Do the men employed as nurses make less money on average than their women colleagues?
This is not necessarily a good thing as unions basically underpay star performers and overpay bad performers. whether or not that is a good thing is your own opinion.
No. Male nurses make way more than female nurses, on average. A big contributor to this is that male nurses are far more likely to be CRNAs than female nurses and CRNAs are the highest-paid nurse specialty (and requires a graduate degree).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_nursing
So male registered nurses in the US appear to be a solid single digit in terms of percentage. Wikipedia says 6.6%. The internet says CRNAs are 41-43% male.
So a very small number of male nurses, and a majority of them becoming CRNAs, and so the average pay for male nurses is higher than the female average. But really, I bet the 59% female CRNAs are being paid the same.
This is the problem with looking at averages only. If men are being prefered over women in the CRNA program, there is a problem. If female CRNAs are paid less on average than male CRNAs there is a problem. But the average alone tells you nothing. It definitely doesn't give you enough information to show you which part needs fixing.
You're looking at the finish line and making an answer while ignoring the fact that they are placed on different courses from birth.
The biological explanation is, by far, the Occam's razor null hypothesis here. To be convincing, you would need to supply compelling evidence that children who have unusually low contact with traditional societal influence early in life make less predictable employment choices. Otherwise, this is a just-so story like all the rest of them.
Or find 'male' roles in some cultures that aren't in others like programming.
My argument is that you cannot expect uniform distribution of career choices either by race or gender.
You can't expect exactly 13% of cops to be african american or exactly 50% of physicists to be female.
Let's look at hispanics and asians.
Asians outnumber hispanics in STEM 9:1
Hispanics outnumber asians in History 3:1
Don't have links to hard sources at hand since I'm on mobile, but even anecdotally I think almost anyone would agree that hispanics are outnumbered by asians in STEM.
Ethnic chinese are strong in STEM not just in US, but almost anywhere. You can take any country with a significant chinese diaspora and you'll see the results are about the same.
Can you make a compelling counterargument that hispanics are brought up in a way that specifically encourages them to learn History?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? That culture pushes people to certain expectations? I agree.
The definition of the role is at least somewhat different today. It could also have something to do with the wide availability of women who were trained typists in the '50s and '60s, as keyboards were used to punch cards/tape.
I won't purport to be an expert on exactly how that phenomenon came about, I've not seen a satisfactory explanation of it.
I don't work in sales so perhaps someone better qualified can comment, but isn't the stereotype that the culture in sales is like that of fraternities? I can imagine how that's probably not welcoming to women, especially when the sales revolves around social relationships.
I know of women who are paid more than me in tech, and I know why. I know of women who are paid less than me, and I can think of n reasons why.
As for sheer numbers, ask yourself: are there any industries where there are considerably fewer men than women? The answer is, of course, yes. Look at nursing. In the most gender-equitable societies on the planet, I'm talking the Norways and Swedens of the world, you'll see 80-90% female involvement in nursing. Look at construction. In those same societies, you will see almost the exact opposite, probably even greater disparities. Look at sales departments, I don't know a single woman who likes sales work, and I know at least a few who have given it a serious try. I'm sure there are some, but you won't convince me that it's the norm without hard data. On the flip side of that, I grew up with guys who love working with their hands in construction, and who like that it's honest work.
My intuition is that men and women(real, living individual men and women) are different in some way which drives them to prefer different work based on schedules, the way their job has them interact with people, the amount of solitary vs. collaborative work, work-life balance, and hosts of other complex differences.
As for harassment, I find it hard to believe that tech is a particularly bad place for it. I would believe you if you said that startups are prone to harassment (HR vacuum). Until I see a non-partisan study with an appreciable number of respondents, a consistent rubric for assessing individual situations, I will continue to believe what I see in person.
No CNET or USA Today article is going to convince me that it's a problem in itself that there is a statistical difference between the average yearly earnings of different cohorts. I'm sure married and unmarried people make different amounts of money on average. I'm sure people with and without kids make different amounts of money on average. Nothing about those statistics says that there is a discriminatory or unfair advantage. If you could prove that a major company is systematically underpaying women for work of equivalent holistic value, then it would be the case of the decade; this case has clearly never happened, because if it ever did, it would be an outrage, and at very least the people making this argument would be pointing at it every time they got a chance.
And I know you'll downvote this before reading it through, but maybe the first few open-minded people will get a chance to reflect. I can spare a few HN hivemind cohesion points.