• Study Finds No Gender Gap in Tech Salaries
    123 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49861424]Yeah fuck economics, archaeology, and psychology. Who needs'em.[/QUOTE] They definitely have important uses, but they're also riddled with bias. There are just way too many variables to come to any easy conclusions, and that allows preconceived notions to massively sway the way you make conclusions based on the data.
What do people think about biological differences in the brains of men and women? I've seen discussions of it before but somebody always just shouts BIOTRUTHS!!! to try and shut down the conversation.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49861450]They definitely have important uses, but they're also riddled with bias. There are just way too many variables to come to any easy conclusions, and that allows preconceived notions to massively sway the way you make conclusions based on the data.[/QUOTE] This isn't even limited to the soft sciences either. You know those "NEW CURES FOR CANCER!" we discover every month that later fade into obscurity? I have a suspicion those are simply examples of massaged data in government science as a ploy to receive grant money. There's a LOT of data fraud that goes on in government science. [editline]4th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;49861893]What do people think about biological differences in the brains of men and women? I've seen discussions of it before but somebody always just shouts BIOTRUTHS!!! to try and shut down the conversation.[/QUOTE] It's incontrovertible that our brains differ biologically and structurally in many ways. What those variations mean is what the jury is out on.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49862048]This isn't even limited to the soft sciences either. You know those "NEW CURES FOR CANCER!" we discover every month that later fade into obscurity? I have a suspicion those are simply examples of massaged data in government science as a ploy to receive grant money. There's a LOT of data fraud that goes on in government science.[/QUOTE] You're absolutely right. There's a problem of bias in all sciences, but I would argue that it's more prevalent in soft sciences, and MUCH harder to detect.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49862048] "NEW CURES FOR CANCER!" [/QUOTE] Referring to when the news bursts out with these (and it was a study like "this new chemical caused a 1.2% difference in cancer rates in rats") or research groups themselves proclaiming?
Women should be paid more to encourage them taking tech jobs. I'm tired of looking at man ass 24/7.
[QUOTE=emly;49859867]About percentage disparity, there is this article, which has a few ideas, but nothing conclusive. This is more about private sector, previous articles seem to suggest academia doesn't have the same lopsided ratios.It's also a few years back, but had a decent graph. [url]http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Fpwr8hd.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I think this stats graph shows that it is more to do with personal interest, rather than gender encouragement. My parents never discouraged me from STEM and I even have done a placement. I have had a lot of opportunities with STEM so I would say women are definitely not being discouraged, in fact, quite the opposite. I think people just need to chill out and realise it is literally a case of subject preference and sciences such as medicine etc are more popular than subjects like computer science, amongst women anyway. But also, if you look at the sudden spark in computer science, it happened around the time in which computers were first about. This shows general interest in a new thing, which decreases overtime, again, due to lack of interest.
[QUOTE=emly;49860066]I can't find something to cite but note that in men, aggressive/assertive is seen as "good! strong leader material. confident person." In women? "Ugh, what a ball-busting bitch."[/QUOTE] They approach it differently
[QUOTE=emly;49860066]I can't find something to cite but note that in men, aggressive/assertive is seen as "good! strong leader material. confident person." In women? "Ugh, what a ball-busting bitch."[/QUOTE] Ah yes, that Trump fella is a "good! strong leader material. confident person."
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49861893]What do people think about biological differences in the brains of men and women? I've seen discussions of it before but somebody always just shouts BIOTRUTHS!!! to try and shut down the conversation.[/QUOTE] Biological differences absolutely, indisputably exist. Men and women are wired differently. There's ample evidence showing a difference. [B]however[/B] Most studies that show differences in aptitudes report results in the realm of single-digit percentage points. It's more 'men have slightly better spatial reasoning and women have slightly better memorization ability' and less 'men like cars and guns and violence and women like flowers and bunnies and cooking'. The 'biotruths' retort isn't to say that men and women are totally the same, but that attributing [I]massive[/I] gender disparities in certain fields to biology, especially when those fields [I]used[/I] to be more equitable, is insultingly wrong. It's a cop-out answer that's ignoring all kinds of possibilities, including first and foremost socialization (we give boys trucks and girls dolls, and discourage them from opposing those norms), and instead boiling down a whole complex problem to just a small component that studies show has a real, but small effect. Let me give you a comparison: Rape convictions. Men are convicted of rape overwhelmingly more often than women to an incredibly lopsided degree. Now, this is a case where biological differences do play a strong part, but we still have to look at all the factors: -Is the court system biased against men in rape cases? -Are men more likely to get convicted without sufficient evidence? -Do societal norms encourage men to be sexually over-aggressive? -Do societal norms discourage men from reporting rape because men are always supposed to enjoy sex? -Do societal norms encourage women to report consensual sex as rape to avoid social repercussions? -Are biological differences a contributing factor [I]in addition to[/I] one or more of the above? Whereas the boilerplate 'I didn't research or think about this issue' answer is: -Everything's fine, men are just more rapey because biological differences. And [I]that's[/I] the fuckin' 'biotruths' answer. Take a complex issue with a variety of contributing factors, pick just one factor that all studies show is only a small part of it, say that that factor justifies the skewed results, and turn off your brain.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49861893]What do people think about biological differences in the brains of men and women? I've seen discussions of it before but somebody always just shouts BIOTRUTHS!!! to try and shut down the conversation.[/QUOTE] Yes that has happened to me a few times. There are biological differences in the brains of males and females and another interesting thing is that the brain om homosexuals generally has some similarities with the female brain that heterosexual men don't share. I'm not sure if the same is true for trans people but I think so. To start of, the males brain is often larger than the females. This of course doesn't mean that men are smarter than women, women actually generally has a little higher IQ if I remember correctly but I digress. Another interesting difference is that males and females lose different functions when they damage different parts of the brain. For example, aphasias which are speech impairments occurs more often in females when they damage the anterior (front) part of the brain and more often in males when they damage the posterior (back) part of the brain. This points to a difference in how our brains work. There are more differences you can find if you want and I think it's illogical to assume that in a world free from sexism women would generally choose and perform equally to men in all things. The notion of people being psychologically blank canvases was disproved a long time ago. This being said, there are definitely social structures and we are to some degree affected by our environment, the question is how large of a part biology and environment play and everyone who gives a definite answer to that question are either liars or uninformed.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49858227]Even if we look at the state of the tech industry from a youth's perspective, we can see that girls are being told from a young age "programming is for boys".[/QUOTE] Other than the fact lots of men currently are interested in programming, can you give me examples of things that make women not want to learn how to program?
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;49891678]Other than the fact lots of men currently are interested in programming, can you give me examples of things that make women not want to learn how to program?[/QUOTE] The very vocal culture of acting like a woman playing or developing a video game is extraordinary. (The amount of games I have entered with a female friend or my girlfriend where the first few words spoken from their mouths over VOIP would cause an uproar in reaction to their sex is unreal) The prominence of a woman's value being linked to their appearance and popularity from a young age in combination with computer science being considered a nerdy or dorky topic. [URL="http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/opinion/2428620/girls-can-code-despite-the-bbcs-best-efforts-to-convince-otherwise"]The way the BBC dealt with their 'Girls Can Code' programme shows this too.[/URL] Just like tinkering with mechanics, tinkering with tech is stereotypically seen to be a boy's interest. And those are just the first world problems. In many countries around the world, girls are not allowed to be schooled. They can be killed if they try. How are women internationally supposed to enter the tech world with threats of violence standing in their way?
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;49891678]Other than the fact lots of men currently are interested in programming, can you give me examples of things that make women not want to learn how to program?[/QUOTE] 20,000 news articles telling women that the tech field is a terrible industry for women probably hinders it.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49892337]The very vocal culture of acting like a woman playing or developing a video game is extraordinary. (The amount of games I have entered with a female friend or my girlfriend where the first few words spoken from their mouths over VOIP would cause an uproar in reaction to their sex is unreal) [/QUOTE] First this is anedoctal. Second it is extraordinary. It's a simple statistical fact. You're the one who attributing a negative conotation to this fact. [QUOTE=Ricool06;49892337] The prominence of a woman's value being linked to their appearance and popularity from a young age in combination with computer science being considered a nerdy or dorky topic. [URL="http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/opinion/2428620/girls-can-code-despite-the-bbcs-best-efforts-to-convince-otherwise"]The way the BBC dealt with their 'Girls Can Code' programme shows this too.[/URL] Just like tinkering with mechanics, tinkering with tech is stereotypically seen to be a boy's interest.[/QUOTE] Again, another statistical fact. Women in general themselves put great value in their appearance and popularity. Men are more likely to be interest to working with things than people. [QUOTE=Ricool06;49892337] And those are just the first world problems. In many countries around the world, girls are not allowed to be schooled. They can be killed if they try. How are women internationally supposed to enter the tech world with threats of violence standing in their way?[/QUOTE]That's your only valid point, and you're talking about a situation where getting a tech job is the least of the concerns of a woman.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;49892337]The very vocal culture of acting like a woman playing or developing a video game is extraordinary. (The amount of games I have entered with a female friend or my girlfriend where the first few words spoken from their mouths over VOIP would cause an uproar in reaction to their sex is unreal)[/QUOTE] I think that really sucks too, but that's just the unfortunate byproduct of people getting the ability to talk with a random stranger and say anything they want with impunity. Like the wider internet in general, the only good solution is to ignore the shit (or in this case, mute the creeps). [QUOTE=Ricool06;49892337] Just like tinkering with mechanics, tinkering with tech is stereotypically seen to be a boy's interest. [/QUOTE] I'd agree this might be a factor, but I don't buy this being a large one. I don't think that a girl who is genuinely interested in programming would be disuaded by a small thing like that. The whole issue in general is really weird for me. I also dislike the gap in women in the tech field, but I dislike women getting special treatment and attention from tech companies because they have too many men working for them. What if you discourage men from wanting to program because they see companies really pushing for women and become discouraged? This all shouldn't matter, a person should independently choose their career without encouragement or discouragement because of unimportant factors like race, sex, etc.
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;49892897]I think that really sucks too, but that's just the unfortunate byproduct of people getting the ability to talk with a random stranger and say anything they want with impunity. Like the wider internet in general, the only good solution is to ignore the shit (or in this case, mute the creeps). I'd agree this might be a factor, but I don't buy this being a large one. I don't think that a girl who is genuinely interested in programming would be disuaded by a small thing like that. The whole issue in general is really weird for me. I also dislike the gap in women in the tech field, but I dislike women getting special treatment and attention from tech companies because they have too many men working for them. What if you discourage men from wanting to program because they see companies really pushing for women and become discouraged? This all shouldn't matter, a person should independently choose their career without encouragement or discouragement because of unimportant factors like race, sex, etc.[/QUOTE] The problem isn't that we are dissuading young girls from a passion they already have, it is that we are not making it an attractive environment for them to be in. Sure, girls can mute the creeps in online games, but is that creep a good advertisement for the game? Would that girl be able to persuade their friends to play it if her first experience was some weirdo putting too much emphasis on the fact that she has a vagina? Same with the industry, sure, girls who are already interested should keep at it and ignore the creeps and weirdos. But are they going to tell their daughter that computer science is a good subject for her to go into if much of her experience will be marred by annoyance because of her sex? The problem is that too many people think kids are just born with this innate desire to go into a field of work, when actually, that desire is constructed as a result of early experiences. For instance, if my first experience with the tech world was a negative one (from an early age), I would not be on a CS degree now. The issue is that too many girls are having a bad experience in the "try stuff out" phase with tech. So far, nothing has sufficiently explained this phenomenon except the state of the industry and our treatment of girls and boys in their childhood. [B]In short:[/B] Women already in the industry aren't dropping out, but we are not seeing the influx of girls that we should. We should take responsibility for that and solve these problems at their root, and NOT by using affirmative action.
I don't see the problem. So what if it's not attractive to them as long as those who are interested in it are as free to get invested in it as others? Who exactly is that being unfair to if those who are put off are so little interested in the first place? If simply hearing some kid say dumb stuff over an online game is enough to discourage them from getting into computer science then surely they have a field that they would be much more passionate about regardless of whether internet creeps existed or not? I don't know, we don't see major initiatives to get men into hairdressing or nursing nor should we. Why is it a big deal that women aren't interested in tech as much as men?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;49862204]Women should be paid more to encourage them taking tech jobs. I'm tired of looking at man ass 24/7.[/QUOTE] :ass: You know you like it
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49892487]It's a simple statistical fact. You're the one who attributing a negative conotation to this fact. Again, another statistical fact. [/QUOTE] So your reaction to statistics showing extremely skewed gender ratios is to point out that the facts show that gender ratios are skewed and just say 'it is what it is, I don't see why you care'? Do you consider that an argument or are you just expressing your own indifference? As for 'men are more likely to be interested in working with things than people', see my post above. The tech industry did not halve its proportion of women over three decades because men rediscovered a genetically predisposed attraction to computers. [QUOTE=_Axel;49893524]I don't see the problem. So what if it's not attractive to them as long as those who are interested in it are as free to get invested in it as others? [/QUOTE] We've talked about this before. It's a bad thing that children are discouraged from pursuing industries that might be fulfilling, interesting careers because of societal gender norms. We'd like to see the best person available for any job and discounting half the population because it's just not [i]for[/i] them is extremely backwards.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49893978]So your reaction to statistics showing extremely skewed gender ratios is to point out that the facts show that gender ratios are skewed and just say 'it is what it is, I don't see why you care'? Do you consider that an argument or are you just expressing your own indifference? As for 'men are more likely to be interested in working with things than people', see my post above. The tech industry did not halve its proportion of women over three decades because men rediscovered a genetically predisposed attraction to computers.[/QUOTE] They didn't "halve the population of women." They "halved the percentage of women in an industry that changed faster than probably any other in the history of mankind." To more precise, women didn't increase their rate of joining like men did. It's up to you prove sexism as the cause. You can't just hand-wave the statistics and assume sexism.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49893978]We've talked about this before. It's a bad thing that children are discouraged from pursuing industries that might be fulfilling, interesting careers because of societal gender norms. We'd like to see the best person available for any job and discounting half the population because it's just not [i]for[/i] them is extremely backwards.[/QUOTE] The argument makes sense in general, but when the only thing that's brought up as discouraging women is mean people on the internet you have to admit CS wouldn't be their career of choice in the first place. Unless we find a more important reason for that distaste I don't think the issue is as pressing as we make it out to be. I also never see initiatives about bringing more men into typically female fields which are just as skewed in terms of gender distribution or about encouraging men to follow higher education when the latter is more and more dominated by women these days. Your argument would apply just as well to these fields, so why don't anybody do anything about them?
[QUOTE=Last or First;49858724]Assuming that women just naturally aren't interested in tech and engineering jobs, it wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't natural. It's influenced by cultural stereotypes and less-than-hospitable work environments. Tech isn't seen as a feminine job, with the stereotype of it being taken up by fat sweaty white guys, which influences women who are on the fence between tech and some other job. [/QUOTE] Yes and no. Most women don't go for something like being a mechanic probably because of something as simple as being a dirty and heavy job. Same would go for loads of jobs that are tipicaly full of men. Not to say there isn't that stereotype in tech, but I would guess they'd also find it boring. I know I did, for example, but I'm not a woman. Still, at my school, almost nobody went for the programming course. The only 2 girls that went, all gave up after a while, partialy because there weren't any more girls, but mostly because they didn't like it at all. Most people just go for law degrees, architecture, nursing, and thats both genders, not just women.
[QUOTE=nomad1;49856779]Wasn't there a study which came to the conclusion that the gap exists because men are more times likely to ask for higher salary while women don't?[/QUOTE] If companies could all save 30% by hiring just women, then why don't they? Money is all anyone cares about in the USA and if it were true across the board I expect that's what we'd see. But we don't
[QUOTE=sgman91;49894001]They didn't "halve the population of women." They "halved the percentage of women in an industry that changed faster than probably any other in the history of mankind." To more precise, women didn't increase their rate of joining like men did.[/QUOTE] Good thing I said 'proportion', not 'population'. The words are right there. [QUOTE=sgman91;49894001]It's up to you prove sexism as the cause. You can't just hand-wave the statistics and assume sexism.[/QUOTE] You say I can't handwave the statistics right after you handwave the fact that the number of men rapidly increased and not the number of women and dismiss this glaring discrepancy as seemingly unimportant. I don't feel any need to demonstrate that sexism is the cause, because ultimately the historical mechanism for STEM turning into a sausagefest over the last three decades is unimportant. No alternative has been proposed to explain the discrepancy beyond 'I guess women don't like it and I don't want to think too hard about why they don't like it'. Even if sexism isn't the root cause, there's a discrepancy that shouldn't be there and nobody can give a satisfactory answer for why it exists that [I]also[/I] justifies that discrepancy continuing to exist. [I]Even if[/I] there is no sexism in the industry itself, and some other sociological explanation for why women are actively leaving STEM, it is not an optimal situation that women are not pursuing STEM careers when there's no reason for this to be the case. The well-documented social pressures that steer young women away from certain fields are probably at least partially to blame. Case in point: [QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;49894052]Most women don't go for something like being a mechanic probably because of something as simple as being a dirty and heavy job.[/QUOTE] Why do you think women categorically reject dirty and demanding jobs? Either you claim that it's biological, in which case I call bullshit (because it's bullshit), or you claim that it's societal, in which case you are agreeing with Last or First that it's [I]not[/I] natural, it's the result of stereotypes, conditioning, and socialization. I don't need to argue that auto repair is a sexist, discriminatory industry to say that it's wrong when young girls who express an interest in machines are steered towards dolls instead.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49894332]Good thing I said 'proportion', not 'population'. The words are right there.[/QUOTE] You're right, my fault. I misread your post. [QUOTE]You say I can't handwave the statistics right after you handwave the fact that the number of men rapidly increased and not the number of women and dismiss this glaring discrepancy as seemingly unimportant.[/QUOTE] By "handwave" I mean that you pass from premise (that the percentage of women in the field have decreased) to conclusion (that it's caused by sexism) without giving an argument in between. That's handwaving. What I did was point to the facts of the data without pointing any cause or conclusion. [QUOTE]I don't feel any need to demonstrate that sexism is the cause, because ultimately the historical mechanism for STEM turning into a sausagefest over the last three decades is unimportant. No alternative has been proposed to explain the discrepancy beyond 'I guess women don't like it and I don't want to think too hard about why they don't like it'. Even if sexism isn't the root cause, there's a discrepancy that shouldn't be there and nobody can give a satisfactory answer for why it exists that [I]also[/I] justifies that discrepancy continuing to exist.[/QUOTE] You're starting with the unfounded assumption that all statistical discrepancies are inherently bad or unwarranted. therefore needing to be solved. The facts just plain don't go along with that assumption. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between a freer and more gender equal society and an equalization between men and women in certain fields of work. Engineering is one and nursing is another. [QUOTE]Why do you think women categorically reject dirty and demanding jobs?[/QUOTE] That's an interesting question. Why not actually try and answer it with evidence and facts instead of hand-waving "sexism" or "sexist" societal pressure. It often seems like "structural racism" and "structural sexism" are the god of the gaps for liberals. If you can't explain a difference, then blame one of them.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49894332]Why do you think women categorically reject dirty and demanding jobs? Either you claim that it's biological, in which case I call bullshit (because it's bullshit), or you claim that it's societal, in which case you are agreeing with Last or First that it's [I]not[/I] natural, it's the result of stereotypes, conditioning, and socialization. I don't need to argue that auto repair is a sexist, discriminatory industry to say that it's wrong when young girls who express an interest in machines are steered towards dolls instead.[/QUOTE] Either because of societal factors that can lead to 2 different places, or MAYBE because of something as simple as "not wanting to be dirty or want to work in unpleasant jobs". Obviously not biological, thats just stupid lol. Said different places, would be the obvious "it's a men's job" schtick, and the "you could do better in life" point of view, which sort of enters in the "not wanting to be dirty or in unpleasant jobs". Aside from the sexist thing, parents usually tell their kids, be them boys or girls, to not go a certain path in life so they end up in something that obviously pays well and isn't bad for them. You'd certainly wouldn't want your kid doing hard tough dirty work for small pay, wouldn't you? I mean, sure you could think "oh but its good honest work" and something of the sort, but in the end, if he/she was a lawyer or a doctor or anything else that is at the very least generaly cleaner than being a mechanic (which can be quite stressful and taxing on the body over the years). With this, I'm not saying women couldn't take being a mechanic. By that logic, there are men that couldn't be mechanics because they just don't work well with it. But I'd guess that they wouldn't want to even if they could. The same happens with boys. It ends up being a choice that you do because you have to or because you really like it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49894384]That's an interesting question. Why not actually try and answer it with evidence and facts instead of hand-waving "sexism" or "sexist" societal pressure.[/QUOTE] Sure. STEM used to be more gender equal. STEM is currently less gender equal than it used to be. There is no biological explanation for why STEM should be strongly gender-inequal in the first place. If there is no biological explanation, then the alternative is a sociological explanation. Meaning, for whatever reason, men and women are encouraged to go into different fields. Unless you are going to tell me that men and women should be pushed towards traditional gender roles for non-biological reasons, this is an undesirable state of affairs. This is all pretty cut and dry. I'm still waiting on an alternative explanation that fits the facts, because saying 'well, maybe there's a reason other than gender norms for why gender norms appear to exist' is not a very convincing argument. It's also not an argument at all for why this should continue to be the case.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49894484]There is no biological explanation for why STEM should be strongly gender-inequal in the first place[/QUOTE] Do you have a citation for this, or are you just assuming that? [QUOTE=catbarf;49894484]STEM used to be more gender equal. STEM is currently less gender equal than it used to be.[/QUOTE] These two are the same exact point rephrased. Also, STEM is a lot different than it used to be, too. edit: Also why the do people focus on the only two fields where this is even the case, no one talks about female dominated professions being problematic. If so many women are dominating other fields it makes sense that there would be fields they fall short in to make up for those differences. [t]http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-men-usa.png[/t] It isn't necessarily "Why don't women want to join STEM", but "Why don't many women prefer STEM over other fields", which I'm sure you could find a plethora of theories for.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.