I know plenty of American women who would be outraged at the suggestions that the reason there's fewer women in high paying tech jobs is because they enjoy better gender equality! That's some twisted logic there.
Is it really? Plenty of women in computer science during it's early days weren't in it because it was their first choice. Other fields, like law and medicine overtly discriminated against women. Many med schools capped their female student representation at 10%. This displaced women into other fields, like CS. When those sexist policies were removed, those women got the chance to pick the field of their choice. The women that would have been in CS had these sexist policies still been in place aren't taking jobs at a corners store: they're entering other high-status fields.
Many fields that were once dominated by men are now either at parity, or even majority women. The fact that freedom from sexism stopped displacing women into CS doesn't seem like much of a bad thing.
> The fact that freedom from sexism stopped displacing women into CS doesn't seem like much of a bad thing.
Such a convenient explanation... CS is one of the highest paid professions, and women are taking advantage of lack-of-sexism and choosing to stay out of CS... because umm... they don't need the money? You should consider speaking at the Grace Hopper Conference, because there's lots of women there that haven't been told this truth.
It’s a well known fact (supported and replicated by research in multiple countries and societies) that women are less motivated by money than men. Women also prefer to work with people vs things (also well replicated result).
Obviously if a choice is starving vs CS, most women would prefer CS. That’s the choice for many women in Iran (most equal country in CS) or India. That’s not choice for most women in US or Europe. We are talking averages here - obviously there are a lot of women much more motivated by money than average men.
> women are taking advantage of lack-of-sexism and choosing to stay out of CS... because umm... they don't need the money?
As I stated in my previous comment, it's because other high paying industries stopped being sexist against women, and then the women that would have been pushed out of those industries and into CS can now study and work in the field of their choice. Nowhere did I write that "they don't need the money", and I even said that they were choosing other high paying fields once medicine, law, etc. stopped enforcing overtly sexist policies against women. Discussions are more productive when you engage with what other commenters are writing instead of your own inventions.
That’s quite clearly not what they were saying. If you want to argue with yourself, do it in a Word document and don’t involve the rest of us. I’d like to think that this community is above being intellectually dishonest in the name of starting internet fights. I have very very little time or respect for this mindset. What are you hoping to gain from this interaction?
I mean, the hard data is out there. Applicable not just to the US but also to other advanced countries like Scandinavian ones. I know that correlation is not causation and maybe there is some other common cause. But it is undeniable that better gender equality is correlated with fewer women in STEM.
> That's some twisted logic there.
I prefer the term "counterintuitive". And the world works in ways, many of which are counterintuitive. Another famous example - poverty trap, where people are incentivized to stay poor when you offer them means tested welfare. While each of the pillars of such programs (means testing, helping poor etc) sound good in isolation, they have a devastating impact in practice. Moynihan (a liberal, fwiw) was skewered when he suggested as such.
