How is this statement contraversial?

[Bonam]

The statistical distribution for the skills required for computer science (e.g. math) has a greater variance for men than women. This means that even though the means are the same for the two groups the set of people at both extremes will be dominated by men. As a consequence the pool of potential computer science workers is dominated by men.

I think that explanation has more applicability to things like mathematicians and physicists. You don't need to be at the extreme end of the distribution of innate mathematical talent to be a computer scientist, you just need to be moderately intelligent and have an interest in it. Certainly people within 1 standard deviation of the mean are plenty skilled enough to be computer scientists, you don't need to be looking 3 or 4 standard deviations out.

[The_Squid]

Aren't there more male nerds than female nerds? I think you have to be nerdy to be a computer programmer and males have more nerds to choose from.

[TimG]

I think that explanation has more applicability to things like mathematicians and physicists. You don't need to be at the extreme end of the distribution of innate mathematical talent to be a computer scientist, you just need to be moderately intelligent and have an interest in it. Certainly people within 1 standard deviation of the mean are plenty skilled enough to be computer scientists, you don't need to be looking 3 or 4 standard deviations out.

I disagree. At a minimum you would need to be above 1 SD to have any reasonable prospect at a career in the field. Above 2 SD would be better.

The situation is complicated because the low skill computer work is getting outsourced so getting into a company in north america requires a much higher skill level than the average for the field.

[Bonam]

I disagree. At a minimum you would need to be above 1 SD to have any reasonable prospect at a career in the field. Above 2 SD would be better.

Any stats on this? Of course smarter is always better but I don't think that someone that wants to work as a programmer or web developer or something similar in North America needs to be over 1 SD above average in terms of their mathematical abilities.

[TimG]

I don't think that someone that wants to work as a programmer or web developer or something similar in North America needs to be over 1 SD above average in terms of their mathematical abilities.

I did not say it was the minimum required to do the job. I said the you need to be above 1 SD to have any reasonable prospect at a career. This is because a career depends on performance relative to your peers and if your peers are faster/better than you then you will not keep your job.

Also I am not really talking about pure math skills - I am talking about the abstraction skills that allow someone to visualize computer program in their head. Someone could be so-so at math but still have the abstraction skills.

Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

I did not say it was the minimum required to do the job. I said the you need to be above 1 SD to have any reasonable prospect at a career. This is because a career depends on performance relative to your peers and if your peers are faster/better than you then you will not keep your job.

I'm not so sure. Pure technical skills (as long as you are competent) are often less important in keeping a job or progressing in your career than social and interpersonal skills.

[TimG]

I'm not so sure. Pure technical skills (as long as you are competent) are often less important in keeping a job or progressing in your career than social and interpersonal skills.

People with good interpersonal and middling computer skills can get into the management stream fairly quickly. I had not really considered that a "career in computer science" but you could look at it that way. People with middling computer skills and middling interpersonal skills will not last. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

PGA players have to wear long pants, LPGA players can wear shorts.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's also not logical to me:

Then you fail at logic.

Are you suggesting that gender doesn't play a role in any of those things? Because outright discrimination isn't the only barrier to equality.

Inequality of outcome does not imply inequality of opportunity. Differences in choice of occupation could be due to a number of factors such as sexual dimorphism in humans or cultural pressures. The fact that women decide to get pregnant and take time off work (thus less experience for the rest of their careers) is a big factor to explain wage differences.

Cite?

Sigh, just use google. It's not hard. Here is a link (this one isn't even restricted to just urban areas). If you want more, they aren't difficult for me to obtain.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/

In what fields? For example, women are vastly underrepresented in STEM, which is where the money is at. Then there's the trade/technical schools in which men dominate.

Females are overrepresented overall. As for what fields... there is no discrimination against women to enter STEM careers, there is just a lower tenancy to choose not to go in the STEM areas. Also, I don't hear anyone decrying the under-representation of male nurses. How does under-representation of females in one field negate over-representation of females in nearly all others?

Here's what Pew research has to say.

With respect to the claims regarding female earnings decrease relative to male earnings after children, that isn't due to discrimination.

But apparently women are oppressed because they choose to get pregnant and take time off work, where as men are advantaged because they have societal pressures to work themselves to an early grave to support the family. You have made me see the light! *sarcasm*

And people wonder why the soshoku danshi phenomenon is occurring in Japan...

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about a specific form of gender-based violence. Pointing that out does not mean I don't care about other forms of violence, and you're an asshole for saying otherwise.

No, I understand. Only violence towards women matters. Violence towards men does not matter because they are the expendable gender. Apparently the fact that males are more likely to be murdered has nothing to do with gender. *sarcasm*

Cite?

Seriously? You need a cite to understand the concept of generational lag? The discrimination people face today isn't the same as the discrimination people faced 20 years ago, which isn't the same as the discrimination people faced 40 years ago. But the discrimination decades in the past will still have an impact on earnings today for older workers.

Hmm. I wonder what social force could be making men put their health at risk for the sake of appearances?

Wait, let me guess! You want me to say patriarchy, right?

So about 2% of total scholarships are designated for women. Clearly this is gross discrimination.

And of the 47,832 undesignated scholarships, how many go to men vs. women?

Also:

It is discrimination. Anything other than 0% is discrimination. There should be no gender specific scholarships.

Also, just because the scholarship is in STEM fields, doesn't mean it is somehow justified. Why should a female physics student have an advantage over a male physics student because of their gender?

Perhaps. I wonder why that is?

Wait, I think I got it! Patriarchy! Everything is the fault of the patriarchy!

Do I have radical feminism figured out yet?

So it does in fact exist. You've just demonstrated a few examples of it yourself.

I did not give any examples of patriarchy above. You are just associating blame for various social phenomena to a patriarchy that does not exist in the context where these social phenomena occur.

Patriarchy exists in isolated locations, such as the households of Mormons, in Churches, in the Quran, etc. Similarly, matriarchy exists in many isolated locations across North America. However, North America is not homogeneous, there is not continent-wide Patriarchy nor Matriarchy.

[-1=e^ipi]

Don't know about nursing but the idea that women are discouraged from entering computer sciences is delusional.

I know an 80+ year old female computer programmer. Now she faced real gender discrimination.

The idea that women re not discouraged from entering computer sciences is delusional.

Yes, the idea is delusional. I try to encourage my sister to learn computer programming all the time. She never wants to.

Though that said, with my experience tutoring and TAing people even 5 years younger, the changes in perception of computer programing & STEM by females is quite different.

And why would fewer women want to enter the field?

To quote my sister, "because it's boring".

[jacee]

The fact that women decide to get pregnant and take time off work (thus less experience for the rest of their careers) is a big factor to explain wage differences.

Ya and it's amazing that many men have babies too, and nary a ripple in their careers.

But men get to share the parental leave now, so maybe that's evening out.

.

[BC_chick]

"How is tthis controversial?"

Well I guess it wouldn't be if he was speaking of his own experience.

But it's not clear how he is in any position to make those judgements.

It's also not logical to me:

Random crime by sickos is one horrible thing.

Being betrayed and violated by someone you trusted and cared about is a whole other type of horrible thing.

And starting a thread to ruminate on which is 'better' for the victim ... is a whole different steaming pile of crap.

.

I've never been robbed but I know I'd prefer to get my purse yanked than to have my home invaded. I've never died but I know I'd rather die of a quick gunshot wound than to be tortured to death.

I don't think you need to personally experience two bad things to to know which one you'd find more tolerable.

[Hal 9000]

Ya and it's amazing that many men have babies too, and nary a ripple in their careers.

But men get to share the parental leave now, so maybe that's evening out.

.

Do you have even the slightest idea of what men do for their families? Clearly No! Do you know how many of us risk our lives every day so that our wives and kids can have a roof over their head, a decent place to live, a safe vehicle to drive. Many of us leave our families and head of to work - sometimes that means one week away, sometimes its months on end.

Many men work and live for one simple reason - to take care of our families. Loggers, fishermen, miners, oil workers etc. Real work where real men can die. How about rat infested sewers - don't see women down there. I've known guy's who have been attacked by everything from bears to sharks, not including the dangers of simply travelling to the work site. Ever been in a 25foot boat and 20 foot seas? Have you ever been stalked by a bear or cougar, ever work 12-14 hours in -30, ever been in a mine collapse, You ever been in a sea plane that was too heavy...in bad weather, ever been 100 feet below the surface when your air ran out - just to feed you family? Bet you haven't!

I've been involved in an industry of no more than 30 specialized workers, and the reality is 1.3 of us would die every season. After 4 or 5 years, it stops being cool and really starts to wear on a man's psyche. You leave home wondering if you're ever coming home.

Your ignorance is pissing me off!

[-1=e^ipi]

Ya and it's amazing that many men have babies too, and nary a ripple in their careers.

But men get to share the parental leave now, so maybe that's evening out.

See, there is this thing called pregnancy. You may have heard of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

[dre]

Do you have even the slightest idea of what men do for their families? Clearly No! Do you know how many of us risk our lives every day so that our wives and kids can have a roof over their head, a decent place to live, a safe vehicle to drive. Many of us leave our families and head of to work - sometimes that means one week away, sometimes its months on end.

Many men work and live for one simple reason - to take care of our families. Loggers, fishermen, miners, oil workers etc. Real work where real men can die. How about rat infested sewers - don't see women down there. I've known guy's who have been attacked by everything from bears to sharks, not including the dangers of simply travelling to the work site. Ever been in a 25foot boat and 20 foot seas? Have you ever been stalked by a bear or cougar, ever work 12-14 hours in -30, ever been in a mine collapse, You ever been in a sea plane that was too heavy...in bad weather, ever been 100 feet below the surface when your air ran out - just to feed you family? Bet you haven't!

I've been involved in an industry of no more than 30 specialized workers, and the reality is 1.3 of us would die every season. After 4 or 5 years, it stops being cool and really starts to wear on a man's psyche. You leave home wondering if you're ever coming home.

Your ignorance is pissing me off!

Quite the patriarchial rant. In case you havent realized that women increasingly work in potentially dangerous jobs as well... Police, firefighters, convenience store clerks, soldiers, etc.

[dre]

I think that explanation has more applicability to things like mathematicians and physicists. You don't need to be at the extreme end of the distribution of innate mathematical talent to be a computer scientist, you just need to be moderately intelligent and have an interest in it. Certainly people within 1 standard deviation of the mean are plenty skilled enough to be computer scientists, you don't need to be looking 3 or 4 standard deviations out.

About 10% of programming jobs require advanced mathematics. Most of the work out there these days is sequel/gui/business logic...Theres some math involved for sure, but most of its stuff a smart person can learn quickly when they find themselves in need of it.

[WestCoastRunner]

Inequality of outcome does not imply inequality of opportunity. Differences in choice of occupation could be due to a number of factors such as sexual dimorphism in humans or cultural pressures. The fact that women decide to get pregnant and take time off work (thus less experience for the rest of their careers) is a big factor to explain wage differences.

Females are overrepresented overall. As for what fields... there is no discrimination against women to enter STEM careers, there is just a lower tenancy to choose not to go in the STEM areas. Also, I don't hear anyone decrying the under-representation of male nurses. How does under-representation of females in one field negate over-representation of females in nearly all others?

With respect to the claims regarding female earnings decrease relative to male earnings after children, that isn't due to discrimination.

But apparently women are oppressed because they choose to get pregnant and take time off work, where as men are advantaged because they have societal pressures to work themselves to an early grave to support the family. You have made me see the light! *sarcasm*

There should be no gender specific scholarships.

I did not give any examples of patriarchy above. You are just associating blame for various social phenomena to a patriarchy that does not exist in the context where these social phenomena occur.

Patriarchy exists in isolated locations, such as the households of Mormons, in Churches, in the Quran, etc. Similarly, matriarchy exists in many isolated locations across North America. However, North America is not homogeneous, there is not continent-wide Patriarchy nor Matriarchy.

Your response is so ridiculous and has no logic or thought to it at all. It's a man throwing out bs towards women. You must somehow feel threatened by women or by women wanting to attain equal rights.

First of all, when a woman takes leave to have a baby, this should in no way, be detrimental to her career or her salary. Not sure why you would indicate this is harmful to her potential earnings. A woman takes a year off to have a baby. Does that in anyway impact on her job performance? Does it negate her education level, her experience she has attained so far? There is no reason a woman can't return to work in the same earnings range as her male counterpart who did not have to take maternity leave because his wife did so. Someone has to have the babies but let's not penalize them in their job earnings for gods sake!

Patriarchy does exist in NA. You only need to look at the households of a lot of reglions, not just mormons. And of course, have a look at the conservative, white male religious folks. They are alive and thriving, even here in Canada.

Gender specific scholarships should absolutely be available. This is to encourage women to stay in the sciences, the maths, technology. Otherwise, we end up having a skills shortage in these fields. I have worked in the IT industry for over 2 decades. For the most part, it is 60/40 for men but it seems to be leaning more towards 70/30 as the years go by. I'm not sure why but I don't think it's because it is 'boring' as someone's little sister said. It is more than that. Girls are not being encouraged to stay in these fields and someone's sister does not represent the general population of girls.

There are just as many women as men working themselves into an early grave. If you look at the stats, women have pretty much caught up with men when it comes to heart disease. Especially when you consider the single parent households, of which the majority are led by women.

[Hal 9000]

Quite the patriarchial rant. In case you havent realized that women increasingly work in potentially dangerous jobs as well... Police, firefighters, convenience store clerks, soldiers, etc.

Bull crap! More than 90% of workplace deaths are men.

[WestCoastRunner]

Until? Please tell me what 'equalities' women do not have in Western society? I mean off the top of my head I can think of: not victim to institutionalized sexism via employment equity, shorter sentencing for the same crimes, more access to university scholarships, more funding for gender specific health issues (breast cancer funding vs prostate cancer funding for example), preference for custody of kids in many jurisdictions, longer life expectancy, etc. But I'm sure you weren't thinking of those.

No, though I might have to go see an optometrist soon about an eye problem.

The patriarchy exists in Saudi Arabia, sure. The patriarchy existed in Canada 100 years ago, sure. But it doesn't exist in Canada today. Some people just want to make up an enemy to fight.

Why do I have to keep responding to your posts regarding women. Do you feel done by with women. Are we trampling on your human rights? Tell me how that is?

[TimG]

First of all, when a woman takes leave to have a baby, this should in no way, be detrimental to her career or her salary.

Why shouldn't it? If a man went to his boss and said he wanted to talk a year off to go trekking in Nepal he might get the leave but he would have no right to expect that his absence would have no effect on his career or salary. Time off for kids is no different. Employers have an obligation to accomodate these personal choices but but it is insane to think these workers should be treated the same as workers who did not make those choices. Edited August 3, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes it was baiting, but it was no worse than what you display with every single post you make.

What does my every single post convey?

[WestCoastRunner]

Why shouldn't it? If a man went to his boss and said he wanted to talk a year off to go trekking in Nepal he might get the leave but he would have no right to expect that his absence would have no affect on his career or salary. Time off for kids is no different. Employers have an obligation to accomodate these personal choices but but it is insane to think these workers should be treated the same as workers who did not make those choices.

Having a child keeps our society growing! We have a responsibility to do so. This is why we have maternity leave. Do you get it?

[TimG]

This is why we have maternity leave. Do you get it?

Maternity leave means people don't get fired for taking time off to have kids. But you are expecting that their career will be the same as it would have been as if they had not taken time off. This is an unreasonable expectation - you can't treat someone as if they had a year's additional experience when they did not. The most they can expect is they can pick up there career where it left off which means they will be a year behind any collegues who did not take time off.

[On Guard for Thee]

Having a child keeps our society growing! We have a responsibility to do so. This is why we have maternity leave. Do you get it?

Apparently he doesn't. He's equating trekking in Nepal with raising the next generation.

[Hal 9000]

Your response is so ridiculous and has no logic or thought to it at all. It's a man throwing out bs towards women. You must somehow feel threatened by women or by women wanting to attain equal rights.

First of all, when a woman takes leave to have a baby, this should in no way, be detrimental to her career or her salary. Not sure why you would indicate this is harmful to her potential earnings. A woman takes a year off to have a baby. Does that in anyway impact on her job performance? Does it negate her education level, her experience she has attained so far? There is no reason a woman can't return to work in the same earnings range as her male counterpart who did not have to take maternity leave because his wife did so. Someone has to have the babies but let's not penalize them in their job earnings for gods sake!

Patriarchy does exist in NA. You only need to look at the households of a lot of reglions, not just mormons. And of course, have a look at the conservative, white male religious folks. They are alive and thriving, even here in Canada.

Gender specific scholarships should absolutely be available. This is to encourage women to stay in the sciences, the maths, technology. Otherwise, we end up having a skills shortage in these fields. I have worked in the IT industry for over 2 decades. For the most part, it is 60/40 for men but it seems to be leaning more towards 70/30 as the years go by. I'm not sure why but I don't think it's because it is 'boring' as someone's little sister said. It is more than that. Girls are not being encouraged to stay in these fields and someone's sister does not represent the general population of girls.

There are just as many women as men working themselves into an early grave. If you look at the stats, women have pretty much caught up with men when it comes to heart disease. Especially when you consider the single parent households, of which the majority are led by women.

As a guy who has worked in the business world (another life ago), the men were expected/pressured to work later in the evenings some nights and more than half of the saturdays - especially toward month end. As we were salaried, we got nothing but a meager food allowance for our efforts. The women were never expected to any of that, they could if they wanted, but generally they had family responsibilities and didn't.

When promotions and raises came around the guys got screwed every time. The discrepancies were based more on who had to pay for their families than work or gender. The young single guys always did more and yet were paid less than the older guy's and women.

P.S - Most of the women were happy to make the salary they did, they didn't want promotions because that almost always meant a transfer. So, there is a lot more to wage discrepancy than gender. If any woman wants to work 60 hours a week and move up the ladder - great, but don't expect it if your walking out the door at 5:01 every day.