However the argument that we should put our focus based on how high the gender unequal distribution is is an fascinating argument since here in Sweden we have a perfect record of every employed person profession (as part of the tax record). We can list every professions and their gender distribution, and naturally very few of the stem professions are at top or even in the top 20. Worst two professions (of each gender) had midwife and floor tile worker at both >99.4% of each representative gender.
The data for female dominated professions was midwife and dentist at 99.6% and above, with pediatric at 98%. For male dominated profession at 99%-98% it is tile worker, mechanic, thin plate worker, carpenter, concrete worker, electrician, and last plumber. With 90% of people working in a profession with less than 40% women or 40% men, IT with a distribution of 81%/19% is quite average and unremarkable on the list. molecular biology, being in that small 10%, is much more remarkable because it actually has a gender equal distribution.
Therefore, for either side to claim that the "simplest explanation is misogyny" or "simplest explanation is preferences" is seen as unconvincing to the opponent.
As per that, your use of misogyny to mean something apart from ingrained dislike or contempt for women is wrong.
You're using misogyny as if its a synonym for any expression of differing attitudes to men and women, regardless of if the outcome is good or bad, and if the participants feel happy or poorly about the situation.
That colloquial usage is utterly disqualified if you want to turn this into a formal argument.
And I agree with you in a lot of things, including that we should make workplaces more inclusive.
But being right does not entitle you to be rude, passive agressive, using various tricks to silence everyone.
Think about this: if someone else behaved like you are doing now (edit: in this whole thread) - and wasn't a celebrity or otherwise safe - they might very well have to face unpleasant consequences (edit: was something like might very well have to find a new job).
Usernames, and personalities, are very de-emphasized on HN.
I'm also uncertain what issue you have with their behaviour?
I'm very interested in looking at the raw numbers.
Thank you.
Labour market - The Swedish Occupational Register
Great resource.
Thank you!
A taste: (unfortunately I can't link to the actual report)
Gender pay-gap in IT related fields is <5% (for the same occupation and education) vs 10 to 20% for the general private sector.
Or we could stop acting as if the metric at the end is what we need to equalize, look at it only as an indicator, and then find issues to fix. If 19/81 is caused by some actual sort of discrimination, we can fix which ever issues we identify. Just as we can with the 66/33 split.
C'mon man. You're better than that.
I too have seen tptacek communicate a lot better than today.
It is a direct result of patriarchal social attitudes combined with the fact that nursing is perceived as a subordinate role to medicine, and therefore beneath men.
So it's actually a manifestation of the same broad social problem as the disparity in tech, rather than the mirror image.
The American Association of Men in Nursing: http://www.aamn.org/
The Campaign for Nursing’s Future: https://www.discovernursing.com/men-in-nursing
Minority Nurse: http://minoritynurse.com/
Oregon Center for Nursing: http://oregoncenterfornursing.org/nursing-posters/
Hint - it has to do with getting in the medical school.
Notice what was written. It was not >50%. It was better than 50%
> and some STEM fields, like molecular biology, have better than 50% representation of women.
not ">50%"
not "more than 50%"
not "higher than 50%"
but "better than 50%"
Of all the variations, only the last one has a moral value attached to it.
If you can think of a way of making things fairer for men, without making things worse for women at the same time I'm all for it.
How so? It's not even established that an unequal gender ratio is "sexism" at all.