[Northern Monkey]

Youtube video

[Niamh.]

I love Joe Rogan That was interesting I agree with some of what he said although I do think it's part biology and part social conditioning. I think people should just get into whatever they're interested in but it would be good if they weren't treated like less than (be that a male in a female dominated career or a female in a male dominated career) and there's where the problems can sometimes arise I think

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I love Joe Rogan That was interesting I agree with some of what he said although I do think it's part biology and part social conditioning.

tbh I think biology informed the social conditioning - gendered career paths became part of the general social ideas because of the biological "programming".

[Marches]

The wage gap proved wrong once again
It exists but people need to stop saying it’s sexist

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marches

The wage gap proved wrong once again
It exists but people need to stop saying it’s sexist

Except when it is blatantly sexist... of course.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

tbh I think biology informed the social conditioning - gendered career paths became part of the general social ideas because of the biological "programming".

I think biology "informed" the social conditioning too but not in a good or correct way ie women are weaker and less than men so therefore should be the carers etc

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marches

The wage gap proved wrong once again
It exists but people need to stop saying it’s sexist

Originally Posted by Livia

Except when it is blatantly sexist... of course.

.

[Marches]

When is it blatently sexist?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marches

When is it blatently sexist?

How did that video prove that it wasn't?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think biology "informed" the social conditioning too but not in a good or correct way ie women are weaker and less than men so therefore should be the carers etc

I agreeISH but why is it the case that people who choose caring professions are "weaker and less"... that perception seems like part of the problem, really.

A major part of the pay issue, whether the differences in interest are biological or not, is that caring / social professions are HUGELY under-valued and under-paid whereas the "big money" often lies in more ruthless / capitalism driven professions. I think people get a little hung up on the idea that "mo' money = doing better" ... I don't think women (or anyone else) should necessarily "aspire" to the high-paying jobs that are not actually morally aspirational at all and that would be a very strange path for society to go down. "Hey ladies! You get paid less than men... so what we really want is for more women to go into nasty cut-throat industries that **** over the world for profit. Why? Because you'll earn big bucks and decrease the pay divide!"

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agreeISH but why is it the case that people who choose caring professions are "weaker and less"... that perception seems like part of the problem, really.

A major part of the pay issue, whether the differences in interest are biological or not, is that caring / social professions are HUGELY under-valued and under-paid whereas the "big money" often lies in more ruthless / capitalism driven professions. I think people get a little hung up on the idea that "mo' money = doing better" ... I don't think women (or anyone else) should necessarily "aspire" to the high-paying jobs that are not actually morally aspirational at all and that would be a very strange path for society to go down. "Hey ladies! You get paid less than men... so what we really want is for more women to go into nasty cut-throat industries that **** over the world for profit. Why? Because you'll earn big bucks and decrease the pay divide!"

Oh no, I think you misunderstood what I meant by that. I don't think that carers are less than anyone, I agree, it should be a vocation because they do such an important job imo and look after the most vulnerable in society.

What I meant was, women were looked at as less than men so had to be the carers at home of the men and wait on them and then that transferred into careers as well, if you get what I mean?

I agree that carer type work should be more valued and higher paid, you never know, you may find an increase in men going for those type of careers too if that happened

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think biology "informed" the social conditioning too but not in a good or correct way ie women are weaker and less than men so therefore should be the carers etc

It's not to do with being weaker. In lamens' terms, estrogen makes women more caring, and women generally have more white matter in the brain, giving more empathy. This combination makes them (on average) better at being carers.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's not to do with being weaker. In lamens' terms, estrogen makes women more caring, and women generally have more white matter in the brain, giving more empathy. This combination makes them (on average) better at being carers.

See my reply to TS for my opinion on that.

Also I don't think all these men and women brain studies have ever really had full agreement on differences etc

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marches

When is it blatently sexist?

I wish I had time to list twenty years of in-work observation and personal experience, but I don't.

[bitontheslide]

Historically women have had to be carers because they were left holding the baby as it were. In this day and age men are as emotionally capable of caring as women as seen by the number of stay at home Dad's and male nurses in care facilities. It's a trait shared by the sexes, the exception being when either male or female doesn't give a crap about their fellow human beings

The above being the basis for women's roles being pigeon holed for generations, doesn't make it a fact. Each individual has skills that they excel in and others that they suck at. People should just be allowed to do what they get pleasure from doing and let them be.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Historically women have had to be carers because they were left holding the baby as it were. In this day and age men are as emotionally capable of caring as women as seen by the number of stay at home Dad's and male nurses in care facilities. It's a trait shared by the sexes, the exception being when either male or female doesn't give a crap about their fellow human beings

The above being the basis for women's roles being pigeon holed for generations, doesn't make it a fact. Each individual has skills that they excel in and others that they suck at. People should just be allowed to do what they get pleasure from doing and let them be.

I agree.

I've said this before I know... but, my brother took time off work when he kids were little while his wife went back to her career. Worked out brilliantly for them. And it's becoming more and more widespread.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Historically women have had to be carers because they were left holding the baby as it were. In this day and age men are as emotionally capable of caring as women as seen by the number of stay at home Dad's and male nurses in care facilities. It's a trait shared by the sexes, the exception being when either male or female doesn't give a crap about their fellow human beings

The above being the basis for women's roles being pigeon holed for generations, doesn't make it a fact. Each individual has skills that they excel in and others that they suck at. People should just be allowed to do what they get pleasure from doing and let them be.

Yes exactly what I mean be biology influencing social conditioning, it's great to see that changing though especially with fathers and their children, it can only be a positive thing for father and child relationships imo

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

part social conditioning. I think people should just get into whatever they're interested in but it would be good if they weren't treated like less than (be that a male in a female dominated career or a female in a male dominated career) and there's where the problems can sometimes arise I think

[James]

There's an effect called the Norwegian Gender Paradox. This is a documentary about it.

Youtube video

The short version of it is that Norway is the country with the most gender equality, but has men and women in traditional male and female jobs the most.

So 90% of nurses are female and 90% of engineers are male.

In countries which are poorer, like India, you get more women as, say engineers. The theory is that where people have more of a choice (like Norway) they do what they want, but in poorer countries they have less choice to do what they want because of financial reasons.

They talk in the video about an experiment where new-born babies (hour-old if I remember) were shown one of two pictures: a face and a shape, and it was recorded which picture interested them most.

The experiment found that girls showed a preference for the face (which suggests empathy) and boys preferred the shape (which suggests a preference of systems).

They think it is because of the influence of testosterone.

[Niamh.]

will try to watch that later James

[Vicky.]

Yeah I do think its part biology and part socialization. From being very very young most kids see mum doing all the cleaning, housework, childcare and such so see that as 'normal'. Its kind of ingrained by the time they are older. BUT of course hormones do play a role, I agree estrogen would make women naturally more empathetic and such and obviously male frames + testosterone make men more suited for physical work. I do think its more socialization than biology though.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Historically women have had to be carers because they were left holding the baby as it were. In this day and age men are as emotionally capable of caring as women as seen by the number of stay at home Dad's and male nurses in care facilities. It's a trait shared by the sexes, the exception being when either male or female doesn't give a crap about their fellow human beings

The above being the basis for women's roles being pigeon holed for generations, doesn't make it a fact. Each individual has skills that they excel in and others that they suck at. People should just be allowed to do what they get pleasure from doing and let them be.

Right. Without politicizing those efforts of course... because it's a buzzkill to the the concept of freedom of the sexes. We are an individualist culture and we have a right to pave any path we choose, even if it means they are financially riskier ones... that is our choice in life. Many crafts/talents/positions essentially started as "free" until there was a large enough demand for quality talent in those areas that it warranted a need to pay for those services....

Like daycare now is a income sucking black hole... regardless of that, I am in business for myself so I can raise my children properly, but it is riskier because of the variable income, but with that I get a better work-life balance for my family (and money goes in my pockets, instead of someone elses as I build it up...)

My hypothesis is it will pay off for my kids and it already helps me to be a better wife for my husband who works a stressful job... when I was working outside the home, I worked crazy hours and we rarely saw each other. Hardly saw the point to rearing a family at all then...

Originally Posted by James

There's an effect called the Norwegian Gender Paradox. This is a documentary about it.

Youtube video

The short version of it is that Norway is the country with the most gender equality, but has men and women in traditional male and female jobs the most.

So 90% of nurses are female and 90% of engineers are male.

In countries which are poorer, like India, you get more women as, say engineers. The theory is that where people have more of a choice (like Norway) they do what they want, but in poorer countries they have less choice to do what they want because of financial reasons.

They talk in the video about an experiment where new-born babies (hour-old if I remember) were shown one of two pictures: a face and a shape, and it was recorded which picture interested them most.

The experiment found that girls showed a preference for the face (which suggests empathy) and boys preferred the shape (which suggests a preference of systems).

They think it is because of the influence of testosterone.

I heard about this very recently, so thanks for the link. Will watch this soon.

[Jamie89]

I'm sure there is some biology behind the general differences in job preferences, the problem is when somebody doesn't fit the generalisation and decides to follow a career path based on what they want as an individual and is treated poorly because of their gender, that kind of thing is entirely down to socialisation.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I'm sure there is some biology behind the general differences in job preferences, the problem is when somebody doesn't fit the generalisation and decides to follow a career path based on what they want as an individual and is treated poorly because of their gender, that kind of thing is entirely down to socialisation.

yep exactly

[jaxie]

Interesting thread. I think job choice is about nature and nurture but can also be about opportunities and the education that was available to the individual as well.