×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Women Skip Math/Science Careers To Have Families

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the mommy-track dept.

Education 616

hessian notes a Cornell survey, published in the Psychological Bulletin, of 35 years of sociological studies that concludes that women tend to choose non-math-intensive fields for their careers not because they lack mathematical ability, but because they want flexibility to raise children or prefer less math-intensive fields of science. "'A major reason explaining why women are underrepresented not only in math-intensive fields but also in senior leadership positions in most fields is that many women choose to have children, and the timing of child rearing coincides with the most demanding periods of their career, such as trying to get tenure or working exorbitant hours to get promoted,' said lead author Stephen J. Ceci... The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors in explaining why women were underrepresented in science careers, and that studies on social and cultural effects were inconsistent and inconclusive. They also reported that although 'institutional barriers and discrimination exist, these influences still cannot explain why women are not entering or staying in STEM careers,' said Ceci."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

616 comments

STEM careers are a lot of work... (4, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199065)

... for on average a lot less pay, I think that's the biggest problem. Why pay a north american a decent middle class wage when you can farm science, technology and engineering careers to lower wage countries?

Re:STEM careers are a lot of work... (0, Offtopic)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199301)

Because those countries may also not care too much about patents and copyrights? I'd say that's something to consider when outsourcing research. I for one would not really put it into, say, China...

Re:STEM careers are a lot of work... (-1, Offtopic)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199331)

"Because those countries may also not care too much about patents and copyrights?"

Companies are double dealers, the real winners are those who luck out in certain sectors and those in a position of power or authority to skim/glean the most profits, companies will spout copyright and patent protection on one side and heave off expensive workers for low wage workers on the other.

The problem is companies don't care for workers anymore, there are whole legal services dedicated to avoiding hiring local (expensive) workers. Since when have most companies been long term thinkers? Many companies operate on short-termism, the same kind of short sighted thinking that led to bank lending crisis.

Re:STEM careers are a lot of work... (0, Offtopic)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199405)

There is a reason why "personnel management" is now called "human resources"...

Basically you're right. I see it every day. Currently I'm fighting for a larger inbox for an employer. It would make sense. He could speed up his work considerably. Instead of getting the documents on paper and scanning them, he could get them as mail attachments (yes, ftp and so on... forget that, impossible to do). Problem is, the inbox would weigh down on his cost center because I have to "charge" him for more inbox space. And the additional cost does not outweigh the benefit. Actually, though, the cost is completely virtual because the mail server has the space and it does not cost the company a dime.

This isn't even short term thinking, this is actually boneheaded cost center centric thinking without an eye for the overall benefit. And that's what's gonna kill us eventually, economically.

First step: Understand why women have babies. (-1, Troll)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199313)

Outsourcing: "Why pay a north american a decent middle class wage when you can farm science, technology and engineering careers to lower wage countries?"

My understanding is that outsourcing is not working well. If the less successful, and therefore cheaper, societies were able to do science work well, they wouldn't be less successful, would they?

Outsourcing seems to work in the near term only. It was "useful" when a CEO wanted to show a short-term profit so that he or she could get a big bonus and retire or go somewhere else.

I sent a message to my bank. I got a nonsensical reply from a person with an Indian name. The reply was entirely a waste of time. Maybe the underlying purpose is anti-customer, to discourage people from questioning anything a bank does. That works only when the banks are in control of the government, which they seem to be.

Why do women have babies? Often women have babies even though they have little ability to take care of them. So the theorizing at Cornell is very limited. The first step would be to understand why women have babies.

Sociology research is rarely scientific. It's mostly wild guessing.

In my own research, I was able to find many examples of women having babies when it was definitely not good for the man, for the society, or even for the woman.

Re:First step: Understand why women have babies. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199365)

My understanding is that outsourcing is not working well. If the less successful, and therefore cheaper, societies were able to do science work well, they wouldn't be less successful, would they?

Maybe getting ripped off politically and economically by Western countries for the last 300 years âthe same western countries that still favor and put their lackeys in charge thereâ also has something to do with them not being successful.

Re:First step: Understand why women have babies. (3, Informative)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199367)

In my own research, I was able to find many examples of women having babies when it was definitely not good for the man, for the society, or even for the woman.

When exactly is this true ? America has on average 2.1 children/woman, this is just barely enough (ie. more would be preferable).

In europe birthrates are so low that they are on track to eradicate European presence in Europe before 2150 (and make Europeans a minority in Europe by 2050).

Are you contending such a thing would be good for either Europe or Europeans ? We need more babies, not less. Much, much more. Most places in Europe would be well served by a doubling or tripling of the number of native babies.

Re:First step: Understand why women have babies. (2, Insightful)

TheMuon (1424531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199439)

First why on Earth do you think we need to increase the world's population? It won't be long now before we hit 7 billion people on this rock.

Second, you are a racist. To begin with I'd want to see citation to your statistics about Europe. Further, assuming your numbers are correct, I fail to see the problem unless you believe there is something wrong with non Europeans.

Re:First step: Understand why women have babies. (4, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199385)

If the less successful, and therefore cheaper, societies were able to do science work well, they wouldn't be less successful, would they?

What has science to do with economics? Countries like Russia, China, and India have had remarkable scientific achievements, but have been mired down by their inefficient socialist economies. What they truly need to become successful is training in clerical business jobs, they need to learn how to keep accounting books and inventories. Rocket science they already know.

The first step would be to understand why women have babies.

I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that having ovaries and wombs has a lot to do with this.

Re:First step: Understand why women have babies. (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199455)

Countries like Russia, China, and India have had remarkable scientific achievements, but have been mired down by their inefficient socialist economies.

You misspelled "rampant institutionalized corruption at all levels of government".

How is babby formed? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199393)

Biology supersedes Maths?

Re:First step: Understand why women have babies. (5, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199397)

"Why do women have babies?"

A good question... my own opinion on the matter is because that's what women are designed to do - procreate, we can backwards rationalize it all we want, but the primary purpose of life is survive and procreate. I think the process is mostly unconscious and instinctive, I've been doing a lot of reading in the cognitive sciences and how they see that most thought is unconscious, most thought is below your awareness... about 98%. So it would not be a surprise that people then backwards rationalize their actions (i.e. I wanted kids for x,y, z). Truth be told people have kids for companionship/economic reasons and (the hope) of old age security I think, that has always been the 'traditional' view imho.

I've thought about this more as I've had to take care of my own grandmother who's very old, she wouldn't have anyone to take care of her if she didn't have her kids and grandkids. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a woman with no kids who is not financially secure and is getting old... we have to remember that for most of history poverty was a significant fact of life.

People have kids just because 'thats what everyone else is doing'. When I asked my own mother why she had kids, she said 'thats just what people did back then'. Personally I think most people don't really think about it, they do it out of habit or instinct.

Re:First step: Understand why women have babies. (5, Funny)

Peyna (14792) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199533)

Why do women have babies?

I know this is Slashdot and all, so we shouldn't assume you are familiar with the process, but maybe it's time you sat down and had a talk with mom and dad about where babies come from.

Less pressure (0, Troll)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199073)

My theory is that they do it because it's less stressfull to stay at home than it is to provide.

Re:Less pressure (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199153)

Speaking as a woman who has a successful career in a male dominated environment (not STEM but the military), I can say that it is possible for a woman to rise to the top, if she is willing to make one of two choices (or falls into one of two choices):
1. She has no children
2. If she has children she has a husband who has a work schedule which allows him to be the one 'on call' for the children
I've seen many, many female Colonels who were successful with selection two. I've only seen female Generals with selection 1.

OT: From the perspective of lifetime income for the family--military service is bad for males (it reduces their post-service income by 30% when compared to civilian men the same age when they return to civilian life), but good for females. Post military service a woman will outperform women her own age in the civilian market.
This then is the simple way to maximize your family income over a lifetime. Woman goes in the service, husband stays in the civilian economy in employment that allows flexibility (lawyer, real estate, contracting, consulting, etc) until the children are able to drive, then both enter the economy as full time employees.

Re:Less pressure (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199273)

-military service is bad for males (it reduces their post-service income by 30% when compared to civilian men the same age when they return to civilian life)

Two questions spring to mind: first, how does this differ for officers and enlisted men, and secondly, isn't this skewed a bit by the fact that people with lower incomes are more likely to go into the military?

-jcr

Re:Less pressure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199329)

I've heard of people going into the military for the lifestyle, saying it was the best years of their life.

Re:Less pressure (2, Interesting)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199343)

It's also pertinent to ask the questions of how does this include retirement income, is it just people that retire from the military, and can it be attributed to the desire to spend time with their family since they've already completed one career and are more interested in spending time with the families they may have missed until this point. I know several retired officers and enlisted persons who sought careers that would allow them flexibility and/or face time with their families, such as teaching, with little consideration for pay.

There are many extenuating circumstances to these statistics. Can the females improved performance be attributed to more the mentality and personality required by a military career more than the actual fact she was in the military?

I suspect that military service is more an indicator of future performance than a causal factor.

Re:Less pressure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199309)

Not only do you obviously not have kids, but you obviously don't spend much time talking to your parents.

Also, fuck you.

Re:Less pressure (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199403)

My theory is that they do it because it's less stressfull to stay at home than it is to provide.

Or the article could be titled Men Take Math/Science Careers To Avoid The Work Of Having Families

And now that most families are two-income, so much for your theory ...

Men and Woman are different..... (4, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199075)

News film at 11.
Well, at least it's becoming okay again to point out what is incredibly obvious to everyone, except feminists with an axe to grind.

Re:Men and Woman are different..... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199111)

Woah! Women, put the axes down. Your man will handle the grinding around here, thank you very much.

but slashdotters are all the same. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199135)

Y'all never read the darn articles.

What they've found is that the difference in representation isn't justified by biological differences OR barriers and that the child rearing social role plays a big factor.

Paternity Leave (4, Insightful)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199237)

Re:Men and Woman are different..... News film at 11. Well, at least it's becoming okay again to point out what is incredibly obvious to everyone, except feminists with an axe to grind.

I don't really see how that follows. The article and summary say:

The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors in explaining why women were underrepresented in science careers,

But women have to stay home with kids, right? Well, this gets us to a more balanced conclusion: increase paternity leave and/or make it compulsory, and the effects of one sex happening to be the one manufacturing kids will be greatly mitigated. In other words, the mostly arbitary decision that women have to stay home with the kids is the greatest problem (women don't have to be at home 24/7 to provide breast milk, either.) If both parents take the hit, the system will have to choose between adapting and just throwing away talent.

For an example of how much a society can do for both parents, check Sweden's stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave#Europe [wikipedia.org] . Spoiler: 480 days paid paternity leave. (disclaimer: I'm not Swedish)

Re:Paternity Leave (0)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199311)

But women have to stay home with kids, right?

No, but speaking for myself with the experience of growing up with my grandfather and father, I can safely say that I would much rather have a woman raising children rather than a man.

Oh don't get me wrong - I had some great life experiences from my dad, like learning how to hunt and fish, how to fix things, how to build a new wall for a house, etc... In fact, it was my dad that got me into computers and taught me BASIC on the Commodore 64.

It's the raising of the children from ages 0-8 that has me a bit worried; for example, my dads idea of a punishment was to strap me into the front seat of the car, take off the car door, and drive on the highway at 60mph. While I realize that might've been fun for a teenage, at 8 years old with an angry adult driving the car, I was terrified ... and that was for forgetting to return a rental at Blockbuster. I can't remember what my punishment was for not doing a school project, but I don't think it was good.

In contrast, mom's idea of a punishment when I fucked up was to talk to me and explain why what I did was wrong, and if I didn't listen she'd lock me in my room, turn off the circuit breaker, and let me stew for a few hours.

Re:Paternity Leave (5, Insightful)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199359)

I feel the need to point out that not every father is a loony, even if yours was.

Re:Paternity Leave (1)

lucifuge31337 (529072) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199485)

the mostly arbitary decision that women have to stay home with the kids

The last time I checked, men don't lactate.

Re:Paternity Leave (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199557)

That's usually only for the first year or so. There are another 4 years until school starts. Sure there might be a few more young ones to show up after the first but generally women could go back to working earlier.

RECAPCHA is a scam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199077)

It is used to make you solve other site's capchas.
Do the words seem like they come from a book? Obivously not. The interested capcha breakers make a deal with RECAPCHA.com and when they want to break a capcha, they send it to recapcha, it passes it along with a real capcha and then it send the result back to them.

Who's behind this? Google of course. First they tried really hard with "OCR" and after that failed they pushed the RECAPCHA trick.

why? figure it out. it's easy.

thank you.

Cultural issues and Religion (-1, Troll)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199095)

The USA still has serious problems due to the undue influence of Christianity in the field of Science. Basically, an educated woman is a threat to the Christian Male power structure. So culturally, the US is threatened by educated women.

Re:Cultural issues and Religion (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199143)

Yeah, that's the problem, too many over-religious Christians in the scientific fields! You just can't keep Christians away from science!

Re:Cultural issues and Religion (2, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199179)

Yeah, that's the problem, too many over-religious Christians in the scientific fields! You just can't keep Christians away from science!

Read it and weep. [washingtonpost.com]

Weep with laughter! (2, Insightful)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199259)

"Advanced Creation Studies"? WTF is THAT?! The basic class says God did it, the Advanced shows the fossil proof that He did do it?

But creationists say the purpose of their visits to what some describe as "temples to evolution" is to train themselves to think critically, not to pick rhetorical fights with curators or other visitors.

Oh God! Mental note: Don't hire anyone from Liberty University, VA.

Re:Weep with laughter! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199319)

"Advanced Creation Studies"? WTF is THAT?!

Whatever it is, it's not science. The way I generally describe it is, it's a very long-winded and tedious way of saying "Nuh-uh!" to everything we've learned about biology, geology, astronomy and physics.

-jcr

Re:Weep with laughter! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199333)

"Advanced Creation Studies"? WTF is THAT

I thought that too, until I found out about their Advance Pro-Creation Studies classes - let me tell you, I was an immediate convert.

Re:Weep with laughter! (1)

Heather D (1279828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199387)

Oh God! Mental note: Don't hire anyone from Liberty University, VA.

From google: Founded in 1971, LU is an independent, fundamentalist Baptist university located in Lynchburg, Virginia.

It's a fundamentalist sandbox.

Re:Weep with laughter! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199391)

"Advanced Creation Studies"? WTF is THAT?!

Sex ed for pros. Lotsababies.

Re:Cultural issues and Religion (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199529)

I would love to see a scientific discussion between him and a good "evolution theory" scientist.

Re:Cultural issues and Religion (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199355)

Huh? Why are people who have no interest in scientific methods (like peer review or testable theories) drawn to science?

Quite seriously. Christian science is an oxymoron, the moment "God did it" comes into play, science has left the room. I cannot test God. What cannot be tested has no room in scientific theories.

Re:Cultural issues and Religion (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199563)

2 huuuuuuge problems with your post. Let's look at them :

Huh? Why are people who have no interest in scientific methods (like peer review or testable theories) drawn to science?

For the same reason the UN has it's clutches in just about every university worldwide and is "sponsoring" specific things. The same goes for many other pressure groups. It is getting really bad : simply stating that there is no way to study climate that would fall under the "positive" sciences can get you into trouble, no matter how evident it is : if you can't experiment on the system at will, you can't use positive methods.

Science, in case you hadn't noticed, is politicized. Several fields have already been reduced to basically spouting the nonsense or propaganda of the highest bidder. Openly communist organisations sponsor "chairs" in economics. Creationist groups "chair" a number of biology departments, and are so extreme even the vatican goes against them. The list goes on.

History, philosophy and psychology seem to be especially vulnerable fields. The problem is that if you assume the UN is right, and all cultures are "equal" in all respects, you can't have a coherent vision of history. Psychology has the same problem. If you are not at liberty to research and publish about differences, especially cultural differences, you might as well close up shop. Especially the effects of different ways of raising kids (e.g. to explain why muslims have such a big terrorist problem while (nearly) every other religion was basically unfamiliar with the concept of suicide terror until very recently is utterly forbidden).

Christian science is an oxymoron,

Really ? Then how come that all the principles of just about existing field of study were invented an written down by priest (and/or monks).

Physics : Newton almost became a priest, and many claim he ended his research career because his religious feelings were stronger, and he didn't like what his research was used for (e.g. ship cannons). He's the father of both modern physics and modern maths (integration/derivation operators are from his hand, as is the concept "function"). And even the important non-catholics were believers : Einstein punched a German minister in the face because he claimed Einstein was atheist
Optics : field created by a monk and a priest in Northern Italy (this guy first invented glasses, then made the first ever (wrong, but that's how science works) explanation of how they operate
Maths : you might as well call it catholic studies (with contributions from a few hindus who were running from islamic massacres : e.g. "arabic" numerals), certainly until WWII. Even know most contributions come from catholic institutions
Medicine : 50 years ago the score was : about 18000 catholic books on the subject, about 6 "atheist" (e.g. ancient greece), 2 islamic books

Just read the list of important people in each field and you will find the same in every field of study : they were created, built and taught by the catholic church. Some still are. There are even fields of study that are basically exclusive to members of the catholic hierarchy (e.g. ancient middle eastern languages, latin, bioethics, many lesser known or dying languages worldwide (which are critical to missionary work for obvious reasons), ...).

There are at least 4 languages whose only trace left is a bible written in that language, probably a whole lot more than 4.

There are literally hundreds of years in history about which the vatican is the only organization that has any record from those times. E.g. just about everything we know about northern africa more than 300 years ago comes from the vatican, and not from northern african sources, because muslims destroyed all historical records (e.g. it was the muslim "pope" (caliph) that ordered the burning of the (catholic) library of alexandria, the biggest disaster ever to happen to scientific knowledge in known history. The same goes for about 80% of the middle east.

When the vatican closed it's library for 2 weeks, in order to conduct much needed renovation improvements, those mere 2 weeks were called the "biggest disaster for historical studies in 200 years".

The largest collection of data about celestial bodies and phenomena is kept, not at nasa, but at the vatican.

I'm sure all these things don't count as science to you ?

Re:Cultural issues and Religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199149)

Sure, because there are certainly lots of other industrial cultures where women have achieved equal results in the workplace! Right??

Re:Cultural issues and Religion (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199243)

That's not true. People just don't want to admit that humans are still animals with the logical urge to keep on creating humans and in order to create humans properly at least one human has to stay home and take care of it.

Due to nature giving the woman all the birth and child caring bits naturally for centuries the woman stayed home. It's something built into humans and to think you can change centuries of instinct with a few bra burnings is silly.

Women who rather be career driven just have a chip on their shoulder because most women still rather do things the old way. It's time they realise this and quit thinking that women will dominate these areas and make the labs pink.

*NOT* because of the geeks . . . ? (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199099)

Well, gee, that's good news . . . I thought women avoided such careers because of all the geeky males that tend to gravitate towards math/science careers.

work life balance is bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199101)

yes, and business knows it. One twist of fate includes a manager who was popping out her 3rd one.

Management was so afraid that she'd quit and become a stay at home mom that they promoted her while
she was 2months into a 6month leave of absence.

Women want to have cake and eat it too.

35 years? (1)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199113)

Wow... they could just Ask Slashdot.

Re:35 years? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199199)

No kidding. I want whatever amount of federal grant money that go into this sorta "study" switch to digging ditch and filling it back in. Now that's an honest, pointless job creation program.

This just proves... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199127)

Stupid bitches can't fight the need to go spread their legs everywhere and get pregnant.

Women are the weak link.

Re:This just proves... (4, Insightful)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199181)

Can you really blame them? Women have a fairly short window of only a few decades to have a family. Men have no such limit and can theoretically have children from puberty until death, so there's not as much pressure for us. Besides, people tend to think too much about their careers, IMO. A good job isn't everything. I would rather spend more time with my family than work hard to rise to the top. (in the end, what do you really have with that option? Is your life really going to be better?)

Re:This just proves... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199265)

If you want a decent family life for your kid then yes there is a time limit. If you don't care about being old and worthless to your child and him being made fun of because his daddy wears diapers then no, there is no limit.

Who's forcing them.. (2, Interesting)

kaiwai (765866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199279)

Who's forcing them to have a family? it is a lifestyle choice - like buying a washing machine or allocating 14 weeks off each year to immerse oneself into Super 14 Rugby.

Have they also thought that maybe females are actually making the choice to have families over having a career? why is it every time there is a feminist jackass who comes out of the wood works that there is this claim that some how if females aren't career oriented and pumping out kids (they choose one or the other instead of doing both) - apparently it is the man's fault?

Good lord, let people do their own thing and stop trying to think that you need to socially engineer a given field in one direction or another? what next - insufficient gay's and lesbian's in quantum physics?*

* Disclaimer, I am gay myself, I need to put this disclaimer because some jackass will go, "ooh, he's homophobic, I'll mark down his post" *Teeheehee*

Re:Who's forcing them.. (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199377)

The problem is not whether or not a certain female decides to have a family and drop her career for her family. The problem is what a prospective employer sees.

He sees that you're female and that you have a statistically higher chance to want a family and leave, possibly in the middle of a project. His risk is smaller if he employs a man rather than a woman.

Basically, gays are perfect employees, from an employer's point of view. No family that may interfere. No kids that could get sick and want mommy/daddy home or need someone to take them to the doc. Flexible in their work hours because there's no family to come home to (because your partner could accept you coming home at 10pm every now and then, kids could not). Flexible in his holidays because they're not tied to school holidays in any way. Mostly likely both partners in an employment position, thus possibly cheaper to hire because they don't have to support their family on a single income.

Re:This just proves... (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199299)

Besides, people tend to think too much about their careers, IMO. A good job isn't everything. I would rather spend more time with my family than work hard to rise to the top. (in the end, what do you really have with that option? Is your life really going to be better?)

If you don't have a good job, you won't be spending any time with your family, because you'll be spending all your waking hours working two bad jobs to feed them. On the other hand, once you've risen to top you have guaranteed income and likely enough savings that you can quit and retire whenever you want, or do whatever you please, so yes, you'll life will be much better.

In a society where competition is considered a virtue you don't really have the option of only making a reasonable effort. Either you give your all to an attempt to claw your way to the top, or you resign to spend the rest of your life at the bottom of the barrel; and the latter means that you can't afford to have a family. It's sick, but that's the way it is.

Re:This just proves... (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199401)

Either you give your all to an attempt to claw your way to the top,...

With Globalization, you have to give it your all just to stay where you are. There's no room anymore for average. What I hear from business leaders time and time again, "Why should I pay so much for an average American when I can get a much more productive and smarter Indian for half the price."

No, unless you're very good at what you do and can compete with others all over the World, there just isn't much chance of getting to the top anymore. The Baby Boom generation were the last to be able to that.

Re:This just proves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199493)

As we business leaders find time and time again, they may be cheaper and might even be smarter in some cases, but they lack creativity and view each job as a project instead of being part of the team. All too often, I hear "It worked fine on my machine, I can't help you" and "We're done with that project, if you want us to come in and fix it, that's a new project and more money". When you hire disposable people, they treat your project as disposable.

Re:This just proves... (1)

lucifuge31337 (529072) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199537)

Sounds like you have no idea how to moderate. This doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. For example, I have done tech startups for years. It's 80+ hours a week. It's total stress. It's a constant stream of dealing with problems just to get through the day. All for a pretty good living with a "lottery ticket" (meaning the startup takes off and you get to sell). Now I have 2 kids. As of the first one, I simply took some contract work. Recently I've even take a full time job with a company I used to do work for. I travel very rarely, I don't work much more than 50 hours a week (and I'm probably overestimating), and I make plenty of money to have my house, a few cars (not brand new anymore, but just fine) and even get to go out to dinner on occasion.

You see, besides being moderate in your job and how much income you have, you can also change your spending habits. I did it, and I'm essentially a child when it comes to self control. So it can't be all that out of reach.

Re:This just proves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199413)

What is this inherent "NEED" to have a "family"? Honestly it's not what it's cracked up to be. You get to have a larve or two that need your attention for 24/7/365/18yr (Yes MANY need adult supervision up to and past 18) your expenses go way up while they are there and then even higher for the first 5 years after unless you have the ability to tell them "sucks to be you, you better get student loans"

They have their few fun and endearing moments but the second they turn 13 they suck all the joy the brought into the world out of it.

Finally, the planet has ENOUGH people in it. we do not need more of them. Having a "family" is a luxury that puts a burden on society and the planet's resources. Honestly it's far better to get sterilized as soon as possible and not worry about it anymore.

You lose all ability to travel a lot, you lose the ability to be an adult for those years, you lose a LOT.

People who "GOTTA HAVE" kids are nutjobs that really need to have their brain examined and see if they can get on some drugs to help them.

And then we have the really stupid people out there reproducing like they need to repopulate the planet.. making even more stupid people that taints the Gene pool even more.

the real reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199147)

The real reason is that women are quicker to realize that math and science skills are HIGHLY undervalued in the US, so they don't bother to waste their time on them.

Re:the real reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199187)

the real real reason is that women have a goal in their life: make children and be mothers.

men don't have such a goal so they go after maths and other challenges. Having sex if forced by nature.

Re:stereotypes (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199193)

This is possibility. In my limited observation, I have seen that Women seem more pragmatic than Men. If a woman loves math more than anything, she's still going to do the math and choose a career that pays better or allows other options.

Re:stereotypes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199433)

Yes, that's why women go into nursing, teaching, social work. They're pragmatic, and not doing what they feel passionate about.

Re:stereotypes (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199513)

My girlfriend is in Social Work because she couldn't afford Nursing School. I believe that she thought Nursing was high-paying, she's worked in Hospitals enough not to see there's no openings for a Saint. What she's passionate about is Crystal Energy or some New-Age Hoodoo, I try not to talk about it.

Erm (5, Insightful)

kaiwai (765866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199163)

From the "I thought feminism meant female equality with males" file and the interesting part was the bottom 'recommendation':

"The authors recommended that universities and companies create options for women with math talents who want to pursue math-intensive careers. These could include deferred start-up of tenure-track positions and part-time work that segues to full-time tenure-track work for women who are raising children, and courtesy appointments for women unable to work full time but who would benefit from use of university resources (e-mail, library resources, grant support) to continue their research from home."

Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.

People wonder why I given feminists as much credibility has hearing Saudi Arabia preach about human rights, tolerance and respect.

Re:Erm (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199307)

Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males

It was, but it's following a common pattern of reform movements. Back when the movement started, the issue was obtaining equality before the law. That's been achieved, so the reasonable people have moved on to other pursuits, leaving the dregs behind. It's similar to the way that the leadership of the civil rights movement degenerated from MLK to the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

-jcr

Re:Erm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199327)

Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point

Retarded you is more like it: "gay's and lesbian's"?

Re:Erm (3, Insightful)

Heather D (1279828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199349)

Feminism isn't being hypocritical here so much as its being incompetent. Not that that makes a big difference in the results. The solution, at least from a feminist perspective, would be to get equality in gender roles instead of trying to monopolize the nurturing role as well as expand into the provider role.

That is, if feminism is serious about this it needs to accept that it's a good thing for a man to provide the primary child care, get child support, etc. This isn't very popular among feminists let alone the mainstream.

Something has to give but most women that I know won't budge on this issue. At this point I'd say resistance to change comes more from women than men even with all the Mr. Mom jokes

Re:Erm (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199451)

Why is it a good thing? Is it bad for a woman to work? What about get an education? If she doesn't work why does she need to be educated? You haven't articulated your argument fully.

Re:Erm (4, Insightful)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199425)

As a male in trying to start a career in the hard sciences I have to say that there is little or no leeway given to those trying to have kids, regardless of their gender. I find this incredibly frustrating because I do want to have kids before I am 40 (i.e. have a tenured position) because it is healthier and safer for both my wife and child. This was something that was NOT the case when my Profs. were in my situation because women were assumed to be homemakers. This tells you two things: 1) that by and large professors in some of the hard sciences (math intensive in particular) are generally older (>50) while they were hired when they were in the 20-30s. 2) That the full magnitude of what we were giving up to go into the hard science of our choice was not clear until we were far along in our education (think 3-4 year of grad school). While I agree that people should be able to choose to not have a career to raise a family the fact of the matter is that the hard sciences are losing out because they are so inflexible. They are unable to attract younger brighter Profs. because people either leave the field for industry to make more money and have the ability to have kids or just get out of the workforce entirely to raise a family. In the long run this will hurt us all and treating it a simply as you have is not going to help solve a true problem: the aging of the hard sciences in academia. Now with all of that said: the policy of departments should be gender neutral so that I can take of time to raise my kids as much as my wife can. There is no reason to make it woman specific.

Re:Erm (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199431)

You know, some of us believe in a thing called not being an ass. It's why stores should have wheelchair ramps. Sure, if the disabled guy wasn't disabled he could walk up the steps, but given that he is disabled should we really refuse a reasonable accommodation? We might use your logic to say that slavery is good because being black and being white are not equal starting points. Unless you can clearly state what equality in starting points means your idea of equality is meaningless.

Re:Erm (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199449)

You get the same from many "unequal groups". I tend to avoid the term "minority group" because, by law of nature alone, women are no minority.

Any time someone from an "unequally treated group" gets set back, there is two possible outcomes. Either he sees it as it usually is, simply that he didn't win. Sometimes, though, you get to hear that this must have happened because he belongs to that group. Be it because of his/her gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

"You have to take me because I'm black, arab, jew, woman or gay, and if you don't, it's not because the other person you could choose is better but because you're prejudiced."

Over the long run, this does hurt those UTG members that strive for true equality, because it hardens the fronts. Whenever a law is created that prefers some UTG member, I cringe. Because it will invariably lead to the sentiment that someone was not hired for his merits but because to fulfill some quota. In German, there is already the term "Quotenneger" (roughtly "quota nigger", sorry for the slur). First it was used for the sterotypical black guy in some horror movie who invariably died first, in the meantime it is the slur for some UTG member that was appearantly only hired for the sole reason because he or she is a member of that group.

That leads to equal treatment and aids breaking down the stereotypes? I think not. If anything, it makes people more prejudiced.

Re:Erm (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199555)

From the "I thought feminism meant female equality with males" file and the interesting part was the bottom 'recommendation':

"The authors recommended that universities and companies create options for women with math talents who want to pursue math-intensive careers. These could include deferred start-up of tenure-track positions and part-time work that segues to full-time tenure-track work for women who are raising children, and courtesy appointments for women unable to work full time but who would benefit from use of university resources (e-mail, library resources, grant support) to continue their research from home."

Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.

People wonder why I given feminists as much credibility has hearing Saudi Arabia preach about human rights, tolerance and respect.

Sexism is discrimination based on sex, this is subdivided in two:

  • Chauvinism is discrimination against women in favor of men.
  • Feminism is discrimination against men in favor of women.

Equality is not achieved by feminism, discrimination is discrimination. There might have been a time when feminism meant to achieve equality, back when chauvinism was the norm, but that hasn't been true in my lifetime.

I don't get it (1)

EachLennyAPenny (731871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199211)

How are women more flexible in biology - where women are clearly overrepresented- to raise children opposed to mathematics?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199289)

Also, what are all these wimpy fields where you don't have to work "exorbitant hours to get promoted"? Are women (or more precisely anyone not willing to work much more than 40h/week) really better off being promoted in a wimpy field, compared to not promoted in STEM?

Medicine : Where this really gets scary (4, Insightful)

shmooattack (1482261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199213)

Where this trend really starts getting scary is in the field of medicine. While medical schools are trying desperately to accept increasing numbers of women (often more than 50% to compensate for those that don't continue on to practice) many of the women that do finish choose to raise a family during their time of residency (or soon after). This leaves women with less actual medical experience, and generally lowers the overall quality of care.

Re:Medicine : Where this really gets scary (3, Informative)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199321)

Doesn't a doc have to finish her residency? So, if she gets pregnant and takes maternity leave, she'll just have to come back and finish? I don't get how it reduces the quality of care.

Re:Medicine : Where this really gets scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199491)

The problem here in the UK is not that female doctors provide worse care, but that many of them are raising families rather than practicing medicine.

So we're spending a fortune educating doctors (the fees here are a tiny fraction of the actual cost) yet we're looking at a shortage of GPs.

I don't think there's any good solution to this.

Re:Medicine : Where this really gets scary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199541)

I have three doctors in my family, and they can tell you, that more than anything else, lack of doctors is the main contributor to low quality care. The doctors today are overworked and exhausted, and this leads to errors. What we need more than anything else, are more medical schools. I've seen fellow college students with 3.9 GPAs who've spent their entire summer doctor shadowing and volunteering at hospitals not get accepted into medical school. These people are certainly capable of learning and practicing medicine. Why we aren't utilizing this talent is beyond me.

Obvious (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199231)

Women do not enter science because they don't like to focus for long periods on one objective at the expense of all others. The like to "multi-task".

Being obsessive about a single concept for years is a male phenomenon, and is pretty essential to leanring/practicing science. Men see this type of focus/obsession as a desirable attribute, women see it as perverted.

As my mother said "Women are not just men with grapefruit up their jumpers". However, this, like reality in general, is not politically correct, so reality is ignored.

Re:Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199239)

Wow. So if women were in scientific or technical fields, we could --like-- talk to them and stuff. And hang out with them,

That'd be sooooo coool. /Goes back to watching Summer of 42.

Re:Obvious (1)

Heather D (1279828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199415)

Hm, yes I'd have to agree. I'm always getting that 'You're obsessed.' bit. I plan things out. I organize and focus on one task for a while then I move to another task. I've always seen this as multi-tasking but apparently real multi-tasking means doing a half-dozen things at once and none of them particularly well.

Bingo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199245)

For all this talk of having changed things those things really haven't changed that much. We've just slapped a new interface on the same old backend.

It should not be a surprise, really. That 'female power' sort of feminism that has been in ascendancy for ~25 years now is about getting others to do things for you instead of doing them yourself.

It really shouldn't require a lengthly study to get that this mentality is not going to foster success in any field where image and popularity are less important than skill.

..yes I posted anonymously. I'm a gay woman. I cannot win in this mess so I hide like a spineless thing. Bleh.

Duh? (1)

Hercules Peanut (540188) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199277)

Where's the "Duh" tag on this one? Really, are we just figuring this out?

Yet another case of blaming others (like educators and CEOs for this one) for discrimination when the responsibility falls on the choices we make.

Re:Duh? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199335)

Considering the political and gender correctness of today, it is actually anything but 'duh'. It's quite couragous to dare to say something like this.

It's one of the topics most researchers wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole. You may rest assured that this study will be under painfully detailed review and it will be drawn, quartered and hung (along with its maker) should there be the tiniest hint of a mistake. You must see the implications. Employers seeing this might be reluctant to hire a female researcher when the chances are high that they won't stay around because they want to have a family and thus want to stay home with their kids. This will also directly affect those women who don't plan this at all.

It's near certain that this study will be under direct and heated attack by any feminist group. Maybe now it's understandable why it was never done before. Simply because it comes to a conclusion that will come under attack.

Re:Duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199483)

I'll see your 'duh' and double it. There is something profoundly wrong with our world if we need to pay "research scientists" good money before we're willing to accept obvious facts. Pretty soon we'll need a study to tell us that driving headlong into traffic increases your probability of a fatal automobile accident.

But to your second point about discrimination - that's no 'duh' at all. Sure you can call raising children a "choice" if you believe continuation of the species is a "choice". Raising children is a biological imperative. Perhaps you would also call it a "choice" to be endowed with mammary glands. Women did not "choose" their sex, they are what they are, and if you can't find it in yourself to be grateful for their heroic contribution to humanity, tell it to your mother. Tell her what you really think about her "choice" to clean the shit off your stinky ass instead of pursuing a rewarding career during the first several years of your existence.

Discriminating against women because they are naturally disposed to take on child rearing responsibilities is a crime. They do more to improve the lot of humanity than men ever will, and then men have the temerity to smugly assume they deserve superior consideration in the "workplace". Most men have no idea what work really is. I'd consider the lessons learned during child rearing far superior to the experience gained during an equal time at work. You might be able to type faster, or know an extra programming language or two, but you clearly don't know much about what it's all about.

Ten years of "stay at home mom" should be considered a badge of honor on a resume.

Faulty data (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199291)

The real reason women don't go into math and science fields is because they are always horny and all they want are massive orgies 24x7 with guys who are uglier than you and want it in all three holes at the same time.

Look this up on the Internet there is evidence all over the place..

That doesn't sound right at all (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199295)

"because they want flexibility to raise children or prefer less math-intensive fields of science"

Many tech jobs are great for people who want to work from home and/or have flexible hours, and many women who want to raise kids at home (like my wife) would kill to have those options. So the former sounds like a load of BS, while the latter sounds very accurate. I try just as hard to get my daughter interested in mechanics/electronics/computers as I try with my son, but she won't take an interest in it. She does well at math, but she doesn't seem to have any curiosity about math-related subjects or how to design/create things, so I don't imagine she'll go for a math-heavy career.

When will this obvious situation be put to rest? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199323)

Women have different interests for their own reasons. Oddly, "researchers" haven't chosen to simple ASK women about their choices. The very notion that there is discrimination holding women back is nonsense and has been nonsense for a very long time. We've spend decades walking on eggshells trying to man women in the workplace more comfortable as a form of "affirmative action" to what end? A whole lot of hassle and needless tax benefits for "woman/minority owned businesses" and stuff like that? While we are compensating for the choices that people make, let's offer benefits to those who choose a particular religion to follow and whichever is the minority in a region, let's give them special privileges and tax exemptions. Also, let's put all "angry black men" who dress exclusively in "thug wear" into a special social category as well.

I am sure I am offending lots of people and a flamebait is the destiny for this comment, but when it comes to choices that people make, it's time we stop compensating for these people. Religion is a choice. Family or career paths are a choice. How people adapt themselves into society is a choice. Let's stop protecting people from and compensating people for the consequences of their choices. No more tax breaks for churches and religious institutions. No more affirmative actions for women and black people. Let's give TRUE equality a chance and take these societal crutches away. There may have been a need for them in the past, but that need has very likely expired.

Re:When will this obvious situation be put to rest (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199443)

So when I choose to work in a dangerous mine, and lose an arm in accident I don't deserve unemployment insurance or to be judged on the same basis as everyone else when I try to get another job because I should face the choices I made. Society doesn't exist so that we can be assholes to one another.

Re:When will this obvious situation be put to rest (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199511)

> Oddly, "researchers" haven't chosen to simple ASK women about their choices

If they had, there would be a post just like yours except that it would be complaining that the women might have given socially acceptable answers instead of what they really thought. People tend to lie about their thoughts and motivations to be accepted by others.

This is not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199325)

The "wage gap" is largely non-existent in Western countries these days. The trouble is, many feminists will point out the statistics, such as the fact that women earn 30% less than men in the UK, and claim that this is evidence of discrimination. In fact, it is almost entirely accounted for by the different choices women make regarding their careers. On average they choose less dangerous jobs, jobs that require less traveling, they take more extended breaks from their career, and so on. When you control for these factors, women's pay is almost identical to men's.

Or, to put it another way - if women really did cost 30% less to employ than men for doing the same work, why would any business ever employ a man?

Family over a Career? That's crazy talk! (1)

derrickh (157646) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199347)

It took a study to figure out that some people are more interested in having a family than they are in making sure the TPS reports are filed correctly?

Good work. (Add sarcastic comment about another obvious fact here)

D

Not news (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199353)

While I understand that there's good political hay to be made out of showing why women are treated unfairly, the whole glass-ceiling (at least insofar as salaries are concerned) thing was debunked years ago when studies on wage gaps corrected for overtime and willingness to travel.

The simple fact is that in most nuclear families, the man is the primary wage earner, the woman the primary caregiver to the children. This is probably based on relatively obvious biological differences (the woman lactates, the man doesn't; females generally excel in a number of cognitive abilities that are extremely useful in child-raising; females are generally more resistant to garden-variety infections and sicknesses; etc etc etc) This isn't prescriptive, merely descriptive, and valid for (AFAIK) the bulk of human history.

While I understand the desire for some men to stay home and raise children, and the desire for some women to have a life not based around family, both of them must understand that they are simply outside of the norm and no amount of whinging is going to make them 'the norm'.

shit for brains department (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199363)

A major reason explaining why women are underrepresented not only in math-intensive fields but also in senior leadership positions in most fields is that many women choose to have children, and the timing of child rearing coincides with the most demanding periods of their career, such as trying to get tenure or working exorbitant hours to get promoted,' said lead author Stephen J. Ceci... The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors[...]

(emphasis mine)

Q: Now, dear Watson, what do you think makes women want have children?

A: Hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences......

not just women (4, Interesting)

ghostlibrary (450718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199383)

It's not just women... whichever parent 'takes the hit' to raise the kids runs into this. It's the "kid track" (formerly 'mommy track'). Kids into schoolbus means I'm off to work, rush back before they get home, so less face time and less 'being seen'. It's never about the work.

I've been advised (wisely) to never mention the kids... the other scientists with kids, it's like a secret club where you only talk to other parents least word get out you're soft. In fact, I've been asked by a boss when will my kids be old enough that I can 'get serious about my career' (meaning put them into aftercare so I can work 60+ hours). I have no regrets-- we make a choice, you can't have it all, etc. But it is real-- if you're kid-track, you're not career-track.

Given the salaries in academia/science (medium-low) and that more women (statistically) achieving in the business workplace, more science guys (I predict) will be 'going domestic', so more guys will run into this too.

And while I'm at it, what's with the lame acronomy for Stay At Home Dads, it makes us all sound sahd. Besides, if you work 3/4 time or a rushed 8 hours, you're not staying, you're just at home when K12 is not in session.

Signed,
an At-Home Dad (AHD, similarily to ADHD probably intentional)

Re:not just women (1)

Internalist (928097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199489)

In fact, I've been asked by a boss when will my kids be old enough that I can 'get serious about my career'[...]

I'll surely catch some flack from the right-wing/libertarian contingent here on /. for pointing this out, I'm pretty sure that kind of question is illegal.

Actually, now that I think about it, I only know it's illegal up here in Socalist Canada...

(...hmm...a new joke meme? "In Socialist Canada, government takes care of YOU!")

Re:not just women (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199515)

How many times do I have to tell you to turn off the darn computer and do the dishes!

To the dishes...

NOW,

Signed,

Your wife.

Re:not just women (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27199545)

And if you're the stay at home dad, you get some odd looks. I got _kicked out_ of the changing room for my daughter's dance recital, becuase "little girls were naked in there, and I'm a man". The room was full of six year olds: They didn't kick out the moms because little boys were in there, and my daughter needed her injections administered: she had to be alone in that room full of nerves and come out to me to get it.

Intrinsic Asymetry (4, Insightful)

stuckinarut (891702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199471)

I think all these discussions skip over the fundamental fact that women are the only ones biologically capable of bringing a child into the world and the 9 month investment that requires rather than the 9 minute (assuming 8 minutes of foreplay) investment from a man.

Yes there will be women quite entitled to skip the whole process entirely. There will be others who will happily give birth and immediately go back to work leaving someone else at home to look after the child be it a stay at home dad or paid nanny. Many many more will enjoy motherhood and accept the hard work raising a child can be.

Evolution has made it so that women are naturally more bonded to their children and want to look after them and for good reason so the species can propagate.

Correlation != Causation! (1, Interesting)

Rastl (955935) | more than 5 years ago | (#27199495)

How many times does this need to be said??

Women are the gender that have children. There are fewer women in X and Y fields/occupations than men. Let's start with the assumption that this is because women have children and find some reasons that fit our already-determined conclusion.

If the expectations are said to be so freakin' unrealistic then why not address the root cause - make the expectations realistic? If someone can only succeed in a certain field/occupation if they put in 80 hour weeks for 6 years then something is certainly broken.

What about the people who do take the 'necessary time' to succeed? The rest of their lives must suffer horribly because of it. Working that much, that intensely means there's nothing left for a life outside of work and there's little opportunity to build a foundation to subsequently build one after the milestone has been reached. The habits are in place. If you've been working that much, for that long, you're not going to suddenly flip a switch and do the 40 hour weeks.

I know this is off-track for the generic "Math is hard, girls can't do math" conclusion but what about the families of those people who do decide to go into these fields/occupations? What kind of spouse and/or parent can that person be if their entire focus is on their work? And what kind of damage does that do to the social fabric?

Sorry. I'll get off my soapbox now but this sort of nonsense is a waste of everyone's time and money. Not only has it been done to death but every single stinkin' time it seems like the researchers have a conclusion they build a case to support and the easiest way to do that is to decide that womens' biological makeup is the determining factor.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...