This goes along with what I wrote previously, about where I would accept an argument from evolutionary biology.

The problem is: you can't replace gender-based employment discrimination with roles (as defined in that article: i.e. mostly reproductive roles) without completely changing the subject. They aren't even close to being equivalent. The equivocation is just assuming the conclusion.

Why is one a problem and the other two not a problem, if it is the same biological gender traits and cultural gender norms which create all 3 outcomes.

Yeah man, mammals give birth to live young and nurse them. That is what it means to be mammals. After that, there is an incredible diversity about how packs of mammals organize themselves, most of which you'd find uncomfortable or unacceptable for a large number of reasons. Why don't we take more notes from our closest relative, the chimpanzee, and have males dominate, females sleep around, and males kill the infants of females when he's not the father?

What biological traits make someone a software engineer?

If we're going to mimic other primates, I call dibs on that bonobo life.

In our society it is considered a high status job. So males being more interested in competing for status for biological reasons would certainly explain part of it.

There is also the observation that it is a job working with things, as opposed to people, and would correspond naturally to appeal to the sex that has evolved a lower predisposition towards empathy and cooperation. I don't think it is an accident when you go through the list of jobs all the male dominated ones are working with things, and all the female dominated ones involve working with people.

And thirdly, males having higher variance generally (due to reproductive strategy reasons) would indicate a higher % of them being at the high end of the Pareto distribution as far as having the particular cognitive skills necessary to be a high level programmer.

There is probably more, but this is a good start I think.

By no means is "monogamy" synonymous with "the patriarchy."

Ok. When was the last common ancestor between that animal (seahorse?) and humans? How many hundreds of millions of years are we going back?

LOL

LOL, wow, you also know nothing about software engineering.
Or apparently business in general

Ah, naked sexism.

LOL

It might be the same ones that make them prisoners/homeless at a disproportionately higher rate.


As long as we are talking about income:



61% to 49%. Take a guess as why this is? It's that pesky "motherhood penalty" you all seem to dislike, but serves to benefit women, and their children.

Is the argument from Wookie et al that if men were less sexist that the problems would correct themselves?
Why is it that women don't become software engineers at a rate equal to men and should they?

Chimpanzees are probably what human societies would have evolved to look like without the patriarchy. It is believed that is exactly what the patriarchy evolved for, to enable us to evolve more equitable, monogamous, less violent societies; mainly by controlling the sexuality of females in their reproductive years.

And as a consequence of lower direct mate competition we evolved smaller (relative) gonads, less size gender disparity, and lower propensity towards direct intragroup violence between males, among other biological features.

LOL

The difference between a minor league ballplayer and a MLB player is great.

I don't know. Let's eliminate the sexism and discrimination and then find out.

Cool, stop valuing STEM as a high status job.

How do you propose that we as a society stop having high status jobs?

Ha! Don't ask me for solutions to achieve your goal. It stands to reason that one reason these disparities occurring in STEM fields, is because of the status associated to them, and males are attracted to status. Reducing the amount of men, reduces their chances of being sexist when looking to add folks to these fields. You have to deal with the status issue, sooner or later. Ironically the status given to these fields is exactly why you care about the discrepancy in this field, you do not really care about the discrepancy in fields that are not of the same status, such as criminals.

Here's the thing though, you post bigoted racist and sexist BS and I don't. So yeah, I often eschew politeness for directness because, like I've said before, **** off.

Uh, no it doesn't

So are women.

Why not just reduce the sexism?

Not really

This isn't really irony.

Do you care about this pay gap?

Wookie thinks gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment are real things.

See above.

Youre understanding of biology relating to this subject is absolutely feeble. We can circle back to that. You've had a dreadful time articultating yourself while also composing posts that the beginning, middle, and end all amount to "LOL"

In the spirit of "good faith" and making progress in the conversation, why don't you summarize your perspective of womens history in the work place. How and why did they enter? what were the barriers? how did they overcome them?

This question goes out to everyone, its just that I expect wookie as an articulate leader to dazzle us with his insight