For example, in a small organization one person might perform the duties of a janitor and of a maid. If that person is male he will probably be called a janitor, and if that person is female she will probably be called a maid.
That said, I'm not convinced there's a significant classification bias.
Feels like the best solution would be to remove the percentages, with more of a vague "more female" or "more male"
I'm not well versed in American history. Did anything significant happen then to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly?
The part would have been disproportionately true for jobs lower down the socioeconomic ladder because jobs higher on the socioeconomic ladder generally go to people who had more ability to licitly or illicitly avoid selection for military service.
The women's movement also made it "not wierd" to want a job outside the home, and for some a badge of honor. It's hard to articulate exactly what that meant for women, but for my older sister, "not wierd" was being a teacher. For my wife, OTOH, being an attorney was "not wierd", and in fact past the point of being a meaningful badge of honor, it was just a job. We're talking a 10 year time span.
And by "just a job" I don't mean to imply that discrimination against women completely disappeared overnight. I remember the day after a re-org, the new incoming manager walked into my neigbor's cube, my neighbor being a rather consistently excellent (female) engineer, and he said, abruptly: "I don't like women engineers.", turned and walked out. Those of us that overheard had a total WTF reaction to that. Luckily those dinosaurs are largely gone from the planet.
My dad, for example, didn't learn how to type until the late 1990s.
Is this your own quote or something that was used before the women's lib era you reference ?
Meh, it's my fault for not considering an international audience when using my colloquialisms without explanation. It's one of those phrases that I heard so much growing up, it didn't even occur to me that it was indeed colloquial to at least western culture, if not specific to the U. S.
I didn't recognize it.
The linked wiki page is very helpful !
Please watch your tone. Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions. There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted.
edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? If there is something wrong with my statement, I would love to learn from your opinion on it.
>> the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights
> Please watch your tone... There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted.
But the opinions codified in policy prior to the 1960s/1970s were objectively horrifying.
Brown v. Board was decided in 1954.
Jim Crow was going strong in the 50's and hung on into the 60's.
Harvard Medical School did not (purposefully) admit women until '45; Princeton until '69. Title IX passed in the 70's and gender parity in university admissions didn't happen until '81.
The first no fault divorce law wasn't passed until '69.
The Equal Pay Act was passed in '63.
IMO there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies.
(Also, "watch your tone" is condescending and defensive. Unless you support returning to Jim Crow and repealing the Equal Pay Act, there's no reason to be defensive.)
> there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies.
>it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's liberation". IOW, "a woman's place is in the home, preferably barefoot and pregnant" began to go out the window.
Some people don't think it's a bad thing that women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers. I agree that policies at the time were too extreme, but many others and I also believe that perfect gender parity in all careers is also extreme. What is considered "equal" varies depending on the person.
> Also, "watch your tone" is condescending and defensive.
Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing a behavior that I felt hurt the conversation and if left unchecked, has the potential to damage the culture of this site.
But then proceed to make an entire post about rhetorical content even though you completely agree with the post's logical conclusions.
And then use that critique of language -- not logic -- as a springboard for a counter-argument that isn't even responsive to the author's original claim (which you say you agree with anyways).
That position is untenable. Be consistent, especially if you're advancing an argument in favor of logic!
> Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing...
No, you missed my point. The tone of your writing comes off as condescending, regardless of your intent. It is the sort of thing a parent says to a child, or a judge to an unruly defendant. I literally cannot think of a way to read "watch you tone" in a way that is not condescending.
It is reasonable to tell someone to please phrase something in a more polite manner.
It is completely unreasonable to do so in a condescending tone, and many people will down-vote you for doing so.
IMO there is nothing wrong with blunt language on an internet forum. You apparently disagree, except when it comes to your own speech.
Again, be consistent.
> but the tone of your post
Not my post.
The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass?
I don't think full gender parity in all careers is likely to happen, nor necessarily a worthy goal. Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity.
I assume by that you're saying that shaming people is ok if they "deserve" to be shamed.
You can't take the hacker news rule, "You should be civil to each other." and say it should apply it selectively to those who you agree with.
It doesn't make hacker news "better" to have only one viewpoint, by shaming all others because they don't match the mob approved groupthink of what right and wrong is.
Bad faith arguments wrapped in nice language are vastly more destructive to the conversation then a little foul language.
We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"
Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you.
> We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"
We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.
Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.
> Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.
If I express a viewpoint that has been proven wrong thousands of times, such as "Hitler did nothing wrong", I'm not seeking discussion, but rather seeking to annoy. That's obvious and not being civil.
If I hide insults in my argument, that's also not being civil.
However, if I express a controversial but novel opinion on a subject that is not closed, it shouldn't automatically be lumped into being the same as the first two categories.
It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's culture IMO. And yes, I do think those policies are wrong. There is a big difference between culture and policy though.
> Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity.
I agree 100%. The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality, and in fact may be the majority viewpoint depending on how this site is skewed. If this site fosters an environment where people with slightly abnormal yet nonextremist viewpoints are downvoted to oblivion, it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed. It's not a good environment, even if it matches the majority viewpoint at the time.
edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question:
>>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly?
This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues".
IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer.
> edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with.
So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important.
In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation.
I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
No. This is a massive strawman that is often repeated to justify the following counter-argument: "well, why aren't you complaining about all the other industries that don't have gender parity?", but it is not actually representative of the opposing viewpoint.
"The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.
use the downvote button then.
To deconstruct your comment:
>Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions.
Who is he being rude to? The hypothetical reader who believes all social progress made since 1960 was a mistake and Jim Crow was fine and good?
>There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted.
This isn't saying anything of substance. You are claiming some people have a more detailed opinion on gender equality than "it was bad in 1960/70" and is also not a bigot. This is just patently true... so what point are you trying to make??
So completely bereft of any meaningful contribution, the only thing left is some condescending tone policing. That's why I down-voted you.
It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away, I dont recall any studies. Just that is the usual assumption. The fact that male teachers tend to come up as ironical response (nor saying you are doing this) to female-in-tech topic suggest also contributing cultural reason. Non trivial amount of people finds idea of male working with children (except coach for some reason) funny or absurd.
They do. There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment.
> It is possible that money is not the only thing to keep males away
I know male teachers who have had to deal with sexism (the men as sexual predators stuff). A non trivial amount of people find men untrustworthy with children.
> They do. There are lots of ways to do that. Just none that are attractive to the pedagogic establishment.
I'm curious (growing up in Switzerland), which does pay it teachers highly (https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/201...): what about the Swiss approach to teacher salary is unappealing to the pedagogic establishment?
Could you elaborate?
Then it should be possible to have a subjective rating system that is accessible by consumers (parents, students) and employers (schools). Teachers that relatively rate well would benefit. Teachers that rate relatively poorly would have incentive to improve. Teachers that cannot improve could either be supported by their bosses for their good "intangibles" or be removed from their positions with better evidence than "Well, I think he is a bad teacher".
Thought experiment. Why doesn't this happen?
* Parents don't always have the ability to switch teachers or schools, so there's a lot of conflict of interest in providing publicly available feedback; students shouldn't suffer more because their teacher is called out for something.
* Unions absolutely don't want this. They get more power in numbers, so there's very little incentive to serve the top 10th percentile and introduce risk to the bottom 50th percentile.
* I don't see why the education regulators would care about this approach. Ask a regulator for solutions, and you'll get regulations (standardized testing, lunch nutrition standards, etc.).
* Teacher pay would have to be more subjective and negotiable (set by the superintendent or something). This means all the teacher contracts would have to be renegotiated.
* Teacher mobility is low. Jumping to a new district in a different state that takes good ratings seriously might actually involve a loss of seniority and a pay cut.
* New public schools aren't going to be started to "try this out". Private schools, maybe.
* So, ultimately, school districts don't tangibly benefit from a change like this. They benefit more from property values going up. Or from more student attendance.
* Finally, given all of the above, who will build Yelp/LinkedIn for teachers? It seems like a political hot potato with plenty of external barriers to actually working. Maybe legislators or regulators decide to design one by committee, but I'll be skeptical that they can create a product that gets any real traction that way.
I don't think it's a particularly great idea, to be clear. I'm just exploring why established parties aren't interested in change. And I don't say that to say everyone in education is uniquely greedy or self-interested. I think people in education often have noble hearts, but they're people at the end of the day, like the rest of us. Putting nobility at odds with economic interest limits achievement. We're all human, after all.
Then there are other cultural reasons that seems to be sa me in both cases - role models and societal idea of what is appropriate for males and females. The sexism in the assumption that gender x is less qualify is stated in both cases.
It seems to be roughly the same except completely unapplicable arguments?
Well, arguing that higher salaries
in tech would attract more women is
ridiculous, mainly because salaries
are high already.
You would be surprised then how common it is that men cite work culture issues when leaving the teaching profession. It is mentioned in the government report that I mentioned in a other comment.
Imagine a profession with incorporate gender identity into the work culture, and try to see what form of social BS it will produce for both men and women. Which one will would include beers and games?
Another issue is false accusations. I know personal anecdotes aren't a replacement for peer-reviewed data, but I tutor kids and have had my own mother ask me to stop because she is scared my life will eventually be ruined by a false accusation.
(source: I had an accident)
No amount of money will overcome "they suspect me to be predator" social pressure.
The similarities are very striking to me to those made about IT profession, but with the roles reversed.
Tasks that took all day in the 1900s - 1930s are now completely outdated or take minutes instead of hours. A housewife today would be bored out of her mind relative to how much work a 1900s era housewife had to do.
Making 3 meals from near-scratch for 6+ people every day, raising 6-10 children so they could help on the farm, making and hand cleaning your family's own clothes, fetching water because you did not have home plumbing, etc etc etc.
Today doing these tasks is either trivial or not necessary. Food prep has changed dramatically (freezers, microwaves, affordable food delivery, gas stoves, plumbing). As has the number of children because we no longer use child labor for farming.
The movement of women into jobs outside of the home was a change brought primarily through tech innovations. Not feminist protesting, a societal "wake up" or anything like that. Additionally calling a 1990s era housewife as "not in the labor force" is pretty condescending given how much work they did in the home.
The only thing we'd have to change is semantics. If house wives charged their husbands for their work, and vis-versa, then they could be 'employed' but nothing would have changed.
Women between the ages of 18 and 64 spent 18 fewer hours on housework each week in 2005 than they did in 1900. However, men aged 18-to-64 took up much of the slack, spending about 13 more hours on housework in 2005 than in 1900.
What has changed are the specific things they spend time on.
Having cleaning be easier similarly seems to raise cleaning standards.
If the children are assumed to possess free will, it is possible that the older ones' actions could result in an increase in the amount of work for the parent as they got older.
It is also possible to "raise" children one did not have biologically, and to have more than one child at a time biologically. Twelve children born together would be... tough. For a number of reasons.
The main issues were affording teachers, affording your kids to leave the farm, and affording transportation. The cost of books and classrooms was non-trivial for a long time as well.
Wikipedia reads that England had their agricultural revolution in the 16th century and the population boomed to 5.7 million by 1750. 
"The Elementary Education Act 1880 insisted on compulsory attendance from 5 to 10 years. For poorer families, ensuring their children attended school proved difficult, as it was more tempting to send them working if the opportunity to earn an extra income was available." 
The main issue with public education was that people didn't want it, hence compulsory attendance.
The British Empire ruled the world, and had an industrial revolution -
"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840" 
Something tells me given the choice to go work in a factory and make money, or go get educated - people chose to go make some money.
None of this had anything to do with technology not allowing the existence of public education - if anyone could afford it, it was the British Empire at the time. They just had other priorities - like bullying the world and trade. The usual capitalist stuff.
What were the technologies that made public education possible exactly?
Reading about USA during 1870-1916, USA was quite busy ruthlessly exploiting it's own people (what else is new), the thought of educating them was not a concern - making millions off the broken backs of your own people and building mansions was much more appealing.
"The lives of the people in the cities contrasted sharply.
A small percentage of them had enormous wealth and enjoyed lives of luxury. Below them economically, the larger middle class lived comfortably. But at the bottom of the economic ladder, a huge mass of city people lived in extreme poverty." 
Goes perfectly in line with what I've been saying before - capitalists are busy making profits - the British Empire from it's colonies, the USA from it's own people and the floods of immigrants. You know, you exploit what/who you can, it's a hard world out there.
Technology preventing public education? I've heard you need to not live in extreme poverty before public education is even an option for you.
Extreme poverty ended due to technological advancements too I suppose?
Britain had industrialized, had colonies all over the world, went to war with China over allowing to continue selling them opium in this time among other things.
Education was not a priority for them - they were busy exploiting everyone they could get their hands on.
If that sounds strangely familiar - it is because it is not unlike another country you know very well in modern times :)
That was nearly 200 years ago, we as a species haven't changed a whole lot it seems.
You can interpret 'afford' as "can literally pay for given any tradeoff" (I can afford a Mac Pro in that sense), or "can realistically make the tradeoffs" (short of cutting my 401k contribution, I don't have the money). Even in the first sense, you said nothing that implies that in the 16th century, the agricultural improvements that grew the population was large enough to spare children from agricultural work. All that population growth implies is that you've escaped the Malthusian trap. Going forward, my sense of the early industrial revolution was that families depended on the money from children's labor, though I could easily be wrong.
And you're totally right that homemaker/stay-at-home-parent should be represented in the workforce... developing software is cake compared to that workload.
I don't have kids, so I don't know just how tough the job is, but I'm always reminded of this funny clip when someone does mention it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJrMaFlxOk
If you just want the kid to make it to 18 without dying and develop an android app to show the user pictures of cats while harvesting their data then it won't take all that much effort.
Both those jobs can also be time black holes if you let them.
This is a false dichotomy.
More recent fears over men in proximity to kids probably reinforces this.
I've certainly heard the theory you suggest and it does seem to make sense. Perhaps the data doesn't show that because as smart women have 'left' teaching they've been backfilled by the additional women joining the workforce that didn't used to be there?
Interesting questions around the massively skewed jobs.
What happens to the structure of society when a larger fraction of intelligent people have access to higher education, the ability to easily relocate, and a financial incentive to work in finance, science, engineering, and applied-academia?
How does that impact legislative and executive politics, community groups, and education (direct and educating the educators)?
The tech community could certainly learn lessons from that campaign, both what to do and what not to do in order to try to balance out gender disparity in tech.
That has a chart for age by gender. The crossover point is about 55, which would be for the "generation" that graduated 30 years ago, or around 1987.
I'm pretty doubtful of veterinary graduates not entering the workforce or stopping after a few years. I'm certainly not personally aware of any, but I don't have the numbers. Their debt is absolutely crushing. It's currently pushing 180k, and since it's post graduate, the interest rate is in the 5-7% range.
Now I'm going to figure out how to twist this into fitting my own personal world view and then make a news article about it.
Here's one more thing that might be a confounding factor - taller people have higher salaries , and on average men are taller than women.
Maybe just a spurious correlation , but still interesting to think about.
The question I would like to know is how large the height factor is to other measurable effects.
She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study, which she conducted with Asaf Levanon, of the University of Haifa in Israel, and Paul Allison of the University of Pennsylvania, found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography.
Supply and demand as well. More workers willing to do a job means the offered pay can be lower. Sellers market VS buyers market.
Pretty straightforward supply and demand.
And work injures/deaths.
Study: Workforce Is Changing, Yet Same Old Injustice Remains
Is Your Daughter Thinking of Being a Carpenter? Don't Bet On It!
The Disappearing Culture of Male Shoe Machine Operators/Tenders
The Most Male-Dominated Professions On Earth
We Set Out To Find What Jobs Are the Most "Male" - Here's What Happened Next!
This One Job Outpaced All Others For Attracting Women
Study Reveals Gender Bias in Every Single Job - Here Are Some of the Worst... And the Not-So-Bad
Not cynical enough. 5/10
I know a guy who loves articles that do both though, so YMMV.
So, yes, it's an attempt to manipulate emotions, but it doesn't have to mean that the data doesn't support the overall point. A clickbaity headline isn't indicative of a bad article either, it just hints at the readership they're trying to attract.
I originally heard about this from Kevin Drum , but I was unable to track down the actual study he alludes to.
That said, he does link to an interview  with... an anecdote about the use of data: "We have an experiment of helping a starving child. A certain percentage of people help [by donating money to the kid]. Then we have another condition with a different group, same child, same situation, except we put the numbers of the statistics of starvation next to her picture, and the donations dropped in half."
Therefore, job position/title is not a confounding factor. Some confounding factors (which are well known and usually accounted for) are length of time at the job, education level and prior experience.
There is still a pay gap of ~5c/dollar adjusted. Non adjusted is 20c/dollar. There is no excuse for the adjusted discrepancy and the unadjusted discrepancy will require the crumbling of boys clubs.
"Computer" used to be a person crunching numbers using slide rules and mechanical calculators and it was an overwhelmingly female profession. When machines appeared, the operators were predominantly the same personnel that were doing it by hand earlier.
Even this was not easy though - programmers may have had to debug the pseudocode or a broken computer (not nearly as reliable as our modern ones). Once it was revealed it wasn't a straightforward process, men took over. My understanding is that this happened relatively quickly - in the 50s or 60s.
But, still, it was a job most people on here probably wouldn't care for.
If anyone has any good books on this subject, I would love some recommendations.
Their dataset shows it always being a male field - in fact, in 1970, it's even more male than now in their dataset. It shows a rise of women from '70 to '90, and then flat until today.
Since the launch of personal computers (the Altair in '71) was supposed to be the catalyst of the change of programming into a male field, I'm suprised to see the data directly contradicting that.
Perhaps it reflects a difference in job titles - "computer scientists" vs "programmers" if programming (the women's work) was titled separately because it was considered a more menial job.
The personal computer revolution is usually mentioned in connection with a different trend. Throughout the 70s the proportion of female computer science majors was steadily climbing, then somewhere around 1984 this trend broke . It's often said that this has something to do with video games becoming popular toys.
I basically went to the circles thing in the middle and started moving my mouse around till I found one that I thought might have been female dominated in the past, then I checked it in the box below.
Would be nice to get the data though.
I'd be surprised if you would find any job typically female since 50s other than perhaps being a housekeeper and child care.
All still more than 70% female:
Elementary school teacher
Registered nurses, also vocational nurses
I can tell you that when I was studying math (2008-2013), almost all of my professors were male. But maybe "university professor" isn't the only thing they include in their data set for mathematicians, but for physics maybe it is.
That could be explained as the data only goes back to 1970 (that I could see, apologies if there's a way to go back further that I missed).
Is there any publicly available data source that backs this up?
Another interesting metric might be: "Jobs that the gender distribution has remained the most static"
"Once Female, Shifting to majority male" to contrast the section "ONCE MALE, SHIFTING TO MAJORITY FEMALE"
1) Average salary, adjust the circles such that they change shape based based on this value.
2) Total $ spent on employing people in this occupation
3) Average cost to train someone in this occupation
It could get real interesting if you could intersect data like average salary with the number of people in a field, and the cost to benefit ratio of training v's income once on the job.
I think we all know what direction it would point in, but it'd be nice to see it regardless...and hey, maybe i'm wrong? [although we know that's unlikely here]
Haven't considered that, but might be the highest level of imbalance.
Some are also people to chat with.
Both are roles more often associated with females.
And they live off of tips, and since most drinkers are male, females do better there as well.
Even still, with all the "let's get more women in tech" stuff I read, are there initiatives to get women in the other jobs even further to the left on that graph? (largely physical labor jobs)
There are specific factors, such as the age of a company, the experience distribution/requirements, standard working arrangements (hours, overtime expectation, on-call) which are correlated with deviations from the mean.
No, people tend to be only interested in professions that are "hip" enough. Nobody is going to glamorize plumbers (even though they certainly should!).
Twice as many women were suggested they could take up a trade as wished that they were offered that opportunity .. but the article spins that as 24% weren't suggested to take up a trade.
I live in UK and was never given any career guidance, I wish a trade had been offered to me too; I'm not sure that's a difference based on sex though.
I hate the common form "these women weren't given X, it's horribly sexist" without comparison to show it was even different for men at all.
Anything to make the sale.
It's almost as if your own individual experiences are not indicative of population-level trends at large
"It's almost as if you don't understand that rudeness is about the tone instead of the content".
"It looks like you're trying to move the goalposts; would you like some help with that?"
"> 'It's not patronizing - it's pointing out a basic statistical fact' Interesting how you think the two are mutually exclusive."
yes... yes it has :)
You could, but might face liability. Also, perhaps not a full time job but also not easy to schedule. So you'd be paying someone to sit around 90% of the time.
(I shared it in my work slack, mind you I don't work in Bay Area and we haven't had trouble with aggressive political correctness etc yet)
Imagine a school shooting happened where you were recently and then some shared an article about the distribution of school shootings around the country on company chat. Just not a good thing to do.