|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 22 2017 06:38 bardtown wrote:
You really need to rewatch the documentary or you're just going to dig yourself a deeper hole. His study did not only measure which occupations the different genders pursued, but also which they were interested in. As you say - it is impossible to control for all the different variables across those cultures, so the fact that they were interested in the same things across every single country strongly implies a biological foundation. Again, men and women were consistently interested in the same things across all the surveyed countries. In wealthy, liberal countries, these interests were more closely aligned with their actual occupations.
The alternative, of course, is your theory that every single society in the world indoctrinates men and women into the exact same preferences to the exact same extent. Convincing.
Again, I don't need to rewatch anything -- I clearly explained to you why that pseudo-documentary is garbage and presents a completely deformed picture of the state of scientific research on those issues. Secondly, it's not "his study", it's a study by Camilla Schreiner (and Svein Sjøberg), and other researchers have studied the same issue and included other countries, sometimes with slightly different results (see for example the work of Fredrik Jensen and Fazilat Siddiq Ullah). More importantly, though, you still don't understand what controlling for variables means, and you don't even seem to understand what the study actually says. It does not say that interests are stable "across every single country", it says the opposite (look it up). Schreiner's study shows that her data indicates a general tendency according to which the more developed countries are, the more interests tend to diverge between the two genders.
The idea pushed by the author of the documentary is that this is explained by innate biological preferences, which can reveal themselves the most in countries where people are as free to choose their own paths as possible. The problem is that this assertion is not supported by any evidence, and that cultural factors that can hardly be controlled for and that are not analyzed in the study (because it's not its point) can entirely explain the findings. I already mentioned that gender stereotypes and gender norms are prevalent in all of the countries surveyed, and while you could expect that the countries where some progress has been made against gender stereotypes would lead men and women to have closer interests and career paths all other things being equal, the problem is precisely that "all other things" are not equal, that is to say other independent variables change as well in addition to the "prevalence of gender norms" variable. For example, the need to escape poverty (and sometimes, for women, submission to men) in less developed countries can lead both genders to gravitate towards interests linked to higher-paying jobs, for example in technology. In developed countries, this pressure is reduced due to the development of the welfare state, and interests and career paths can therefore comparatively be much more impacted by gender norms, even if the latter are less marked than in other countries, because competing influences (needing to escape poverty) on choices are much less prevalent. This is only one example -- the study doesn't seek to explain the factors explaining the differences that are observed (others have pointed precisely to the cultural factors I just mentioned, as I evoked in a previous post), and certainly does not make any claim pertaining to the role of "biology". In other words, you're still making assertions that are not supported by evidence or research, and you still don't understand the subject matter.
|
On May 22 2017 22:47 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 22:45 Vivax wrote:On May 22 2017 20:31 Velr wrote:On May 22 2017 18:20 Wegandi wrote:On May 22 2017 17:58 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 17:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 22 2017 17:22 Simberto wrote:On May 22 2017 17:11 opisska wrote:Gotland I can see having issues, the islands are ironically the obvious problematic places, even though they are surrounded by a lot of water  Talking about nuclear energy, there is really no need for any new and shiny technology. The water cooled reactors are incredibly safe, unless you build one next to the ocean in a seismically active area I guess - and even then, I think Fukushima would have been much less of a disaster if the contingency plan was simply "let it melt down" and the building was ready for that, instead of pouring in more and more water in a cooling effort that ended up being futile (and only produced a lot of radioactive water and actually powered the steam explosion). From purely environmental point of view, nuclear energy is much better than "renewables", because wind turbines are a huge bird killer and solar on a larger scale covers a lot of landscape, while nuclear is just one big group of buildings. Also, to be fair, radiation disasters on Chernobyl/Fukushima scales do not really harm the environment in the large picture (they harm people and some big mammals and that's it). The big problem with nuclear is the waste storage. You have to find some place that is not gonna leak the waste for a few thousands to a few hundred thousand years, depending on what type of waste you store there. That is not easy, and so far we have no good solution. I think that that is a problem that one should figure out before producing even more waste that noone knows what to do with. I don't think it is an impossible challenge, but it definitively a major thing that needs to be resolved. I think if you want more nuclear, you should also commit to major investments in research regarding the waste disposal. You're not up with the times and technology. Water-cooled reactors that utilize rods actually have most of the fissile material in a usable form for things like MSR's and other newer advances in reactor technology. In other words, the radioactive actinides that compose the "waste" from "spent" rods (read: cracked, but materially useful in other fission reactor technologies) are really just fuel for the next gen reactors. The next gen reactors themselves also have minimal storage requirements (beyond the fact that spent material is only radioactive for a couple hundred centuries instead of millenia). So, yeah, that problem is relatively solved (the technologies are mostly there; it's up to economies of scale to kick in and also beat back the luddite (or if you prefer anti-science) hysteria surrounding nuclear). While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I didn't expect this argument from you, especially given the security issues of "easy" weaponization of the waste of next-gen reactors. ....Swiss can live in the dark ages - I just have to beat the environmental luddites in the US back by the bushels. :p Somehow Austria is doing just fine whiteout Nuclear. Most likely it will become more expensive or otherwise not "clean" but saying "no nuclear = return to dark Ages" is as ignorant as it gets. We're doing fine without it is an optimistic way to put it. We're importing a small percentage (6% is an estimate by e-control.at) , I'm actually surprised that it is so small. Countries that have temperate Alpine terrain (steep mountains with a lot of rain) are in no place to lecture the others about clean electricity, because we simply can't magically conjure up the appropriate rivers to make so much hydro power. Heck we just talked about how even Sweden doesn't have that much water anymore ...
You do realize that this is historically grown out of a lack of other resources like coal or other fossil fuels. Hydro power has never been the cheapest form of energy production and is quite controversial when it comes to its effects on land (like nature reserves). So yeah, Austria has a lot of hydro power, but it was also paid for and we do have quite some problems nowadays with Germany extensively producing energy cheaply from coal and therefore making it hard in border regions (i.e. the whole West of Austria) to get investments in renewables going. Which is hard enough to begin with since the country is pretty badly suited for wind, solar and obviously unsuited for tidal power and all the decent hydro power spots have been exploited.
|
Nature vs Nurture is one of the oldest debates in the study of human development. One could argue that it is the core question in that field. No single documentary or set of studies are going to crack that question wide open and solve it. I don’t know why debates on this site devolve down to debating a single study as the final answer or completely invalid.
|
Zurich15345 Posts
On May 22 2017 23:20 Plansix wrote:
Nature vs Nurture is one of the oldest debates in the study of human development. One could argue that it is the core question in that field. No single documentary or set of studies are going to crack that question wide open and solve it. I don’t know why debates on this site devolve down to debating a single study as the final answer or completely invalid.
Or, why that takes place in the European politics thread. As fascinating as the issue is, I would like us to get back on topic.
|
On May 22 2017 23:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 22:47 opisska wrote:On May 22 2017 22:45 Vivax wrote:On May 22 2017 20:31 Velr wrote:On May 22 2017 18:20 Wegandi wrote:On May 22 2017 17:58 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 17:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 22 2017 17:22 Simberto wrote:On May 22 2017 17:11 opisska wrote:Gotland I can see having issues, the islands are ironically the obvious problematic places, even though they are surrounded by a lot of water Talking about nuclear energy, there is really no need for any new and shiny technology. The water cooled reactors are incredibly safe, unless you build one next to the ocean in a seismically active area I guess - and even then, I think Fukushima would have been much less of a disaster if the contingency plan was simply "let it melt down" and the building was ready for that, instead of pouring in more and more water in a cooling effort that ended up being futile (and only produced a lot of radioactive water and actually powered the steam explosion). From purely environmental point of view, nuclear energy is much better than "renewables", because wind turbines are a huge bird killer and solar on a larger scale covers a lot of landscape, while nuclear is just one big group of buildings. Also, to be fair, radiation disasters on Chernobyl/Fukushima scales do not really harm the environment in the large picture (they harm people and some big mammals and that's it). The big problem with nuclear is the waste storage. You have to find some place that is not gonna leak the waste for a few thousands to a few hundred thousand years, depending on what type of waste you store there. That is not easy, and so far we have no good solution. I think that that is a problem that one should figure out before producing even more waste that noone knows what to do with. I don't think it is an impossible challenge, but it definitively a major thing that needs to be resolved. I think if you want more nuclear, you should also commit to major investments in research regarding the waste disposal. You're not up with the times and technology. Water-cooled reactors that utilize rods actually have most of the fissile material in a usable form for things like MSR's and other newer advances in reactor technology. In other words, the radioactive actinides that compose the "waste" from "spent" rods (read: cracked, but materially useful in other fission reactor technologies) are really just fuel for the next gen reactors. The next gen reactors themselves also have minimal storage requirements (beyond the fact that spent material is only radioactive for a couple hundred centuries instead of millenia). So, yeah, that problem is relatively solved (the technologies are mostly there; it's up to economies of scale to kick in and also beat back the luddite (or if you prefer anti-science) hysteria surrounding nuclear). While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I didn't expect this argument from you, especially given the security issues of "easy" weaponization of the waste of next-gen reactors. ....Swiss can live in the dark ages - I just have to beat the environmental luddites in the US back by the bushels. :p Somehow Austria is doing just fine whiteout Nuclear. Most likely it will become more expensive or otherwise not "clean" but saying "no nuclear = return to dark Ages" is as ignorant as it gets. We're doing fine without it is an optimistic way to put it. We're importing a small percentage (6% is an estimate by e-control.at) , I'm actually surprised that it is so small. Countries that have temperate Alpine terrain (steep mountains with a lot of rain) are in no place to lecture the others about clean electricity, because we simply can't magically conjure up the appropriate rivers to make so much hydro power. Heck we just talked about how even Sweden doesn't have that much water anymore ... You do realize that this is historically grown out of a lack of other resources like coal or other fossil fuels. Hydro power has never been the cheapest form of energy production and is quite controversial when it comes to its effects on land (like nature reserves). So yeah, Austria has a lot of hydro power, but it was also paid for and we do have quite some problems nowadays with Germany extensively producing energy cheaply from coal and therefore making it hard in border regions (i.e. the whole West of Austria) to get investments in renewables going. Which is hard enough to begin with since the country is pretty badly suited for wind, solar and obviously unsuited for tidal power and all the decent hydro power spots have been exploited.
Same problem in Switzerland, Watherpower is very expensive atm due to cheap coal and massive subsidies to other renewables mainly in Germany.
Just maling existing damns bigger would be possible but have fun fighting the enviromentalists.
|
On May 22 2017 23:28 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 23:17 Big J wrote:On May 22 2017 22:47 opisska wrote:On May 22 2017 22:45 Vivax wrote:On May 22 2017 20:31 Velr wrote:On May 22 2017 18:20 Wegandi wrote:On May 22 2017 17:58 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 17:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 22 2017 17:22 Simberto wrote:On May 22 2017 17:11 opisska wrote:Gotland I can see having issues, the islands are ironically the obvious problematic places, even though they are surrounded by a lot of water Talking about nuclear energy, there is really no need for any new and shiny technology. The water cooled reactors are incredibly safe, unless you build one next to the ocean in a seismically active area I guess - and even then, I think Fukushima would have been much less of a disaster if the contingency plan was simply "let it melt down" and the building was ready for that, instead of pouring in more and more water in a cooling effort that ended up being futile (and only produced a lot of radioactive water and actually powered the steam explosion). From purely environmental point of view, nuclear energy is much better than "renewables", because wind turbines are a huge bird killer and solar on a larger scale covers a lot of landscape, while nuclear is just one big group of buildings. Also, to be fair, radiation disasters on Chernobyl/Fukushima scales do not really harm the environment in the large picture (they harm people and some big mammals and that's it). The big problem with nuclear is the waste storage. You have to find some place that is not gonna leak the waste for a few thousands to a few hundred thousand years, depending on what type of waste you store there. That is not easy, and so far we have no good solution. I think that that is a problem that one should figure out before producing even more waste that noone knows what to do with. I don't think it is an impossible challenge, but it definitively a major thing that needs to be resolved. I think if you want more nuclear, you should also commit to major investments in research regarding the waste disposal. You're not up with the times and technology. Water-cooled reactors that utilize rods actually have most of the fissile material in a usable form for things like MSR's and other newer advances in reactor technology. In other words, the radioactive actinides that compose the "waste" from "spent" rods (read: cracked, but materially useful in other fission reactor technologies) are really just fuel for the next gen reactors. The next gen reactors themselves also have minimal storage requirements (beyond the fact that spent material is only radioactive for a couple hundred centuries instead of millenia). So, yeah, that problem is relatively solved (the technologies are mostly there; it's up to economies of scale to kick in and also beat back the luddite (or if you prefer anti-science) hysteria surrounding nuclear). While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I didn't expect this argument from you, especially given the security issues of "easy" weaponization of the waste of next-gen reactors. ....Swiss can live in the dark ages - I just have to beat the environmental luddites in the US back by the bushels. :p Somehow Austria is doing just fine whiteout Nuclear. Most likely it will become more expensive or otherwise not "clean" but saying "no nuclear = return to dark Ages" is as ignorant as it gets. We're doing fine without it is an optimistic way to put it. We're importing a small percentage (6% is an estimate by e-control.at) , I'm actually surprised that it is so small. Countries that have temperate Alpine terrain (steep mountains with a lot of rain) are in no place to lecture the others about clean electricity, because we simply can't magically conjure up the appropriate rivers to make so much hydro power. Heck we just talked about how even Sweden doesn't have that much water anymore ... You do realize that this is historically grown out of a lack of other resources like coal or other fossil fuels. Hydro power has never been the cheapest form of energy production and is quite controversial when it comes to its effects on land (like nature reserves). So yeah, Austria has a lot of hydro power, but it was also paid for and we do have quite some problems nowadays with Germany extensively producing energy cheaply from coal and therefore making it hard in border regions (i.e. the whole West of Austria) to get investments in renewables going. Which is hard enough to begin with since the country is pretty badly suited for wind, solar and obviously unsuited for tidal power and all the decent hydro power spots have been exploited. Same problem in Switzerland, Watherpower is very expensive atm due to cheap coal and massive subsidies to other renewables mainly in Germany. Just maling existing damns bigger would be possible but have fun fighting the enviromentalists.
I mean, I do agree that sometimes it sounds stupid when enviromentalists are against hydro power, but in essence the reason why we want to protect the climate is that we want to preserve the biosphere. If you flood large areas of it to create clean energy you are also counteracting your original intention. The basic problem simply is that we need too many resources in the West. Transforming our energy system is only part of the deal, reducing our ecological footprint and energy hunger while the third world population and their footprint/capita are rising is the other side of the story.
|
Energy consumption has been going down in Europe. Public policy to further decrease it isn't always easy tho. Carbon taxes aren't popular. Encouraging higher urbanization isn't either and many EU countries are already very urban. My proposal is to encourage all Nordic retirees to move to Portugal - they'd be happier, consume less energy and we would close the gap to the more advanced EU economies. win-win-win. We have one of the lowest energy consumptions in the EU and are among the best in % from renewables (inc hydro).
|
On May 22 2017 23:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 06:38 bardtown wrote:
You really need to rewatch the documentary or you're just going to dig yourself a deeper hole. His study did not only measure which occupations the different genders pursued, but also which they were interested in. As you say - it is impossible to control for all the different variables across those cultures, so the fact that they were interested in the same things across every single country strongly implies a biological foundation. Again, men and women were consistently interested in the same things across all the surveyed countries. In wealthy, liberal countries, these interests were more closely aligned with their actual occupations.
The alternative, of course, is your theory that every single society in the world indoctrinates men and women into the exact same preferences to the exact same extent. Convincing. Again, I don't need to rewatch anything -- I clearly explained to you why that pseudo-documentary is garbage and presents a completely deformed picture of the state of scientific research on those issues. Secondly, it's not "his study", it's a study by Camilla Schreiner (and Svein Sjøberg), and other researchers have studied the same issue and included other countries, sometimes with slightly different results (see for example the work of Fredrik Jensen and Fazilat Siddiq Ullah). More importantly, though, you still don't understand what controlling for variables means, and you don't even seem to understand what the study actually says. It does not say that interests are stable "across every single country", it says the opposite (look it up). Schreiner's study shows that her data indicates a general tendency according to which the more developed countries are, the more interests tend to diverge between the two genders. The idea pushed by the author of the documentary is that this is explained by innate biological preferences, which can reveal themselves the most in countries where people are as free to choose their own paths as possible. The problem is that this assertion is not supported by any evidence, and that cultural factors that can hardly be controlled for and that are not analyzed in the study (because it's not its point) can entirely explain the findings. I already mentioned that gender stereotypes and gender norms are prevalent in all of the countries surveyed, and while you could expect that the countries where some progress has been made against gender stereotypes would lead men and women to have closer interests and career paths all other things being equal, the problem is precisely that "all other things" are not equal, that is to say other independent variables change as well in addition to the "prevalence of gender norms" variable. For example, the need to escape poverty (and sometimes, for women, submission to men) in less developed countries can lead both genders to gravitate towards interests linked to higher-paying jobs, for example in technology. In developed countries, this pressure is reduced due to the development of the welfare state, and interests and career paths can therefore comparatively be much more impacted by gender norms, even if the latter are less marked than in other countries, because competing influences (needing to escape poverty) on choices are much less prevalent. This is only one example -- the study doesn't seek to explain the factors explaining the differences that are observed (others have pointed precisely to the cultural factors I just mentioned, as I evoked in a previous post), and certainly does not make any claim pertaining to the role of "biology". In other words, you're still making assertions that are not supported by evidence or research, and you still don't understand the subject matter.
You're jousting at windmills because you're not even referring to the right study, and you've missed the point for the third time in a row. Their career choices change across cultures, their preferences do not change. You can conclude from this one of two things, either
a) gender preferences have a biological foundation, or
b) every existent concoction of cultural factors gives rise to the exact same gender preferences.
I am for the former, you are for the latter, because it is your contention that culture has a significant impact on the career preferences of different genders. You're essentially a gender flat earther. Maybe it's all a giant conspiracy theory where the governments of every country in the world fine tune their parameters so that women exhibit the exact same preferences - but maybe, just maybe, males and females are actually different. You know, like in every other species.
The reason this comes up in the European politics thread is because misinformed people (and ideologically driven people who like to misinform) are pushing illiberal political agendas. Generally speaking you get the claim that women are disadvantaged because, for example, they do not make up 50% of computer scientists; therefore we have an obligation to discriminate in their favour. If, however, it is the case that there is no systematic disadvantaging of women and this is simply down to preference, then the result is that you end up discriminating against men and bribing women into professions they don't particularly want to be in. If there was no political agenda behind this then it wouldn't be interesting at all. By and large I think most people are quite happy that their preferences are their own.
|
Nuclear reactors to power desalination efforts and making reservoirs of natural fish farms?
Energy consumption for domestic needs don't need to end at people when the state could direct plans to solve other problems. California in the US could really use this but I don't think it's possible for making the profit streams work without a large government involvement like euro states would be able to.
|
On May 23 2017 00:05 bardtown wrote:
The reason this comes up in the European politics thread is because misinformed people (and ideologically driven people who like to misinform) are pushing illiberal political agendas. Generally speaking you get the claim that women are disadvantaged because, for example, they do not make up 50% of computer scientists; therefore we have an obligation to discriminate in their favour. If, however, it is the case that there is no systematic disadvantaging of women and this is simply down to preference, then the result is that you end up discriminating against men and bribing women into professions they don't particularly want to be in. If there was no political agenda behind this then it wouldn't be interesting at all. By and large I think most people are quite happy that their preferences are their own.
Not really. There is good analysis on the topic that filters out all the reasonable arguments why it is ok to have a wage gap (less experience due to pregnancy, different type of job etc.). Turns out that after you adjust for all sorts of qualification arguments there is still a large part that remains unexplained, i.e. same qualification, same job, less pay if you are a woman.
Since you are speaking about illiberal ideologists, it turns out that for the person suffering from that state there is absolutely no difference whether it is the state that enforces something or their company or someone else like a family member. The reality that market ideologists just love to deny is that market forces are not some sort of universal, fast-deployed superpowers that fix everything in society to the better in short time frames. If the status quo is not doesn't give real equality of chances than the future status will obviously not be one of equal chance either.
|
Iirc the number before further study is close to 30% and after a bit under 10%, but thats the problem, no one atm can explain these 10% so counteracting them is damn near impossible.
It doesn't seem to be "badwill" or outright discrimination.
What I would try to fight is uneven pay among professions that both require the same hours/diploma and so forth, here male dominated fields tend to pay much better.
|
On May 23 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
Iirc the number before further study is close to 30% and after a bit under 10%, but thats the problem, no one atm can explain these 10% so counteracting them is damn near impossible.
It doesn't seem to be "badwill" or outright discrimination.
What I would try to fight is uneven pay among professions that both require the same hours/diploma and so forth, here male dominated fields tend to pay much better.
If you translate that into policy it would be a request for an inconceivable amount of money. Skills that are more in demand have higher market value. The time taken to learn those skills is not really the relevant factor. I'm even understating the effect, actually. Let's say you peg pay to a median value; the result will be a massive increase in public sector expenditure and a simultaneous exodus of frontier field expertise and tax revenue. In a word, crippling.
It's right to look for the unexplained discrepancy of course (which I understood to be around 5% IIRC), but it might be a lot of interacting factors that can't be identified for all the noise in the system.
|
Norway28678 Posts
Meh. There are indigenous tribes and smaller communities where gender roles are reversed, where women hunt, men cook. I accept your argument though, I think there certainly are differences between the genders. I also subscribe to the thought that if you examine all human societies and find commonalities between them all, then this is a good indicator that something about that particular behavioral trait is 'natural'.
That said, I kinda feel like you're also jousting at windmills a bit. There really aren't all that many people who want equality in every way across the board. What most people want is equal opportunity in every way across the board. And then we think that if only 5% of car mechanics are women, then that's the type of gender imbalance hinders women who actually really would like to be car mechanics. It can make it hard for them to be open about their desire to be car mechanics (this is probably just as bad for guys in masculine societies who want 'feminine' jobs though), etc. The goal of equal representation has been considered a necessity for the goal of equal opportunity, even if that might seem a little backwards.
Harald Eia isn't necessarily saying that biology is the dominant factor. He's saying it's a factor. The thing is, mostly everybody agrees with this. My dad is a fairly radical children's pedagogue who most certainly believes that cultural factors are by far most significant in determining gender roles. But I've had these discussions with him on many occasions, and he by no means discounts biology. Sure, there are more radical people than him, but they're hardly influential. I kinda feel like Harald Eia's argument, because he somewhat misconstrues the opinions of some gender researchers to make it sound like their opinions are weird enough to warrant ridicule (this didn't come out in the translation, but he's arguably Norway's funniest man person), ends up creating a discussion that was hardly there. Because in reality, while people find themselves located on various places of the 'nature vs nurture being more important in determining gender roles'-scale, virtually nobody actually argues that biological or cultural factors are non-factors. People on the cultural side will argue that there's no way of accurately determining how significant the biological factors are (certainly true based on current knowledge), people on the biological side will argue that biology is still a factor (also certainly seems true, even if one doesn't accept that there are gender differences between brains then it's still hard to argue against 'physically strong people will find heavy construction work easier than what the case is for physically weak people').
Like, affirmative action has never been supposed to be a permanent thing. It's supposed to be a temporary measure to reverse some of the cultural factors that make men (or white people) dominant within a particular profession. In Norway, where gender equality has gotten so far that women are more successful than men in many ways, we've started discussing pro-male affirmative action. I also think it's something that can't be fully evaluated before it has been in place for at least a generation (or two), cultural factors don't necessarily change any faster than that. But I'm also fine with trying affirmative action, trying various policies that promote gender equality/diversity, and if seeing that these policies didn't actually change anything, concluding that hey, maybe cultural factors weren't most important in this particular instance. But I'm not fine with seeing 90% of CEO's are men, and concluding that women just don't care about leadership roles, which is self-evident when examining virtually every society that has ever existed because they've all been led by men.
I also think this discussion, while not specifically relevant to the european politics and economics thread, is relevant to mostly all political discussions everywhere (the nature vs nurture debate is one of the central debates, up there with free will), and Hjernevask is actually a good point of departure for a discussion. But people need to realize that Harald Eia does have an agenda of making biological factors more important than mainstream norwegian academics focusing on gender studies (and other aspects of sociology) think it is, and some of this is expressed through the editing of statements by those academics to make them sound less nuanced and more ridiculous than what was the case.
|
On May 23 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
Iirc the number before further study is close to 30% and after a bit under 10%, but thats the problem, no one atm can explain these 10% so counteracting them is damn near impossible.
It doesn't seem to be "badwill" or outright discrimination.
What I would try to fight is uneven pay among professions that both require the same hours/diploma and so forth, here male dominated fields tend to pay much better.
Yeah, the numbers for Austria are somewhat there (somwhere in the 22-25% region with <10% after filtering for a ton of criteria; but according to the right-wing media this is obviously because the Head of Austrian Statistics is socialdemocratic affiliated, although they couldn't point out any methodical error)
Going by qualification is pretty much impossible, isn't it? It's a market economy, the market pays for what it needs. You can probably only downgrade the higher paying male-dominated jobs like that. If you try to upgrade, the smaller companies probably can't do it and the bigger ones are out of state-control.
|
On May 23 2017 01:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
Iirc the number before further study is close to 30% and after a bit under 10%, but thats the problem, no one atm can explain these 10% so counteracting them is damn near impossible.
It doesn't seem to be "badwill" or outright discrimination.
What I would try to fight is uneven pay among professions that both require the same hours/diploma and so forth, here male dominated fields tend to pay much better. If you translate that into policy it would be a request for an inconceivable amount of money. Skills that are more in demand have higher market value. The time taken to learn those skills is not really the relevant factor. I'm even understating the effect, actually. Let's say you peg pay to a median value; the result will be a massive increase in public sector expenditure and a simultaneous exodus of frontier field expertise and tax revenue. In a word, crippling. It's right to look for the unexplained discrepancy of course (which I understood to be around 5% IIRC), but it might be a lot of interacting factors that can't be identified for all the noise in the system.
But thats the joke, Teachers (non university/tradeschool), Nurses and tons of Women driven jobs are very high in demand yet often also hace clear rules of how much someone earns. Now compare this to Jobs that need similar dedication to be done good in the "male dominated sphere". Its often not even close.... but to be fair, truely shitty, dangerous and hard jobs are near 100% male dominated and no one crys.
|
On May 23 2017 01:12 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 01:06 bardtown wrote:On May 23 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
Iirc the number before further study is close to 30% and after a bit under 10%, but thats the problem, no one atm can explain these 10% so counteracting them is damn near impossible.
It doesn't seem to be "badwill" or outright discrimination.
What I would try to fight is uneven pay among professions that both require the same hours/diploma and so forth, here male dominated fields tend to pay much better. If you translate that into policy it would be a request for an inconceivable amount of money. Skills that are more in demand have higher market value. The time taken to learn those skills is not really the relevant factor. I'm even understating the effect, actually. Let's say you peg pay to a median value; the result will be a massive increase in public sector expenditure and a simultaneous exodus of frontier field expertise and tax revenue. In a word, crippling. It's right to look for the unexplained discrepancy of course (which I understood to be around 5% IIRC), but it might be a lot of interacting factors that can't be identified for all the noise in the system. But thats the joke, Teachers (non university/tradeschool), Nurses and tons of Women driven jobs are very high in demand yet often also hace clear rules of how much someone earns. Now compare this to Jobs that need similar dedication to be done good in the "male dominated sphere". Its often not even close.... but to be fair, truely shitty, dangerous and hard jobs are near 100% male dominated and no one crys.
They do. There are stories of women trying to enter those fields and being harassed. They are mostly smaller stories that don’t reach the global narrative on the subject. And fields like teaching elementary school are dominated by women. Not because of coworker based sexism, but because of sexist parents. The totally unfounded panic about male teachers sexually assaulting students is very real.
It is hard to be the outsider breaking into the field. It is hard to be the minority group in a field too. Both of those statements and findings shouldn’t surprise anyone. But those are problems that can be address. Women in tech will face sexism in male dominated companies. The problem arises when the companies either ignore or deny the sexism is happening. Or claim that women don’t want the jobs to justify why their field is dominated by men.
|
Well, I can just truely speak for my company and that stuff just isn't happening and if it would the guys doing it would search a new job before they realise what they did. I also have a Woman in the exact same job as me (both leading a small team, full signing rights.... Basically right under the CEO and we earn exactly the same.
Imho its often also a generational (people/customers 60-70++) and/or cultural (mainly muslims, hate to say it but its just a fact).
I honestly think much of it will fade out once the now 30-40 year olds are truely "overtaking" all major positions. Does that mean I'm against any actions? No, but i also feel like some stuff gets way overblown. Everyone that belongs to a minority in some homogenous group will have to deal with "discrimination" and seriously "buckel up" is just the most effective way to get along and integrated (normally, some groups are just assholes). Minority here can mean anything, bigger/smaller/thinner/blonde/red/woman/man whatever you can imagine.
The worst case of bullying/mobbing I ever saw was btw in a team of only Woman that all went HAAAARSH after the new, VERY obese, coworker they got. That didn't last 3 weeks and she resigned again... imagine the outcry if this would have been Men attacking "the new chick" like this...
Edit: on phone, sorry for typos.
|
On May 23 2017 01:12 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 01:06 bardtown wrote:On May 23 2017 00:56 Velr wrote:
Iirc the number before further study is close to 30% and after a bit under 10%, but thats the problem, no one atm can explain these 10% so counteracting them is damn near impossible.
It doesn't seem to be "badwill" or outright discrimination.
What I would try to fight is uneven pay among professions that both require the same hours/diploma and so forth, here male dominated fields tend to pay much better. If you translate that into policy it would be a request for an inconceivable amount of money. Skills that are more in demand have higher market value. The time taken to learn those skills is not really the relevant factor. I'm even understating the effect, actually. Let's say you peg pay to a median value; the result will be a massive increase in public sector expenditure and a simultaneous exodus of frontier field expertise and tax revenue. In a word, crippling. It's right to look for the unexplained discrepancy of course (which I understood to be around 5% IIRC), but it might be a lot of interacting factors that can't be identified for all the noise in the system. But thats the joke, Teachers (non university/tradeschool), Nurses and tons of Women driven jobs are very high in demand yet often also hace clear rules of how much someone earns. Now compare this to Jobs that need similar dedication to be done good in the "male dominated sphere". Its often not even close.... but to be fair, truely shitty, dangerous and hard jobs are near 100% male dominated and no one crys.
You are however comparing public jobs versus private company jobs. When you are in a private company job, you have a way higher chance of losing your job. Higher risk means higher salary.
If you however want public jobs to be equal to private jobs, you will either break any national budget or there will be a significant reduction of benefits when working in the public sector .
|
Yeah, but somehow women seem to aim for these "safe" jobs... Go figure?
|
On May 23 2017 01:49 Velr wrote:
Yeah, but somehow women seem to aim for these "safe" jobs... Go figure?
Harder to get harassed and fired by your sexist manager who agrees with the sexist CEO. And some of the discussions about sexism in tech/law/politics might be overblown, but it is also the way it gets addressed if it exist. A lot of the hysterical discussion around it is because there is never this calm response of "really, we should look into that." Every discussion is centered around justifying the status quo or simply denying that problem exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
