two similar objects, one of which was pink, the other blue. It was around the age of two that girls began to select the pink toy more often than the blue one; at two and a half, the preference for pink became even more pronounced. Boys developed an aversion to the pink toy along the same timeline.

The impact of sex-specific toy choice has implications for children’s learning and attitudes far beyond the playground. “Play with masculine toys is associated with large motor development and spatial skills and play with feminine toys is associated with fine motor development, language development and social skills,” says Megan Fulcher, associate professor of psychology at Washington and Lee University.

“Children may then extend this perspective from toys and clothes into future roles, occupations, and characteristics,” she adds. In 2008, she was part of a team of researchers who found that children with gender-stereotyped decorations in their bedrooms also held more stereotypical attitudes towards boys and girls.

Research suggests, too, that kids pay more attention to â€" and form more lasting memories of â€" the toys they believe are meant for their gender. In 1986, psychologist Marilyn Bradbard presented children ages four to nine with unfamiliar toys in gender-specific boxes, and gave them six minutes to play. One week later, she and her team administered memory tests and found that the girls had more detailed recollections of the objects in the “girly” box and vice versa.


“Organizing merchandise by gender also acts as a barrier that prevents children from exploring the wide array of toys and activities available,” says Dinella. “Target is on the right track, but we still need marketing campaigns to stop gender labeling their products via color.”



About the toy research, the upsetting point here to me is neutral and moderately masculine belong to the same category in the end, not just the most 'positive' and that is how adults percieve this in the first place. :sad2:






"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

#23
Quote from: doorknob on August 26, 2016, 08:44:37 PM
I failed but not because I couldn't do the electronics or the math. I failed because I'm not a writer and I couldn't handle lab reports.

Other wise I was doing awesome. I had 90% test scores and 90% home work. But half the grade was those damn lab reports so I didn't do so good.

You should have transferred .. to computer science.  No lab reports required.

Also ... if colleges etc were honest with college students, most would drop out.  Most of college is a social class experiment conducted by Ivy League sadists.

I respect anyone who can walk the walk.  Tech people can be the least prejudiced (in spite of the geek culture in SF).  On the other hand ... many technical people are autistic ...and that runs more in males.  Do women want a higher percentage of autistic?  Autistic males, technical savants or not, are usually anti-social, not just anti-girl.

In my organization, IT people are kept in special cages ... with a sign saying don't give the code monkeys any coffee or donuts.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

Baruch, we don't have a life without IT people any more. And I don't mean the entertainment part.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 28, 2016, 03:15:27 AM
Baruch, we don't have a life without IT people any more. And I don't mean the entertainment part.

You could have said ...

Thanks.

You non-IT people have no idea what deep shit you are in.  I have never seen a scrap of papyrus or parchment, return an Error 404.  It is like balancing a broom handle on one hand, inverted ... a broom handle that gets taller and heavier every day.  Kurzweil's Singularity isn't what he is expecting ;-(
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

#26
Quote from: Baruch on August 29, 2016, 07:26:56 PM
You non-IT people have no idea what deep shit you are in.  I have never seen a scrap of papyrus or parchment, return an Error 404.  It is like balancing a broom handle on one hand, inverted ... a broom handle that gets taller and heavier every day.  Kurzweil's Singularity isn't what he is expecting ;-(

All kinds of information regarding your life; including your tastes and preferences, books you read, movies you watch, from your ID, your taxes, your health insurance, bank account, your job to your medical history, your daily life; public utilities you use, your real estate...everythig you worked for your entire life is recorded, stored, managed by some sort of automation. And they are maintained, looked after by IT people.

So your big words are meaningless; invalid. It was invalid in 90s where I live, much earlier where you live.

Nobody is out of that 'shit'. You want out? Burn your ID, don't pay anything and go live in the mountains the rest of your life. But then you'll be in social media if you die or survive, it'll be reported regulary in social media anyway and remember that you'll still exist in that 'shit'. Don't send postcards, post offices use similar systems.

Scrap of papyrus...pffft.

PS I'm givng you homework. Reading. Then you'll write an essay on discussing the concept of fictional reality and it's relation to human civilisation. :P




"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind

My preference is for the Agricultural Revolution over the Stone Age ... and civilization over agricultural under-development.  Sure has a lot of warts.

Otherwise is this more than just a well written act of misanthropy?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.