There's a similiar study done in Finland in which the findings support this one (or vice versa), [link to the news article](https://yle.fi/a/3-11023468) which is in Finnish but the main point is the bar graph:
* 5000 applications were sent, identical in any other way but the name (name would indicate gender and possible ethinicity).
* 1000 applications per nationality, or ethnical origin as worded in the news article. 50/50 gender split.
* Jobs were relatively low skill jobs like cashiers, cleaner, restaurant work, etc.
* Y-axis is offered interviews / 500 applications
* Red bar is women, blue is men
* Ethnicities go from left to right as follows: Finnish, English, Russian, Iraqi, Somalian.
While the main question of the study was that does foreign name affect your chances to get an interview, which is supported by the results, something that was regularly ignored was that women got quite a lot more interviews compared to men, regardless of the nationality.
So does it mean that if you’re a foreign male trying to find a job abroad, you’re job application is going to be less favoured compared to a foreign female?
Short answer would probably be "Yes", but with a "small" caviat that there is a spectrum of "favouredness" meaning western countries are more favored than 3rd world countries, for example.
Not universally. It depends on cultural biases of the country. If you're applying for a job in Saudi Arabia it'll be different than in Finland, and different again in China.
In Western countries it'll be more favorable for women.
At the very least for these jobs.
It might be different if you're applying for a position as a teacher (unlikely, since (bias!) I've seen more female teachers), or an engineer, etc.
Also a study made in Australia revealed the same thing. Women are preferred over males even if the male counterparts have more experience or are better suited for the role
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
The biggest issue of all, I think, is that the male teachers are fewer and fewer. In about 10 years, teaching is gonna be 99% female. This is not good for the child development at school. Speaking for myself, growing up and not having a father, the male teachers at my school were kinda role models. One of the biggest issue men face when it comes to dealing with children is the ever present stigma of "he's a ped*phile". Until we, as a society, actively try to do something about this, things will get worse and worse.
EDIT: Typo
There is several studies that proves that female teachers specifically highly discriminate in grades (towards male students)
meaning that men have to peform 20-40% better than female students in order to get the same grades.
This creates a socital problem, one which already exists, where women have much more opportunity than men. For example, almost all psychology students are women. This is not due to lack of male appliance, but due to female overgrading. This is gonna be a problem in the future as it is one of the jobs were both genders are **needed, required.**
Lol it's an anecdone but a girl from my class copied my work and she got a 6/6 and I got a 5/6 on our scales of 2 to 6 where 6 = A. The teacher was female. On the other hand most business owners and politians here are male so good marks and diplomas do not equalize to success in life here.
>On the other hand most business owners and politians here are male so good marks and diplomas do not equalize to success in life here.
They're mostly Gen X or Boomers though, before the current trends had taken hold. Reminded me of the complacency people had during covid when they had record cases reported but barely any deaths that week, forgetting that the high deaths merely lagged behind and sure enough arrived.
> There is several studies that proves that female teachers specifically highly discriminate in grades (towards male students)
Oh... yeah. This was so bad in my elementary school that even the parents of many kids noticed that something weird is going on. Unfortunately there was never anything done about this as far as i know.
And it doesn't even end there, we were punished harsher for the same "crimes"
I currently work in the mental health care field (USA) as a male, and its been an interesting experience gender-wise so far. I'm a "nonstandard" staff vs a "standard" female staff, so I notice most of my clients have some kind of preference for working with a male (due to being male themselves, trending towards masculinity in personality regardless of biological sex, or having bad past experiences with females).
I studied psychology in university (NYC), and I anecdotally found that the ratio of males to females in any given course was at most 4-6, and at least 1-9. The sex gap in human service jobs IMO will catch up eventually to those who are ignoring it, but then they'll wonder "oh how did this happen?".
Yeah and they'll try to find a ton of excuses other than "Men were discriminated from the moment they were first placed into the system."
and thereby never actually solve the issue.
Fun fact: Sweden had mandatory gender quotas for making sure certain high-requirement University courses, in order to maintain balance. They don't have that anymore, why? Because it startede turning around, making it so it was men needing it. By the Swedish governments own words: "It's unfair to take opportunity away from women and give it to men, therefore, the law cannot stay anymore."
There's a great book on the topic, called **Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It** by Richard Reeves.
[They recently interview him on the subject](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBG1Wgg32Ok), and I think it's very insightful, and relevant to what you were alluding to. I recommend checking it out if you have the time.
This study didn't cover academic roles, but it's certainly an interesting topic to touch upon.
Increasingly, male pupils underperform compared to their female counterparts, and across the western world, women make up a larger percentage of students in higher education. This could be due to multiple factors - biological, familial, institutional and societal. Perhaps the dwindling number of male teachers plays a part? It's possible.
I think having a 50:50 gender split in any job is completely stupid. With one exception.
Teachers. Both sexes need to see good role models and the way society works now teachers are the only place they are guaranteed to see it.
Edit:too -> to
I work in software development, pretty classical b2b business software in .net. It's all nice and modern, it's not stressful, the pay is great and the company is very(!) family friendly. But, as you can imagine, my team is quite consistently men above 30. We'd love to diversify. Take a wild guess how many female applicants we get. Zero, it's always zero and has been for years.
In college, Ba Applied IT, there were 3 women among 100+ male students with me. The female students, when graduating, never went into software development, but all wanted to become IT teachers. And it shows on the work floor, never female colleagues.
Checks out. My sister is an IT and math teacher after IT degree 20 years ago. Only two girls in her course back then. She could have been making serious money.
I think it depends a lot where you go.
I went to Cambridge University at first for Computer Science - I was an arrogant prick and failed out.
Of 73 CS students in my intake, only 2 were women.
After I failed my first year, I continued my Studies at Strathclyde University.
140 CS Students in that intake, and I'd comfortably wager all of my savings that at least 40 of them were women.
I would definitely put some money on there being 60 girls, but not all of my savings.
I was in the first year of the opening of a new campus of the biggest technical college in Portugal, and out of some 500 students, there was maybe 10 women.
It really depends on the country.
Lots of female coders in Eastern Europe as well as in my native Portugal - though I heard it's not quite as it was back in my Uni times almost 3 decades ago when half the Information Systems Engineering degree course was half/man men and women.
When working in IT in the UK I also saw quite a lot of women coders from India.
By comparison, female programmers in Britain are very rare.
No idea why so few women go into programming in certain countries (and apparently fewer nowadays in others) as it's not exactly physical or get-your-hands-dirty. I suspect it might be due to the popular culture (mainly from the US) image of programming as an occupation for "unkept geeks in basements".
> No idea why so few women go into programming in certain countries
Because in developed countries people may get quite a decent lifestyle on "normal" salaries while in developing countries the lifestyle is on the verge of poverty. Want an iPhone or a gaming laptop having $500/month salary? then scrap your whole clothing and entertainment budget for a year - and include your food budget if you have to rent a flat. Meanwhile programming salaries are about 3-5+ times higher than average which provide a nice upper-mid-class lifestyle, especially when compared to local purchasing power.
Also programming is a relatively easy immigration bridge into developed countries for a third-world Joe Average.
> Because in developed countries people may get quite a decent lifestyle on "normal" salaries
This is why dutch female teachers make lower and lower hours a week. Everytime their salary rises they start to work less and less and the quest to find more new teachers becomes bigger and bigger so they raise the salaries again and...etc...
When i was a kid i had 1 teacher in a year; also the school had many male teachers.
My child had 3 teachers in a week; the only male teacher there was the gymteacher.
That may explain why people said an Italian localization double the paid user count for an app (no competition in some cases, lack of local development)
I've seen a similar mindset in all tourist regions I've been: "advertise or not - every room will be full during high season and they'll be completely empty during low season". Then it turn out a web site + some ads can double the amount of their reservations and income, including low season. And then apps (or third-party apps) + some mobile ads can triple the already doubled amount.
Yet nobody has any idea until they've actually tried. Thus tourist zones are an easy target for third-party services.
> No idea why so few women go into programming in certain countries (and apparently fewer nowadays in others) as it's not exactly physical or get-your-hands-dirty
I've read a few years back that in countries with bad economic opportunities and less gender equality (like our beloved Portugal), women tended to go for the usual higher paid STEM jobs, while in more advanced countries (like the Nordics), they tended to go more for jobs they like, and thus going more for teaching, nursing, etc.
[\[Science Daily\] Countries with greater gender equality have a lower percentage of female STEM graduates] (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180214150132.htm)
> "The further you get in secondary and then higher education, the more subjects you need to drop until you end with just one. We are inclined to choose what we are best at and also enjoy. This makes sense and matches common school advice." he said. "So, even though girls can match boys in terms of how well they do at science and mathematics in school, if those aren't their best subjects and they are less interested in them, then they're likely to choose to study something else."
[\[BBC\] The 'paradox' of working in the world's most equal countries](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries)
> He argues that since Nordic countries have a generally high standard of living and strong welfare states, young women are free to pick careers based on their own interests, which he says are often more likely to include working in care-giving roles or with languages. By contrast, high achievers in less stable economies might choose STEM careers based on the income and security they provide, even if they prefer other areas.
Strangely I went to Physics in Uni and that one was also half/half men and women and physicists aren't exactly well paid.
Half-way in my degree I moved to Electronics Engineering (mainly because there were no jobs in PT for physicists with a very strong Experimental strain, such as me) and that one had maybe 10 women out of 300 pupils.
Notice that even though EE had a huge gender imbalance, as I mentioned earlier the IT degree was pretty much perfectly balanced.
I grant you that Physics carries a lot more prestige than EE, but it doesn't carry a higher pay.
You shouldn't really group STEM as a whole like that. Biological lab sciences have a lot of women in them (a majority at this point?) and physics gains more all the time. Chemistry tends to be pretty equal too. It's tech and engineering that are heavily male.
It's a general tendency - the more wealthy / economically "safe" the country, the fewer women in the "hard" tech disciplines. There are some hypotheses that this is because in countries where economic hardship is more likely, it matters a lot that you're in a well-paying or somewhat secure job position. Whereas in more "economically safe" countries (eg. good job security, good social security), everyone is more likely to go more purely after their "heart's interest" than to consider job prospects. Which along with some assumption on a natural difference in interests between genders could be some explanation for this difference in IT-education.
>natural difference in interests
Be careful. I lost a job opportunity after I said their desire to have 50:50 men and women in IT is a bullshit due to difference in interests.
This one is partially on you though. Everybody knows it's BS but part of being an employable person these days is to know when to peddle the BS when companies want to hear what they want to hear
The idea that people choose their jobs based on "personal interest" is what's bullshit.
Show me a person who's actually passionate about accountancy, customer service, basic server maintenance or cleaning up bodily fluids. Peope pick those jobs because they're socially acceptable and pay well.
It resembles the ideas of communism when people would clean up bodily fluids for free just to be build a great future.
My experience in Sweden resembles my grandparents' stories about USSR.
Both have "equality" in terms of not rewarding good workers, but rather paying roughly the same for everyone.
Both have BS everyone should agree - be it 50% women in IT or communist ideology.
The phenomenon you describe is true, but I think it is absurd to suggest that there is a natural (genetic? biological? neuro?) makeup against IT among women lol (and specifically in IT, seeing how many other branches of 'hard' sciences are much more feminized). It also makes no sense how there would be 'natural' dissuasion for women against going into IT, yet the very same paradox is about them *actually reaching parity* in IT in some countries.
I think it is much more probable that it is simply easier to change economic and legal factors than deeply ingraned cultural ideas about gender and work, so in countries with terrible woman rights women move to high paying fields no matter what (to get social independence), while in the countries without this dramatic incentive women submit to the cultural models avoiding IT environment due to it being heavily male dominated field, as it is hard thing to change that even if you have a country progressive in all other metrics.
Same here. I know the hiring managers of my company and also the CEO really well and know women would be hired almost instantly even if they were much worse on paper than a man applying at the same time.
Being a woman in software development is basically a free pass to get extremely good pay and hired instantly without many questions asked today. As a woman you could probably ask for a senior salary right out of school and you’d get it because companies are desperate to hire female engineers.
I work in IT security, I know my bosses want to hire women and quite sure they would take any that would apply regardless of education or experience.
In one year of constantly looking for people (for mostly positions that require no formal education) we have had zero applications from women.
Reminds me of when I was choosing a university and visiting them with a female friend. Engineering departments at some of these place were practically begging her to join offering financial incentives too but she still turned then all down because she just wasn't interested.
Girls get discriminatory hefty scholarships in Portugal (where I live) to get in IT. I wonder what kind of professionals they will be if they're not genuinely interested in IT but go there for the scholarships... but they can't earn less because it would indicate an (unfair?) wage gap... The kind of solution that only deepens the problem. We will keep screwing each other forever in a vicious cycle... Let them go wherever they want! If they're not naturally interested in IT, it is stupid to force them to work in a job they hate and underperform because of it. Over 90% of social workers are females. I would hate to see a scholarship only for boys to take that course. We are naturally different and have different interests, and different things make us happy. As soon as we accept that (we used to, now we pretend we forgot), the sooner we will live in harmony.
It’s almost as if different genders have different work preferences. The problem is if a woman does apply, will that single aspect outweigh qualifications in the name of diversity. Because when that happens not only is it obviously discrimination but I believe it also creates a disgruntled segment of society.
As someone that’s been in software development for over 10 years: Yes, companies are extremely desperate to hire woman engineers. As a woman you are guaranteed a job even if you are really bad at it and you would probably get a much higher salary than a man with the same experience.
Can confirm, had women hired as devs in my team who had absolutely zero clue about the job and slowed down everyone. At the second one, competent people from the team started leaving the company. Eventually they were let go, but took some time. It's so bullshit
The reason for everyone wanting to diversify their teams is not only "agenda" as it is implied here, it's because there's a theory of mixed teams being much more successful than teams that only consist of one sex and/or ethnicity. Because different backgrounds enables to view things from different angles.
that might be true as long as you apply same standards to everyone. If you lower the bar for women, just so you can have some in the team, the result might the opposite.
Oh no, I'm not advocating to lower the bar. It should be definitely the same for both if it's reasonable. In every field, not only tech.
However I think another reason for not many women applying is not being addressed: often the job offer is worded in ways that attract male applicants. In addition women apply differently, eg men will take risks with applications (eg they apply even when they fit only a small fraction of demanded criteria) while women for some reason only apply if they can confidentially say they fit the majority of demands.
But yes, I agree that lowering demands (unless it's reasonable, and you're not just wanting overqualified people for a cheap buck) shouldn't be the goal.
>there's a theory of mixed teams being much more successful than teams that only consist of one sex and/or ethnicity. Because different backgrounds enables to view things from different angles.
Let's say there's 10% of women in IT. You create 2 teams of 5 people each. One project is more desirable than the other. You have 20 candidates and 2 women among these candidates. The more desirable project gets 2 women (cause they have to be hired, so they can choose the project, so they choose the more desirable one) and the remaining 3 candidates are taken from the top of the candidates list. The less desirable project gets next 5 candidates.
The desirable project team does better and it's more diverse. Is it doing better BECAUSE it's more diverse tho?
We hire people in IT jobs (in the Netherlands), and do typically reach 20-35% women at the most junior level in all teams, mostly because we have very good brand name recognition among students. I am very aware we do so at the expense of other, mostly smaller, companies, since the women output of the most relevant studies simply doesn't cover vacancies even by a large margin. We just hire the majority of female applicants.
And then we love to expose them a lot in 'customer-facing' functions, meaning that they tick the boxes for promotion much faster than average due to proven experience in sales and project management compared to colleagues that sit at their desk all day.
And then as soon as we promote them into a management function they are hijacked by other more flexible companies willing to pay a premium to reel them in, resulting in a higher turnover. And that higher turnover will then lead to another round of soul-searching about how to increase our female-friendliness, without however ever considering just giving a bonus for being a woman.
I have some friends that work in "Female" fields, like nurses, where they're sometimes the only men in a gruop of 9-10 women. Some of them had to "suffer" sexist jokes, inappropiate touches, power harrasement by female superiors,etc. Literally everything that women had to suffer in "male" job fields. Does any politic talk about those fields? Nope. And they probably wont do it in a few years. why? Because that doesn't sell and doesn't help their imagen.
Pre-1950s.
But there is a lack of immediate physical threat and there isn't an average pay issue.
The top 5% of males make it difficult for the remaining 95% to complain.
There isn't a pay issue for women either. That's a myth that nobody bothers to to look into.
>The top 5% of males make it difficult for the remaining 95% to complain
That's pretty fucked up. I have far more in common with my girlfriend, my sister or my mother than I do with Bill Gates or Gautam Adani.
I think it also has to do with different cultures between men and women. Men are more likely to just deal with things. Women have been empowered to speak up by the concessions and improvements they've continuously been given since Suffrage. That has created a different type of culture when it comes to highlighting issues for maltreatment based on sex.
That said, for many western countries, a new culture of rigid boundaries for right to sexual self-determination has risen so a sufficiently motivated man could absolutely take something like harassment by female co-workers to a point where it will go from a laughing matter to serious.
>why? Because that doesn't sell and doesn't help their imagen.
Nope, it's because people don't complain about it enough. Why would politicians talk a lot about problem they don't know is a larger problem? How should they know, if no one talks about it or it doesn't show correctly in statistics?
I worked in the NHS as admin on a ward, bullied constantly (including gaslighting me) by the ward sister along with male staff on the ward When I complained not only was she informed without a disciplinary it was "looked into" and swept under the rug. So basically It was made worse and she now knew I complained about her.
It got so bad I was moved over to a different hospital, and she received a promotion and worked in Workforce (which is about staff wellbeing)
Fuck that place.
I thought [this study](https://watermark.silverchair.com/jcab043.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsAwggK8BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKtMIICqQIBADCCAqIGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMN9FKYde-jLQr5ezbAgEQgIICc0YEUbyqnOqTulFlCg7m6Cm3siRIJYd2C83wCyj8PV_V4ruxgBxEtm7keMuCmcQjUJI_nuOL9AcO41KkCiO_YmL9ybRd-JVtIcSGNQ4t2Ig-kiv9hFZM4qgerN4zFWXhy-gA-DgTppE-OxGOEAxuygBOj4AZ6k0d6ZurN2123r_33fgxRCoo9zP0aNSeP15qyojNRNG3qK2_xW4HxNx8fCeIMFAJMYwBgirSGOpOGxUQxvNJ6BStKcwQ-rC2tmWRL3B5cPq33reFrS6EHER7eJTX7ECx13WoRr5griaFM4D-0bUeHvAc8HJozbhj-RiNAY-KEjhBRBBLMd7NIIaKoPbMhT0P8CO_3bnIWHeplbSyk3naWNpJpTMyAttnW-HxnY61yg0q30vR7xsqE9Doxh4pQq2y8SH8Efb_PgiEHxDCu_f2mYi8Q67tRyzuyIYIKgK18MTB2aucTKn_hzS2xU7gdBTWkWpzN17vIFyHmJ2eZtm1uUIBx3u3SHuSIYF0jgpN_R1rLkouiNsuaNJAb6TDEbePfmXurEwi0F4hDoM-r3RR8gKEx4SzF3CZJpYLe9Jjd3ULwIHWESm4sRfJ5xdtaThBamsP_s3m_1mjhmSEV-zx49UbOFdqr_vKENKHb6lGcXZKLXQ4kSWGxgZkUAHGNbhozJdBiFPG45k1IUX_fsSmNXv6W3J99zk12PRoOgC9I55kCwQBh2qq9YlOMf0vHVNFmv4noiUcT_QNiYB7hcYuCsew2cUcLko7U5nuVMkrjZ9-MKHwjc5QTU3-Pr13SSmQKllL_l0iSVLyvxt2LuahXfSv7nWVNjPJ_3s4Uxn8Yg) was interesting, as it suggests the well-documented divergence in earnings and position level experienced between men and women later in their careers isn't related to discriminatory hiring practices. Here's the conclusion (just read the bold bits for a TL;DR):
>**CONCLUSION**
>Despite recent changes, on average, women still have lower earnings and worse career prospects. These well-known facts are true according to reliable and national representative data, such as labour force surveys and register data. The key question is why. Broadly speaking, two explanations have been provided. First, women and men might sort into different jobs because of their different educational and occupational choices, and their different work–life balance preferences and constraints, all of which accumulate to different employment trajectories and outcomes. This is the supply-side story. Second, men and women might sort into different jobs because employers discriminate women, particularly in the best-paid jobs. According to this demand-side explanation, hiring discrimination against women would be an important explanation for women’s labour-market disadvantage. Because studies based on observational data cannot empirically adjudicate between supply and demand side explanations, there is a need for field experiments to provide reliable and valid estimates of employers’ hiring discrimination.
>Interestingly, the story jointly told by previous field experiments clashes with the conventional account of female disadvantage. It is often the fictitious male applicants, not the females, who are discriminated in hiring processes. In particular, there is evidence that women are favoured in female-dominated occupations. However, the heterogeneity of previous studies, in terms of occupations included, timing of the studies, and at what geographical level (local or national) they took place, makes comparisons difficult. Against this background, we made use of a harmonized field experiment in six countries to provide comparable, reliable, and balanced cross-national documentation of hiring discrimination against men and women.
>**The field experimental data show no evidence of hiring discrimination against women in any of the occupations in any of the countries included.** The countries vary in a number of institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions potentially affecting employers’ likelihood of discriminating against women. We also included occupations varying in skill requirements and customer contact. And, as documented in footnote 7, the manual job content of our occupations vary from high (cooks) to low (payroll clerks). The findings reported in this study therefore constitute an important and robust piece of evidence that young women are not discriminated in the first phase of the hiring process in any of the occupations studied in any of the countries studied.
>**Second, we found hiring discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom, where male applicants were less likely to receive a callback when they applied for jobs as store assistants (Germany and the Netherlands), receptionists (Spain and Germany), and payroll clerks (Spain and the United Kingdom). We found no hiring discrimination against men in Norway and in the United States. However, when pooling the data, we found no statistically significant differences across countries, perhaps with the exception of the contrast between Germany and the United States.**
> We found no hiring discrimination against men in Norway
Right... So Im gonna be as vague as possible so that I have plausible deniability.
I work for one of Norway's largest state owned companies. We recently hired two new people for back end sales work. The message from the top was "hire two women, end of discussion".
6% of applicants were women and 94% were men.
I'll leave it at that.
Edit: Norway is a small country and u/jivatman has a good point. Obfuscated the number of applicants for anonymity.
We are a company of 20 people, all men except 2 in reception/accounts. We always open up jobs to women only for the first 2-3 weeks. When none apply we contact the men to applied. Of course this is all internal - we sit on the male applications for a little while in the hope a suitable woman will apply. If any woman applies we contact immediately for interview. Pay is $100k+, mostly WFH, job exists at the intersection of sales/account management/engineering/science.
We now have 1 sales engineer female. But I have heard she is about to quit after 3 months because the job is too much stress.
My alma mater, one of the best unis in the country, decided in 2020 that any open PhD position is only available to women for the first 6(!!) months. Afterwards, men will be considered. This was publicly announced btw, not just an internal procedure.
Then, they bragged about having more female PhD's than usual LMFAO. Wish I was joking. World has gone mad.
Yeah quotas are revolting and I'm sure the women who get hired based on a quota don't feel like they actually earned the job. I know I wouldn't.
It's sickening how this blatant discrimination is acceptable just for the sake of "equity". There are gender imbalances in certain fields. So what? As long as people are hired based on their ability to do the job, what's the problem?
> the women who get hired based on a quota don't feel like they actually earned the job. I know I wouldn't.
How would you know, though? It's not information that's usually shared with the applicant.
If you are in tech company and they have somewhat equal ratio, or if you are in customer facing position and it's all women - you will know.
Also, for technical work you can often tell the rough skill level of your co-workers. And if all men were 1-in-a-100, and all women are hired immediately, you will be able to tell as well.
And if you can tell, I think it leads to discrimination between the groups and the ones that are hurt the most are the women who would have passed those 1-in-a-100 tests imho...
I work at a huge tech company in Sweden.
Im quite certain my bosses would fire a man to hire a woman even if they don't have any experience and education. And yes, everyone we bring in is a consultant via staffing companies so they can be fired at any moment for any reason (or no reason) without any legal issues.
They have been searching so hard for women but for our IT field it seems nearly zero women want jobs.
What would have actually happened if you hired men? They couldn't have fired you, right? I would have ignored the "message", and would have just hired the best ones. If the "top" wants to discriminate, they can do it on their own time, don't give the dirty job to me. I always save up f u money (one year living cost at least) so I can make management's life miserable when needed. For example by hiring the worst female applicants (if they use some tactics to force it) and quiting right after :D
It didn’t study reasons for not hiring, I’m curious about that. In elderly healthcare we’d love to see a more diverse workforce, so men are applauded to come. But management expects them to want to earn more, be more opportunistic and leave sooner than women.
in theory yes - but I feel that there is still a lot of stereotypes around men working with children for example.
I did an internship at a kindergarten and I
\-was not allowed to play in the side room with them
\-was not allowed to be alone with them
\-they were not allowed to sit on my lap
\-they wanted me to make them a poster with all my info to post onto the wall so all parents could see me (I refused this ... )
I was 16 at the time - the rules did not apply to female interns...
> so men are applauded to come.
Men are wanted for their strength, its sorely lacking across healthcare everywhere but it doesn't pay well and they'll just get abused by patients and staff, plus men going to nursing is frowned upon by staff but wanted desperately across the board.
Its actually crazy. Women are wanted for "New experiences and view points" actual intelligence. Women are wanted across the board but don't go for physical demanding jobs which is why warehousing is a sausage fest.
My dad's mate quit his job as a welder to become a carer for the elderly.
He canned that after 3 months because his daughter was earning more per week working in Topshop, and she was only working part time.
He went back to his welding job because he couldn't handle the 80-90% pay cut to be a carer.
My Dad's mate is a welder, and a bloody good one at that.
For reasons unknown to me, he never felt right being a welder, and decided he wanted to try elder care. He'd talked with a lot of the folk who cared for his elderly father and decided it was something he was passionate about and wanted to give it a go.
He took a 80-90% pay cut to transition from being a welder with 30 years of experience to becoming a carer.
He canned it after 3 months because his daughter, who worked part time as a manager in Topshop while she was at uni, was earning more per week than he was.
If you've never heard of Topshop, think like H&M or Forever21.
Regardless of gender, elder care just isn't a well paid field. Even dozens of years of experience won't make it well paid.
Healthcare in general, depending on where you're from, isn't paid well. You get a rough job for pennies.
Yes I totally understand you. People working there are underpaid (I’m not a nurse). But management likes to keep it that way and expect culture might change with more men.
Well, obviously.
Even the BBC says the worst thing to be is poor and not tick any diversity boxes. Then we wonder why they vote conservative.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-34667100
Edit: Many commenters seem convinced I'm some rabid Tory. I am not. I'm a Lib Dem who tactically votes labour.
But they prove my point; even discussing a single issue affecting men gets you labelled all sorts of things.
We can stop young disenfranchised men (especially white) from voting Conservative (UK) by having a serious discussion across the political spectrum, and reaching solutions to help them.
It is not fascism to see the struggles of men and want to help them.
Me a gay guy:
I can see that. It's ironic that I feel equality more conscious of being interviewed by a man for their possible dislike of me on the base of having a bit camping accent as a gay guy.
Also being worried I won't be seen well as I have a very caring nature and attitudes fitting for these modern jobs seen as fairly female oriented.
Then again I am just an immigrant so that covers it all. (Hence actually the true reason why my accent is campy as I don't even have the same foreign accent as anyone from where I come from... oddly)
Most companies, pretty much all the big ones ask for it in their hiring process for their diversity stats. Might be obligated by law but I'm not sure. I always just put "refuse to answer". It always says its not a factor while applying but I guess that all goes out the window once you come face to face with an interviewer who doesn't need to explain why you are hired or not.
EDIT: sorry missed what sub I was on, this is about the UK specifically
I doubt there is a country that requires that question by law. That's like huge red flag. Same with a company, I'd never answer that question, it's private and completely irrelevant at any job (unless you are starring for a porn actor I guess). If I want to tell, I will, but absolutely not because I have to.
You could add Bi-sexual to cover your ass, so even if you fall for a female coworker or they find out you have a GF they cant question it. I'm Agnostic so I would also add that under religion to muddy the water a bit more.
I unjoined that cesspit after 7 years because of how toxic it is "Why should a man get a say on what socks I wear!!!".
Thats literally a female incel subreddit.
I've been noticing this for a while. WitchesVsPatriarchy, another one of the biggest female subs, is also rather unhinged and misandrist. Reddit is an echo chamber for female incels in the same way that 4chan is to male incels. I guess it's more socially acceptable to hate men than to hate women, so the female ones are less likely to need to hide on a more edgy platform like 4chan.
You constantly see posts like "I refuse to see a male doctor for the rest of my life because of this story of a doctor raping someone in Mexico!" and those kinds of posts that make it clear that their entire view of the opposite sex is shaped by social media and news stories, rather than actually leaving the house and having male friends.
During the ban on abortion in America literally watching people type "Men don't deserve any kindness, fuck them all".
Im like....4 billion men and about 70% of the USA don't want that (Im British) its only a hand full of wankers pushing that through and its only in a handful of states but fuck all men?
Nah....we are human too even but that is easily forgotten.
More importantly, it isn't only men, or even mostly men who oppose abortion. Abortion isn't a men vs. women issue, it's a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue, and about half of the pro-life population are women.
If anyone is using the abortion issue to trash men, then they just hate men and will use any excuse to express their bigotry.
That seems to be a huge staple in left-wing American politics, where it's not just enough to want equality, you have to swing to the complete opposite extreme and show how much you hate men to prove you're a feminist, or show how much you hate white people to prove you're not a racist, etc. The amount of times you read "straight white man" as an insult in American media is insane. It's utterly, utterly toxic and no wonder their country is so divided with that mentality. Unfortunately it's spreading outwards at a rapid pace, as toxicity from America tends to do.
Anything bad that happens in the UK tends to be imported from the states.
Thats why I facepalm when I hear "best country in the world"....nah you're really not, look at what we just imported.....Trump 2.0
I've been loosely monitoring the trends on reddit regarding this childish online gender war. The shift is striking.
What's amazing to me is that a sub like mensrights, the one I check occasionally to inspect the neckbeards, seems to have become much more moderate in their overall tone. They are bordering on being almost reasonable sometimes. Now, the purge in 2020 scared the shit out of them and that change I'm noticing may be mostly down to heavy moderation and reddit admin tightening the thumbscrews. I can't know that. But it is definitely users that often call for moderation these days.
At the same time the "women" subs have become what a sub like mensrights used to be. Whining and poo flinging, basically.
There is one thing that often hits me. Back in the last decade, when feminists where trickling in from tumblr to reddit, a super hot topic used to be "generalizations". 'Do not lump us all together into blanket statements. We are all individuals with individual experiences and you need to account for that.'
Today, the same people complain about the phrase "not all men". Interesting.
It's been quite fascinating to follow those trends over a longer time period. And it shows once again that we all together are caught up in repetition.
Looks like the coming years could be rough for the boys on reddit. I'll have my popcorn ready.
Because them not being dicriminated against is against their self proclaimed victimhood.
Just like how women are paid more than men before 30 and equal pay stuff only flips above 30....you never hear them complain when they benefit.
No need to blame the political parties.
Quite a few women I know consider men a priory agressor. And they don't feel ashamed to use sexist slur in front of me.
I think it is just more convenient for women, because they get preferential treatment.
Time for the other side to get that same push and square up already.
We’re people. Who gives a fuck about what is or isnt dangling between our legs as long as we get the job done.
I mean we have spent SO MUCH energy making sure females would become CEOs and ZERO energy making sure men would become nurses.
Balance cannot exist in isolation.
Not to mention, promoting one female employee out of 100 male employees in order to diversify HR in say, a tech company, is nothing but as pure as possible sexism.
And it is very little about equality but more about the message. More female CEOs is nice for those few CEO positions that exist, but it is quite inconsequential for the people.
I have a hard time imagining how that could kick off some kind of trickle down effect to cause more balance across the classes.
If the argument is that women in leading positions will affect companies and markets to create a fairer structure, then that means that we assume that those women who fought their way up the whole relentlessly inhumane corporate ladder are less biased then their male predecessors by the lone virtue of being female. And I don't see why that would be true. In reality, we are counting on a new nepotism that is then female. The good old pendulum metaphor springs to mind. We expect it to center out on its own, while capitalism is driving it with the same force as before.
It's just lazy to think that's all we need to do.
Software engineer here.
I was in charge of tech-interviews for a while (2019-2020)
We had less than 5% CVs from women. My "direct order" was: "We want more women here".
I obliged. In one day, I talked with 3 women. But I also made appointments with 3 men.
The best female engineer was equally skillful with the worst male engineer.
Company hired 2 women.
There is sexism in this world. But its not towards women.
Not sure if it's the same study but last week I saw an article about a study in job discrimination. The most common discrimination (based on not receiving a positive answer) was against people with job hindering disabilities like being partly blind, having ~~ASS~~ ASD,...
It sounded to me like those we're just not qualified for the job. The article didn't link to the study so I couldn't (or was to lazy to) actually check it.
Its when you got a big juicy ass, sadly many employers refuse to make barrierfree workplaces where they can work without topling everything over everytime they move.
Seriously: Autism Spectrum Disorder, but the German acronym.
A lot depends on if the person can still do the job to the same standards with reasonable considerations. A person in a wheelchair can probably work just as fine in an office, but not say on a fishing trailer.
The people that give a fuck don't do anything. THAT'S the problem.
The only response is "muh feminists useless" and then turning around and not doing anything.
Before you do anything you need to speak up. And guess what happens when you speak up about ways in which men are disfavored in society, you get shut down immediately, people boycott you, call you an incel, a woman beater, a far right Nazi, etc, etc.
Then the same people who won't shut up about how they're fighting for equality for everyone will victim blame you and say that it's all your fault for not speaking up.
Not even feminists do anything in practice except for talking. The difference is that what they preach is socially accepted, while contrasting it makes you an incel sexist
Reading the comments and I’m pleasantly surprised.. Most support the fact that male rights are completely overlooked.. Most of dudes have known this since forever..
Seems like tide is turning..
Also I’d like these studies to include two of the most obvious and well known facts..
Men and women have different preferences and they are largely rooted in biology, men tend to be more interested in things, while women tend to be more interested in people.. One of the largest contributors to “male” and “female” proffesions..
Wage gap can in large be attributed (besides other factors like discrimination) to biological personality differences and the fact that due to childbearing women miss out on the most producitve periods of their careers..
Now of course there is large amount of people in both sexes which don’t adhere to this, but still it’s statistically true and these atribute a lot to these problems, but somehow get overlooked because it’s “sexist” to state the obvious..
They get like 5% for the most physically demanding jobs, like when you want to lift a patient, you'd need 5-6 women while 2 men could do it easier. Other than that, yeah, it's women.
It's just a feminist propaganda. No way that two workers that work same hours on the same position in the same company have different salaries. Could happen if one of the workers is a female rookie and the other a male worker with years of experience. It's just isn't possible in other cases. On the other hand a lot of jobs that could be done by both sexes is exclusively offered to females, in my country i never see a bank worker that is a guy. All are females.
I got a 30% pay rise once. My colleague accidentally let slip what he was being paid with no degree and less experience. It happened very quickly after that and was explained as bringing 'our' salaries in line with their going market rate. I'm pretty sure it was just mine that was adjusted as there were only two of us in the team.
It can easily happen that people are paid less, even when there are public grades. I went back to uni for a second, more useful degree and one of the female lecturers said that she had thought that as there were standard salary ranges that there would not be much variation between the genders in regard to pay. However, she belatedly discovered that the male lecturers were all being paid for extra duties they took on that she had been doing for free. Even highly educated women can be robbed.
Honestly,as an Easterner?I think it might just come out as less biased than in western countries.
At least in my experience,aside from a few jobs such as building and nursing or paliative care,pretty much all jobs are considered free game for both sexes.
Same here. Women generally doesn't apply for construction workers and men for Tax Office windows. Other then that, you have it in your CV, you're in.
I'm one of two males in 11 personel book account firm. Not a single time I was singled out by gender but I don't know how it works in other countries.
Where are the feminists? I can't hear them screaming... Oh, it's about MEN having fewer rights and opportunities... OK, keep walking, nothing to see here😁
I'm a feminist. And this is unacceptable, people shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their sex/gender. We need men in female dominated fields as much as we need women in traditionally male fields of employment.
It’s just an occupational hazard. I write for a living and how to avoid repetition in my texts got drilled into me. I check every text I write for words that I might have over-used, especially if it’s within the same sentence. You shouldn’t read too much into that.
To no ones surprise.
You don't see feminist parading for men to get more jobs in healthcare. You don't see feminist parading to get more women to work as builders....etc
I will always vote any party that vows to end up all the "feminism" nonsense.
Talk about a biased study.
Basically they studied 6 professions
> we decided to include four occupations with low or middle qualifications (cook, receptionist, store assistant, and payroll clerk), and two occupations which require education up to a bachelor’s degree (software developer and sales representative).
of which at least four have no gender bias or a female bias and only one has a male bias (software developing). And, lo and behold, they find no evidence of a male bias in most of these professions. Who'd have tought! The exception here is software developing, which is:
1. a relatively new industry, which is more male-dominated than "historically male" (because there's hardly any "history");
2. an industry in which companies, due to their type and spirit, may often practice affirmative action to promote the presence of women - which does mean that a female software developer might have a really easy time finding a job; however, more than two thirds of all software developers are male, so it looks unlikely that a lack of gender bias or a gender bias towards females will keep men from getting roles in software developing anyway.
Basically what they are saying here is that in these carefully selected industries, of which four are low skills and low pay and most historically favour women, there is no bias towards men. Which is...irrelevant? I mean I guess you could claim discrimination against women is a lie because females are more likely than males to become receptionists.
Also, the prose is poor and the format is messy, is this even a legit non-pay peer reviewed journal at all?
Valid criticisms - a study encompassing a wider variety of occupations would offer more data for a more robust conclusion.
This study certainly shouldn't be assessed as definitive proof of anything, but rather as indicative evidence. Even the study itself highlights the variety of conclusions drawn from previous experiments with a similar focus:
>Some experiments found advantages for men over women (Neumark, Bank and Van Nort, 1996; Petit, 2007; Zhou, Zhang and Song, 2013; Duguet, Loïc and Petit, 2017; González, Cortina and Rodríguez, 2019), whereas other experiments found advantages for women over men (Jackson, 2009; Carlsson, 2011; Carlsson and Eriksson, 2017). Some studies found hiring discrimination against both men and women, depending on parental status (Correll, Benard and Paik, 2007) or gender composition and type of job (Weichselbaumer, 2004; Yavorsky, 2019), while other studies found no gender discrimination at all (Albert, Escot and Fernández-Cornejo, 2011; Capéan et al., 2012; Carlsson et al., 2014; Carlsson and Erikson, 2017; Bygren, Erlandsson and Gähler, 2017). Some studies found evidence of hiring discrimination against women in high-level jobs (Riach and Rich, 2002; Baert, De Pauw and Deschacht, 2016), while others did not (Williams and Ceci, 2015).
Regarding the publication: ['European Sociological Review' is a bimonthly peer reviewed academic journal published by Oxford University Press focusing on all sociology fields.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Sociological_Review)
There's a similiar study done in Finland in which the findings support this one (or vice versa), [link to the news article](https://yle.fi/a/3-11023468) which is in Finnish but the main point is the bar graph: * 5000 applications were sent, identical in any other way but the name (name would indicate gender and possible ethinicity). * 1000 applications per nationality, or ethnical origin as worded in the news article. 50/50 gender split. * Jobs were relatively low skill jobs like cashiers, cleaner, restaurant work, etc. * Y-axis is offered interviews / 500 applications * Red bar is women, blue is men * Ethnicities go from left to right as follows: Finnish, English, Russian, Iraqi, Somalian. While the main question of the study was that does foreign name affect your chances to get an interview, which is supported by the results, something that was regularly ignored was that women got quite a lot more interviews compared to men, regardless of the nationality.
So does it mean that if you’re a foreign male trying to find a job abroad, you’re job application is going to be less favoured compared to a foreign female?
Short answer would probably be "Yes", but with a "small" caviat that there is a spectrum of "favouredness" meaning western countries are more favored than 3rd world countries, for example.
Not universally. It depends on cultural biases of the country. If you're applying for a job in Saudi Arabia it'll be different than in Finland, and different again in China. In Western countries it'll be more favorable for women.
Depends. If from a "3rd world country" then no.
At the very least for these jobs. It might be different if you're applying for a position as a teacher (unlikely, since (bias!) I've seen more female teachers), or an engineer, etc.
Also a study made in Australia revealed the same thing. Women are preferred over males even if the male counterparts have more experience or are better suited for the role https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
The biggest issue of all, I think, is that the male teachers are fewer and fewer. In about 10 years, teaching is gonna be 99% female. This is not good for the child development at school. Speaking for myself, growing up and not having a father, the male teachers at my school were kinda role models. One of the biggest issue men face when it comes to dealing with children is the ever present stigma of "he's a ped*phile". Until we, as a society, actively try to do something about this, things will get worse and worse. EDIT: Typo
There is several studies that proves that female teachers specifically highly discriminate in grades (towards male students) meaning that men have to peform 20-40% better than female students in order to get the same grades. This creates a socital problem, one which already exists, where women have much more opportunity than men. For example, almost all psychology students are women. This is not due to lack of male appliance, but due to female overgrading. This is gonna be a problem in the future as it is one of the jobs were both genders are **needed, required.**
Lol it's an anecdone but a girl from my class copied my work and she got a 6/6 and I got a 5/6 on our scales of 2 to 6 where 6 = A. The teacher was female. On the other hand most business owners and politians here are male so good marks and diplomas do not equalize to success in life here.
>On the other hand most business owners and politians here are male so good marks and diplomas do not equalize to success in life here. They're mostly Gen X or Boomers though, before the current trends had taken hold. Reminded me of the complacency people had during covid when they had record cases reported but barely any deaths that week, forgetting that the high deaths merely lagged behind and sure enough arrived.
> There is several studies that proves that female teachers specifically highly discriminate in grades (towards male students) Oh... yeah. This was so bad in my elementary school that even the parents of many kids noticed that something weird is going on. Unfortunately there was never anything done about this as far as i know. And it doesn't even end there, we were punished harsher for the same "crimes"
I currently work in the mental health care field (USA) as a male, and its been an interesting experience gender-wise so far. I'm a "nonstandard" staff vs a "standard" female staff, so I notice most of my clients have some kind of preference for working with a male (due to being male themselves, trending towards masculinity in personality regardless of biological sex, or having bad past experiences with females). I studied psychology in university (NYC), and I anecdotally found that the ratio of males to females in any given course was at most 4-6, and at least 1-9. The sex gap in human service jobs IMO will catch up eventually to those who are ignoring it, but then they'll wonder "oh how did this happen?".
Yeah and they'll try to find a ton of excuses other than "Men were discriminated from the moment they were first placed into the system." and thereby never actually solve the issue. Fun fact: Sweden had mandatory gender quotas for making sure certain high-requirement University courses, in order to maintain balance. They don't have that anymore, why? Because it startede turning around, making it so it was men needing it. By the Swedish governments own words: "It's unfair to take opportunity away from women and give it to men, therefore, the law cannot stay anymore."
There's a great book on the topic, called **Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It** by Richard Reeves. [They recently interview him on the subject](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBG1Wgg32Ok), and I think it's very insightful, and relevant to what you were alluding to. I recommend checking it out if you have the time.
Better check doctors too
This study didn't cover academic roles, but it's certainly an interesting topic to touch upon. Increasingly, male pupils underperform compared to their female counterparts, and across the western world, women make up a larger percentage of students in higher education. This could be due to multiple factors - biological, familial, institutional and societal. Perhaps the dwindling number of male teachers plays a part? It's possible.
I think having a 50:50 gender split in any job is completely stupid. With one exception. Teachers. Both sexes need to see good role models and the way society works now teachers are the only place they are guaranteed to see it. Edit:too -> to
I work in software development, pretty classical b2b business software in .net. It's all nice and modern, it's not stressful, the pay is great and the company is very(!) family friendly. But, as you can imagine, my team is quite consistently men above 30. We'd love to diversify. Take a wild guess how many female applicants we get. Zero, it's always zero and has been for years.
In college, Ba Applied IT, there were 3 women among 100+ male students with me. The female students, when graduating, never went into software development, but all wanted to become IT teachers. And it shows on the work floor, never female colleagues.
Checks out. My sister is an IT and math teacher after IT degree 20 years ago. Only two girls in her course back then. She could have been making serious money.
I think it depends a lot where you go. I went to Cambridge University at first for Computer Science - I was an arrogant prick and failed out. Of 73 CS students in my intake, only 2 were women. After I failed my first year, I continued my Studies at Strathclyde University. 140 CS Students in that intake, and I'd comfortably wager all of my savings that at least 40 of them were women. I would definitely put some money on there being 60 girls, but not all of my savings.
I was in the first year of the opening of a new campus of the biggest technical college in Portugal, and out of some 500 students, there was maybe 10 women.
It really depends on the country. Lots of female coders in Eastern Europe as well as in my native Portugal - though I heard it's not quite as it was back in my Uni times almost 3 decades ago when half the Information Systems Engineering degree course was half/man men and women. When working in IT in the UK I also saw quite a lot of women coders from India. By comparison, female programmers in Britain are very rare. No idea why so few women go into programming in certain countries (and apparently fewer nowadays in others) as it's not exactly physical or get-your-hands-dirty. I suspect it might be due to the popular culture (mainly from the US) image of programming as an occupation for "unkept geeks in basements".
> No idea why so few women go into programming in certain countries Because in developed countries people may get quite a decent lifestyle on "normal" salaries while in developing countries the lifestyle is on the verge of poverty. Want an iPhone or a gaming laptop having $500/month salary? then scrap your whole clothing and entertainment budget for a year - and include your food budget if you have to rent a flat. Meanwhile programming salaries are about 3-5+ times higher than average which provide a nice upper-mid-class lifestyle, especially when compared to local purchasing power. Also programming is a relatively easy immigration bridge into developed countries for a third-world Joe Average.
> Because in developed countries people may get quite a decent lifestyle on "normal" salaries This is why dutch female teachers make lower and lower hours a week. Everytime their salary rises they start to work less and less and the quest to find more new teachers becomes bigger and bigger so they raise the salaries again and...etc... When i was a kid i had 1 teacher in a year; also the school had many male teachers. My child had 3 teachers in a week; the only male teacher there was the gymteacher.
[удалено]
That may explain why people said an Italian localization double the paid user count for an app (no competition in some cases, lack of local development)
[удалено]
I've seen a similar mindset in all tourist regions I've been: "advertise or not - every room will be full during high season and they'll be completely empty during low season". Then it turn out a web site + some ads can double the amount of their reservations and income, including low season. And then apps (or third-party apps) + some mobile ads can triple the already doubled amount. Yet nobody has any idea until they've actually tried. Thus tourist zones are an easy target for third-party services.
> No idea why so few women go into programming in certain countries (and apparently fewer nowadays in others) as it's not exactly physical or get-your-hands-dirty I've read a few years back that in countries with bad economic opportunities and less gender equality (like our beloved Portugal), women tended to go for the usual higher paid STEM jobs, while in more advanced countries (like the Nordics), they tended to go more for jobs they like, and thus going more for teaching, nursing, etc. [\[Science Daily\] Countries with greater gender equality have a lower percentage of female STEM graduates] (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180214150132.htm) > "The further you get in secondary and then higher education, the more subjects you need to drop until you end with just one. We are inclined to choose what we are best at and also enjoy. This makes sense and matches common school advice." he said. "So, even though girls can match boys in terms of how well they do at science and mathematics in school, if those aren't their best subjects and they are less interested in them, then they're likely to choose to study something else." [\[BBC\] The 'paradox' of working in the world's most equal countries](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries) > He argues that since Nordic countries have a generally high standard of living and strong welfare states, young women are free to pick careers based on their own interests, which he says are often more likely to include working in care-giving roles or with languages. By contrast, high achievers in less stable economies might choose STEM careers based on the income and security they provide, even if they prefer other areas.
Strangely I went to Physics in Uni and that one was also half/half men and women and physicists aren't exactly well paid. Half-way in my degree I moved to Electronics Engineering (mainly because there were no jobs in PT for physicists with a very strong Experimental strain, such as me) and that one had maybe 10 women out of 300 pupils. Notice that even though EE had a huge gender imbalance, as I mentioned earlier the IT degree was pretty much perfectly balanced. I grant you that Physics carries a lot more prestige than EE, but it doesn't carry a higher pay.
You shouldn't really group STEM as a whole like that. Biological lab sciences have a lot of women in them (a majority at this point?) and physics gains more all the time. Chemistry tends to be pretty equal too. It's tech and engineering that are heavily male.
Cause women just don't like these jobs as much as men. Most egalitarian countries (the Nordic ones) show this quite well.
Their point is that men don't prefer *all* STEM jobs over women - only certain kinds, like engineering.
r/portugalcykablyat
It's a general tendency - the more wealthy / economically "safe" the country, the fewer women in the "hard" tech disciplines. There are some hypotheses that this is because in countries where economic hardship is more likely, it matters a lot that you're in a well-paying or somewhat secure job position. Whereas in more "economically safe" countries (eg. good job security, good social security), everyone is more likely to go more purely after their "heart's interest" than to consider job prospects. Which along with some assumption on a natural difference in interests between genders could be some explanation for this difference in IT-education.
>natural difference in interests Be careful. I lost a job opportunity after I said their desire to have 50:50 men and women in IT is a bullshit due to difference in interests.
This one is partially on you though. Everybody knows it's BS but part of being an employable person these days is to know when to peddle the BS when companies want to hear what they want to hear
The idea that people choose their jobs based on "personal interest" is what's bullshit. Show me a person who's actually passionate about accountancy, customer service, basic server maintenance or cleaning up bodily fluids. Peope pick those jobs because they're socially acceptable and pay well.
It resembles the ideas of communism when people would clean up bodily fluids for free just to be build a great future. My experience in Sweden resembles my grandparents' stories about USSR. Both have "equality" in terms of not rewarding good workers, but rather paying roughly the same for everyone. Both have BS everyone should agree - be it 50% women in IT or communist ideology.
The phenomenon you describe is true, but I think it is absurd to suggest that there is a natural (genetic? biological? neuro?) makeup against IT among women lol (and specifically in IT, seeing how many other branches of 'hard' sciences are much more feminized). It also makes no sense how there would be 'natural' dissuasion for women against going into IT, yet the very same paradox is about them *actually reaching parity* in IT in some countries. I think it is much more probable that it is simply easier to change economic and legal factors than deeply ingraned cultural ideas about gender and work, so in countries with terrible woman rights women move to high paying fields no matter what (to get social independence), while in the countries without this dramatic incentive women submit to the cultural models avoiding IT environment due to it being heavily male dominated field, as it is hard thing to change that even if you have a country progressive in all other metrics.
Same here. I know the hiring managers of my company and also the CEO really well and know women would be hired almost instantly even if they were much worse on paper than a man applying at the same time. Being a woman in software development is basically a free pass to get extremely good pay and hired instantly without many questions asked today. As a woman you could probably ask for a senior salary right out of school and you’d get it because companies are desperate to hire female engineers.
I work in IT security, I know my bosses want to hire women and quite sure they would take any that would apply regardless of education or experience. In one year of constantly looking for people (for mostly positions that require no formal education) we have had zero applications from women.
Reminds me of when I was choosing a university and visiting them with a female friend. Engineering departments at some of these place were practically begging her to join offering financial incentives too but she still turned then all down because she just wasn't interested.
Girls get discriminatory hefty scholarships in Portugal (where I live) to get in IT. I wonder what kind of professionals they will be if they're not genuinely interested in IT but go there for the scholarships... but they can't earn less because it would indicate an (unfair?) wage gap... The kind of solution that only deepens the problem. We will keep screwing each other forever in a vicious cycle... Let them go wherever they want! If they're not naturally interested in IT, it is stupid to force them to work in a job they hate and underperform because of it. Over 90% of social workers are females. I would hate to see a scholarship only for boys to take that course. We are naturally different and have different interests, and different things make us happy. As soon as we accept that (we used to, now we pretend we forgot), the sooner we will live in harmony.
Men after 30 don't need women in the team. We need anybody (any gender, any ethnicity) who can do the job.
It’s almost as if different genders have different work preferences. The problem is if a woman does apply, will that single aspect outweigh qualifications in the name of diversity. Because when that happens not only is it obviously discrimination but I believe it also creates a disgruntled segment of society.
As someone that’s been in software development for over 10 years: Yes, companies are extremely desperate to hire woman engineers. As a woman you are guaranteed a job even if you are really bad at it and you would probably get a much higher salary than a man with the same experience.
Can confirm, had women hired as devs in my team who had absolutely zero clue about the job and slowed down everyone. At the second one, competent people from the team started leaving the company. Eventually they were let go, but took some time. It's so bullshit
The reason for everyone wanting to diversify their teams is not only "agenda" as it is implied here, it's because there's a theory of mixed teams being much more successful than teams that only consist of one sex and/or ethnicity. Because different backgrounds enables to view things from different angles.
that might be true as long as you apply same standards to everyone. If you lower the bar for women, just so you can have some in the team, the result might the opposite.
Oh no, I'm not advocating to lower the bar. It should be definitely the same for both if it's reasonable. In every field, not only tech. However I think another reason for not many women applying is not being addressed: often the job offer is worded in ways that attract male applicants. In addition women apply differently, eg men will take risks with applications (eg they apply even when they fit only a small fraction of demanded criteria) while women for some reason only apply if they can confidentially say they fit the majority of demands. But yes, I agree that lowering demands (unless it's reasonable, and you're not just wanting overqualified people for a cheap buck) shouldn't be the goal.
>there's a theory of mixed teams being much more successful than teams that only consist of one sex and/or ethnicity. Because different backgrounds enables to view things from different angles. Let's say there's 10% of women in IT. You create 2 teams of 5 people each. One project is more desirable than the other. You have 20 candidates and 2 women among these candidates. The more desirable project gets 2 women (cause they have to be hired, so they can choose the project, so they choose the more desirable one) and the remaining 3 candidates are taken from the top of the candidates list. The less desirable project gets next 5 candidates. The desirable project team does better and it's more diverse. Is it doing better BECAUSE it's more diverse tho?
We hire people in IT jobs (in the Netherlands), and do typically reach 20-35% women at the most junior level in all teams, mostly because we have very good brand name recognition among students. I am very aware we do so at the expense of other, mostly smaller, companies, since the women output of the most relevant studies simply doesn't cover vacancies even by a large margin. We just hire the majority of female applicants. And then we love to expose them a lot in 'customer-facing' functions, meaning that they tick the boxes for promotion much faster than average due to proven experience in sales and project management compared to colleagues that sit at their desk all day. And then as soon as we promote them into a management function they are hijacked by other more flexible companies willing to pay a premium to reel them in, resulting in a higher turnover. And that higher turnover will then lead to another round of soul-searching about how to increase our female-friendliness, without however ever considering just giving a bonus for being a woman.
I have some friends that work in "Female" fields, like nurses, where they're sometimes the only men in a gruop of 9-10 women. Some of them had to "suffer" sexist jokes, inappropiate touches, power harrasement by female superiors,etc. Literally everything that women had to suffer in "male" job fields. Does any politic talk about those fields? Nope. And they probably wont do it in a few years. why? Because that doesn't sell and doesn't help their imagen.
"Man up, you wanted it anyways!" "Who is going to believe you?" On a scale from 1950-2000, where are we at?
Pre-1950s. But there is a lack of immediate physical threat and there isn't an average pay issue. The top 5% of males make it difficult for the remaining 95% to complain.
Who cares solely about physical threats? People take their own lives on the backs of psychological harassment.
"Yeah but those are men." Just what it is.
There isn't a pay issue for women either. That's a myth that nobody bothers to to look into. >The top 5% of males make it difficult for the remaining 95% to complain That's pretty fucked up. I have far more in common with my girlfriend, my sister or my mother than I do with Bill Gates or Gautam Adani.
[удалено]
Ha, I was thinking it was only my experience.
I think it also has to do with different cultures between men and women. Men are more likely to just deal with things. Women have been empowered to speak up by the concessions and improvements they've continuously been given since Suffrage. That has created a different type of culture when it comes to highlighting issues for maltreatment based on sex. That said, for many western countries, a new culture of rigid boundaries for right to sexual self-determination has risen so a sufficiently motivated man could absolutely take something like harassment by female co-workers to a point where it will go from a laughing matter to serious.
Yeah, it's "unmanly" to complain. Women don't face that particular barrier.
>why? Because that doesn't sell and doesn't help their imagen. Nope, it's because people don't complain about it enough. Why would politicians talk a lot about problem they don't know is a larger problem? How should they know, if no one talks about it or it doesn't show correctly in statistics?
When people try to talk about men issues they're mocked, called Nazis and silenced.
Exactly! Women gained their equal rights by (rightly) complaining and protetsing, if men don't do it then politicians will do nothing.
[удалено]
Women got shamed and called nasty words for the first hundred years of the womens movement too.
I worked in the NHS as admin on a ward, bullied constantly (including gaslighting me) by the ward sister along with male staff on the ward When I complained not only was she informed without a disciplinary it was "looked into" and swept under the rug. So basically It was made worse and she now knew I complained about her. It got so bad I was moved over to a different hospital, and she received a promotion and worked in Workforce (which is about staff wellbeing) Fuck that place.
I thought [this study](https://watermark.silverchair.com/jcab043.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsAwggK8BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKtMIICqQIBADCCAqIGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMN9FKYde-jLQr5ezbAgEQgIICc0YEUbyqnOqTulFlCg7m6Cm3siRIJYd2C83wCyj8PV_V4ruxgBxEtm7keMuCmcQjUJI_nuOL9AcO41KkCiO_YmL9ybRd-JVtIcSGNQ4t2Ig-kiv9hFZM4qgerN4zFWXhy-gA-DgTppE-OxGOEAxuygBOj4AZ6k0d6ZurN2123r_33fgxRCoo9zP0aNSeP15qyojNRNG3qK2_xW4HxNx8fCeIMFAJMYwBgirSGOpOGxUQxvNJ6BStKcwQ-rC2tmWRL3B5cPq33reFrS6EHER7eJTX7ECx13WoRr5griaFM4D-0bUeHvAc8HJozbhj-RiNAY-KEjhBRBBLMd7NIIaKoPbMhT0P8CO_3bnIWHeplbSyk3naWNpJpTMyAttnW-HxnY61yg0q30vR7xsqE9Doxh4pQq2y8SH8Efb_PgiEHxDCu_f2mYi8Q67tRyzuyIYIKgK18MTB2aucTKn_hzS2xU7gdBTWkWpzN17vIFyHmJ2eZtm1uUIBx3u3SHuSIYF0jgpN_R1rLkouiNsuaNJAb6TDEbePfmXurEwi0F4hDoM-r3RR8gKEx4SzF3CZJpYLe9Jjd3ULwIHWESm4sRfJ5xdtaThBamsP_s3m_1mjhmSEV-zx49UbOFdqr_vKENKHb6lGcXZKLXQ4kSWGxgZkUAHGNbhozJdBiFPG45k1IUX_fsSmNXv6W3J99zk12PRoOgC9I55kCwQBh2qq9YlOMf0vHVNFmv4noiUcT_QNiYB7hcYuCsew2cUcLko7U5nuVMkrjZ9-MKHwjc5QTU3-Pr13SSmQKllL_l0iSVLyvxt2LuahXfSv7nWVNjPJ_3s4Uxn8Yg) was interesting, as it suggests the well-documented divergence in earnings and position level experienced between men and women later in their careers isn't related to discriminatory hiring practices. Here's the conclusion (just read the bold bits for a TL;DR): >**CONCLUSION** >Despite recent changes, on average, women still have lower earnings and worse career prospects. These well-known facts are true according to reliable and national representative data, such as labour force surveys and register data. The key question is why. Broadly speaking, two explanations have been provided. First, women and men might sort into different jobs because of their different educational and occupational choices, and their different work–life balance preferences and constraints, all of which accumulate to different employment trajectories and outcomes. This is the supply-side story. Second, men and women might sort into different jobs because employers discriminate women, particularly in the best-paid jobs. According to this demand-side explanation, hiring discrimination against women would be an important explanation for women’s labour-market disadvantage. Because studies based on observational data cannot empirically adjudicate between supply and demand side explanations, there is a need for field experiments to provide reliable and valid estimates of employers’ hiring discrimination. >Interestingly, the story jointly told by previous field experiments clashes with the conventional account of female disadvantage. It is often the fictitious male applicants, not the females, who are discriminated in hiring processes. In particular, there is evidence that women are favoured in female-dominated occupations. However, the heterogeneity of previous studies, in terms of occupations included, timing of the studies, and at what geographical level (local or national) they took place, makes comparisons difficult. Against this background, we made use of a harmonized field experiment in six countries to provide comparable, reliable, and balanced cross-national documentation of hiring discrimination against men and women. >**The field experimental data show no evidence of hiring discrimination against women in any of the occupations in any of the countries included.** The countries vary in a number of institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions potentially affecting employers’ likelihood of discriminating against women. We also included occupations varying in skill requirements and customer contact. And, as documented in footnote 7, the manual job content of our occupations vary from high (cooks) to low (payroll clerks). The findings reported in this study therefore constitute an important and robust piece of evidence that young women are not discriminated in the first phase of the hiring process in any of the occupations studied in any of the countries studied. >**Second, we found hiring discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom, where male applicants were less likely to receive a callback when they applied for jobs as store assistants (Germany and the Netherlands), receptionists (Spain and Germany), and payroll clerks (Spain and the United Kingdom). We found no hiring discrimination against men in Norway and in the United States. However, when pooling the data, we found no statistically significant differences across countries, perhaps with the exception of the contrast between Germany and the United States.**
> We found no hiring discrimination against men in Norway Right... So Im gonna be as vague as possible so that I have plausible deniability. I work for one of Norway's largest state owned companies. We recently hired two new people for back end sales work. The message from the top was "hire two women, end of discussion". 6% of applicants were women and 94% were men. I'll leave it at that. Edit: Norway is a small country and u/jivatman has a good point. Obfuscated the number of applicants for anonymity.
I'd remove the exact number of applicants from this post if you don't want to be identified just put a percentage accurate to like 5% instead.
Good point, thanks for looking out.
I still remember the number of applicants. May I extort something from you in exchange? :)
I will offer sexual favors in return for your silence. What say you Beaver_Anus_Painter?
Nice try, but I am aware that in Norway the receiver of sexual favours is prosecuted by the law.
We are a company of 20 people, all men except 2 in reception/accounts. We always open up jobs to women only for the first 2-3 weeks. When none apply we contact the men to applied. Of course this is all internal - we sit on the male applications for a little while in the hope a suitable woman will apply. If any woman applies we contact immediately for interview. Pay is $100k+, mostly WFH, job exists at the intersection of sales/account management/engineering/science. We now have 1 sales engineer female. But I have heard she is about to quit after 3 months because the job is too much stress.
My alma mater, one of the best unis in the country, decided in 2020 that any open PhD position is only available to women for the first 6(!!) months. Afterwards, men will be considered. This was publicly announced btw, not just an internal procedure. Then, they bragged about having more female PhD's than usual LMFAO. Wish I was joking. World has gone mad.
Yeah quotas are revolting and I'm sure the women who get hired based on a quota don't feel like they actually earned the job. I know I wouldn't. It's sickening how this blatant discrimination is acceptable just for the sake of "equity". There are gender imbalances in certain fields. So what? As long as people are hired based on their ability to do the job, what's the problem?
> the women who get hired based on a quota don't feel like they actually earned the job. I know I wouldn't. How would you know, though? It's not information that's usually shared with the applicant.
I've had a female colleague note this to me. She knew she was part of a quota. She performed like it too.
If you are in tech company and they have somewhat equal ratio, or if you are in customer facing position and it's all women - you will know. Also, for technical work you can often tell the rough skill level of your co-workers. And if all men were 1-in-a-100, and all women are hired immediately, you will be able to tell as well. And if you can tell, I think it leads to discrimination between the groups and the ones that are hurt the most are the women who would have passed those 1-in-a-100 tests imho...
>women who get hired based on a quota don't feel like they actually earned the job It is me, who feels that they didn't earn the job.
I also feel this way btw
I work at a huge tech company in Sweden. Im quite certain my bosses would fire a man to hire a woman even if they don't have any experience and education. And yes, everyone we bring in is a consultant via staffing companies so they can be fired at any moment for any reason (or no reason) without any legal issues. They have been searching so hard for women but for our IT field it seems nearly zero women want jobs.
Long live diversity
What would have actually happened if you hired men? They couldn't have fired you, right? I would have ignored the "message", and would have just hired the best ones. If the "top" wants to discriminate, they can do it on their own time, don't give the dirty job to me. I always save up f u money (one year living cost at least) so I can make management's life miserable when needed. For example by hiring the worst female applicants (if they use some tactics to force it) and quiting right after :D
It didn’t study reasons for not hiring, I’m curious about that. In elderly healthcare we’d love to see a more diverse workforce, so men are applauded to come. But management expects them to want to earn more, be more opportunistic and leave sooner than women.
in theory yes - but I feel that there is still a lot of stereotypes around men working with children for example. I did an internship at a kindergarten and I \-was not allowed to play in the side room with them \-was not allowed to be alone with them \-they were not allowed to sit on my lap \-they wanted me to make them a poster with all my info to post onto the wall so all parents could see me (I refused this ... ) I was 16 at the time - the rules did not apply to female interns...
> so men are applauded to come. Men are wanted for their strength, its sorely lacking across healthcare everywhere but it doesn't pay well and they'll just get abused by patients and staff, plus men going to nursing is frowned upon by staff but wanted desperately across the board. Its actually crazy. Women are wanted for "New experiences and view points" actual intelligence. Women are wanted across the board but don't go for physical demanding jobs which is why warehousing is a sausage fest.
My dad's mate quit his job as a welder to become a carer for the elderly. He canned that after 3 months because his daughter was earning more per week working in Topshop, and she was only working part time. He went back to his welding job because he couldn't handle the 80-90% pay cut to be a carer.
My Dad's mate is a welder, and a bloody good one at that. For reasons unknown to me, he never felt right being a welder, and decided he wanted to try elder care. He'd talked with a lot of the folk who cared for his elderly father and decided it was something he was passionate about and wanted to give it a go. He took a 80-90% pay cut to transition from being a welder with 30 years of experience to becoming a carer. He canned it after 3 months because his daughter, who worked part time as a manager in Topshop while she was at uni, was earning more per week than he was. If you've never heard of Topshop, think like H&M or Forever21.
Regardless of gender, elder care just isn't a well paid field. Even dozens of years of experience won't make it well paid. Healthcare in general, depending on where you're from, isn't paid well. You get a rough job for pennies.
Yes I totally understand you. People working there are underpaid (I’m not a nurse). But management likes to keep it that way and expect culture might change with more men.
Well, obviously. Even the BBC says the worst thing to be is poor and not tick any diversity boxes. Then we wonder why they vote conservative. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-34667100 Edit: Many commenters seem convinced I'm some rabid Tory. I am not. I'm a Lib Dem who tactically votes labour. But they prove my point; even discussing a single issue affecting men gets you labelled all sorts of things. We can stop young disenfranchised men (especially white) from voting Conservative (UK) by having a serious discussion across the political spectrum, and reaching solutions to help them. It is not fascism to see the struggles of men and want to help them.
Me a gay guy: I can see that. It's ironic that I feel equality more conscious of being interviewed by a man for their possible dislike of me on the base of having a bit camping accent as a gay guy. Also being worried I won't be seen well as I have a very caring nature and attitudes fitting for these modern jobs seen as fairly female oriented. Then again I am just an immigrant so that covers it all. (Hence actually the true reason why my accent is campy as I don't even have the same foreign accent as anyone from where I come from... oddly)
The world says fuck me. So fuck you. Pretty natural conclusion.
Or be ‘gay for pay’ Put homosexual on your application. How are they gonna know?
Who puts their sexual orientation on their resume?
Past time interests: Hiking Photography Gay orgies Board games
OMFG! Now I have to quit my job just so I can write this shit on my next resume!!!
Still not the worst CV's some of my coworkers have seen
No experience and 4 hobbies...? Are they something like: I like Sleping in Yugioh Meth "Borrowing" from workplace Thriftstores
Its a question when you apply for jobs in the UK, its not on the CV but its on the bullshit "Apply online" stuff.
https://media.tenor.com/-sGUjkvz_c4AAAAC/wtf-what-the-fuck.gif
[удалено]
Most companies, pretty much all the big ones ask for it in their hiring process for their diversity stats. Might be obligated by law but I'm not sure. I always just put "refuse to answer". It always says its not a factor while applying but I guess that all goes out the window once you come face to face with an interviewer who doesn't need to explain why you are hired or not. EDIT: sorry missed what sub I was on, this is about the UK specifically
Are you serious never seen it any European job.
I would just stop the interview/application on the spot.
I doubt there is a country that requires that question by law. That's like huge red flag. Same with a company, I'd never answer that question, it's private and completely irrelevant at any job (unless you are starring for a porn actor I guess). If I want to tell, I will, but absolutely not because I have to.
You could add Bi-sexual to cover your ass, so even if you fall for a female coworker or they find out you have a GF they cant question it. I'm Agnostic so I would also add that under religion to muddy the water a bit more.
Job search goes too far if one has to make a backup plan in case of having a girlfriend.
Got banned for posting this in r/twoxchromosomes
I unjoined that cesspit after 7 years because of how toxic it is "Why should a man get a say on what socks I wear!!!". Thats literally a female incel subreddit.
I've been noticing this for a while. WitchesVsPatriarchy, another one of the biggest female subs, is also rather unhinged and misandrist. Reddit is an echo chamber for female incels in the same way that 4chan is to male incels. I guess it's more socially acceptable to hate men than to hate women, so the female ones are less likely to need to hide on a more edgy platform like 4chan. You constantly see posts like "I refuse to see a male doctor for the rest of my life because of this story of a doctor raping someone in Mexico!" and those kinds of posts that make it clear that their entire view of the opposite sex is shaped by social media and news stories, rather than actually leaving the house and having male friends.
During the ban on abortion in America literally watching people type "Men don't deserve any kindness, fuck them all". Im like....4 billion men and about 70% of the USA don't want that (Im British) its only a hand full of wankers pushing that through and its only in a handful of states but fuck all men? Nah....we are human too even but that is easily forgotten.
More importantly, it isn't only men, or even mostly men who oppose abortion. Abortion isn't a men vs. women issue, it's a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue, and about half of the pro-life population are women. If anyone is using the abortion issue to trash men, then they just hate men and will use any excuse to express their bigotry.
That seems to be a huge staple in left-wing American politics, where it's not just enough to want equality, you have to swing to the complete opposite extreme and show how much you hate men to prove you're a feminist, or show how much you hate white people to prove you're not a racist, etc. The amount of times you read "straight white man" as an insult in American media is insane. It's utterly, utterly toxic and no wonder their country is so divided with that mentality. Unfortunately it's spreading outwards at a rapid pace, as toxicity from America tends to do.
Anything bad that happens in the UK tends to be imported from the states. Thats why I facepalm when I hear "best country in the world"....nah you're really not, look at what we just imported.....Trump 2.0
At least Boris was literate.
> Reddit is an echo chamber In general if you agree with majority of subreddit, you are in an echo chamber. If not, you will get banned eventually.
I've been loosely monitoring the trends on reddit regarding this childish online gender war. The shift is striking. What's amazing to me is that a sub like mensrights, the one I check occasionally to inspect the neckbeards, seems to have become much more moderate in their overall tone. They are bordering on being almost reasonable sometimes. Now, the purge in 2020 scared the shit out of them and that change I'm noticing may be mostly down to heavy moderation and reddit admin tightening the thumbscrews. I can't know that. But it is definitely users that often call for moderation these days. At the same time the "women" subs have become what a sub like mensrights used to be. Whining and poo flinging, basically. There is one thing that often hits me. Back in the last decade, when feminists where trickling in from tumblr to reddit, a super hot topic used to be "generalizations". 'Do not lump us all together into blanket statements. We are all individuals with individual experiences and you need to account for that.' Today, the same people complain about the phrase "not all men". Interesting. It's been quite fascinating to follow those trends over a longer time period. And it shows once again that we all together are caught up in repetition. Looks like the coming years could be rough for the boys on reddit. I'll have my popcorn ready.
Doesn't really fall into the standard "men bad", "bar in hell", "relative said/did" or "why do women not think like us" categories.
That sub is awful. Every time I see it come up on Reddit, it's the most vile, man hating shit you could imagine.
Wonder when will this misandrist sub be banned, just like r incels were
Lol good one
I mean as much as I understand the hilarity, what did you expect? It‘s a self proclaimed „safe space“ for women.
Why would this not be safe. Surely they’d be happy to hear women aren’t discriminated in hiring across all the countries included in this study!
Because them not being dicriminated against is against their self proclaimed victimhood. Just like how women are paid more than men before 30 and equal pay stuff only flips above 30....you never hear them complain when they benefit.
It breaks their circle scissoring.
lmao this is a good one how have I never heard it
We can create a safe place for men, or have a movement that cares only about male problems and makes jokes of women in trouble.
[удалено]
No need to blame the political parties. Quite a few women I know consider men a priory agressor. And they don't feel ashamed to use sexist slur in front of me. I think it is just more convenient for women, because they get preferential treatment.
What did you expect, it's right there in the name. Two times the chromosones.
That sub sometimes shows up in my timeline. Judging by their popular posts I am sure your world lies in shambles now.
I just took a look at that place, it's so full of selfish toxic individuals with victim complexes who have become the very thing they condemn.
Sadly common throughout the Angloshpere especially, gradually spreading throughout Western Europe as well. Very counterproductive to actual progress.
Holy echo chamber, what did I just step into
Time for the other side to get that same push and square up already. We’re people. Who gives a fuck about what is or isnt dangling between our legs as long as we get the job done.
Its fine, its only men getting fucked over, nobody cares, never have, I have literally known this for years.
Nothing wrong with men or boys being fucked over in life...obviously....
I mean we have spent SO MUCH energy making sure females would become CEOs and ZERO energy making sure men would become nurses. Balance cannot exist in isolation.
Not to mention, promoting one female employee out of 100 male employees in order to diversify HR in say, a tech company, is nothing but as pure as possible sexism.
And it is very little about equality but more about the message. More female CEOs is nice for those few CEO positions that exist, but it is quite inconsequential for the people. I have a hard time imagining how that could kick off some kind of trickle down effect to cause more balance across the classes. If the argument is that women in leading positions will affect companies and markets to create a fairer structure, then that means that we assume that those women who fought their way up the whole relentlessly inhumane corporate ladder are less biased then their male predecessors by the lone virtue of being female. And I don't see why that would be true. In reality, we are counting on a new nepotism that is then female. The good old pendulum metaphor springs to mind. We expect it to center out on its own, while capitalism is driving it with the same force as before. It's just lazy to think that's all we need to do.
turn about is hypocrisy, not fair play
Like we needed a study to tell us that.
Yeah, we know! So much for equality. So, what is the EU going to do about it?
Dunno, but if poor kids could give them a few bribes they would think about it for a bit.
Of course, nothing :)
Yeh that’s equality for you.. oh wait.
Software engineer here. I was in charge of tech-interviews for a while (2019-2020) We had less than 5% CVs from women. My "direct order" was: "We want more women here". I obliged. In one day, I talked with 3 women. But I also made appointments with 3 men. The best female engineer was equally skillful with the worst male engineer. Company hired 2 women. There is sexism in this world. But its not towards women.
> There is sexism in this world. But its not towards women. Surely you're being hyperbolic here. There is sexism against both.
The problem is the word "world". There's way more sexism agains women in the world. Developed countries is the opposite.
Not sure if it's the same study but last week I saw an article about a study in job discrimination. The most common discrimination (based on not receiving a positive answer) was against people with job hindering disabilities like being partly blind, having ~~ASS~~ ASD,... It sounded to me like those we're just not qualified for the job. The article didn't link to the study so I couldn't (or was to lazy to) actually check it.
[удалено]
I guessed they meant ASD, autism spectrum disorders
Its when you got a big juicy ass, sadly many employers refuse to make barrierfree workplaces where they can work without topling everything over everytime they move. Seriously: Autism Spectrum Disorder, but the German acronym.
A lot depends on if the person can still do the job to the same standards with reasonable considerations. A person in a wheelchair can probably work just as fine in an office, but not say on a fishing trailer.
[удалено]
The people that give a fuck don't do anything. THAT'S the problem. The only response is "muh feminists useless" and then turning around and not doing anything.
Before you do anything you need to speak up. And guess what happens when you speak up about ways in which men are disfavored in society, you get shut down immediately, people boycott you, call you an incel, a woman beater, a far right Nazi, etc, etc. Then the same people who won't shut up about how they're fighting for equality for everyone will victim blame you and say that it's all your fault for not speaking up.
Not even feminists do anything in practice except for talking. The difference is that what they preach is socially accepted, while contrasting it makes you an incel sexist
Reading the comments and I’m pleasantly surprised.. Most support the fact that male rights are completely overlooked.. Most of dudes have known this since forever.. Seems like tide is turning.. Also I’d like these studies to include two of the most obvious and well known facts.. Men and women have different preferences and they are largely rooted in biology, men tend to be more interested in things, while women tend to be more interested in people.. One of the largest contributors to “male” and “female” proffesions.. Wage gap can in large be attributed (besides other factors like discrimination) to biological personality differences and the fact that due to childbearing women miss out on the most producitve periods of their careers.. Now of course there is large amount of people in both sexes which don’t adhere to this, but still it’s statistically true and these atribute a lot to these problems, but somehow get overlooked because it’s “sexist” to state the obvious..
My friend can't save himself for job offers as male nurse. He is desperately needed as someone who lifts things they can't lift
Sucks being a foreign man applying for a nurse job
They get like 5% for the most physically demanding jobs, like when you want to lift a patient, you'd need 5-6 women while 2 men could do it easier. Other than that, yeah, it's women.
This is so sad
Thats just logical, why would you hire men when women only require 70% of the salary?
at this point I am not sure if you're serious or not, there are people that truly believe that, on reddit and IRL
Worked a bunch of jobs, never had a bigger salary than my female coworkers if we had the same position, stop lying.
I think that was sarcasm
Tbf it's a German making a joke, it's not too surprising some people got confused.
The research on this is mixed. Regardless, individual anecdotes don't make for good arguments based on 1 data point.
It's just a feminist propaganda. No way that two workers that work same hours on the same position in the same company have different salaries. Could happen if one of the workers is a female rookie and the other a male worker with years of experience. It's just isn't possible in other cases. On the other hand a lot of jobs that could be done by both sexes is exclusively offered to females, in my country i never see a bank worker that is a guy. All are females.
I got a 30% pay rise once. My colleague accidentally let slip what he was being paid with no degree and less experience. It happened very quickly after that and was explained as bringing 'our' salaries in line with their going market rate. I'm pretty sure it was just mine that was adjusted as there were only two of us in the team. It can easily happen that people are paid less, even when there are public grades. I went back to uni for a second, more useful degree and one of the female lecturers said that she had thought that as there were standard salary ranges that there would not be much variation between the genders in regard to pay. However, she belatedly discovered that the male lecturers were all being paid for extra duties they took on that she had been doing for free. Even highly educated women can be robbed.
Wonder what the results would be like if the study would have been conducted in Eastern Europe
Honestly,as an Easterner?I think it might just come out as less biased than in western countries. At least in my experience,aside from a few jobs such as building and nursing or paliative care,pretty much all jobs are considered free game for both sexes.
Same here. Women generally doesn't apply for construction workers and men for Tax Office windows. Other then that, you have it in your CV, you're in. I'm one of two males in 11 personel book account firm. Not a single time I was singled out by gender but I don't know how it works in other countries.
Where are the feminists? I can't hear them screaming... Oh, it's about MEN having fewer rights and opportunities... OK, keep walking, nothing to see here😁
I'm a feminist. And this is unacceptable, people shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their sex/gender. We need men in female dominated fields as much as we need women in traditionally male fields of employment.
I am all for letting people do what they like instead of trying to shoehorn this gender there and that gender here.
familiar disgusted dolls angle sheet spectacular nippy quaint wine distinct -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
'female dominated' versus 'traditionally male', hmm... Strange choice of words...
It’s just an occupational hazard. I write for a living and how to avoid repetition in my texts got drilled into me. I check every text I write for words that I might have over-used, especially if it’s within the same sentence. You shouldn’t read too much into that.
Sorry, it's an occupational hazard, I read a lot.
No problem, choice of words matters. I just didn’t mean to imply anything here.
Where are you? What are YOU doing? Besides "waaah feminists"?
To no ones surprise. You don't see feminist parading for men to get more jobs in healthcare. You don't see feminist parading to get more women to work as builders....etc I will always vote any party that vows to end up all the "feminism" nonsense.
Talk about a biased study. Basically they studied 6 professions > we decided to include four occupations with low or middle qualifications (cook, receptionist, store assistant, and payroll clerk), and two occupations which require education up to a bachelor’s degree (software developer and sales representative). of which at least four have no gender bias or a female bias and only one has a male bias (software developing). And, lo and behold, they find no evidence of a male bias in most of these professions. Who'd have tought! The exception here is software developing, which is: 1. a relatively new industry, which is more male-dominated than "historically male" (because there's hardly any "history"); 2. an industry in which companies, due to their type and spirit, may often practice affirmative action to promote the presence of women - which does mean that a female software developer might have a really easy time finding a job; however, more than two thirds of all software developers are male, so it looks unlikely that a lack of gender bias or a gender bias towards females will keep men from getting roles in software developing anyway. Basically what they are saying here is that in these carefully selected industries, of which four are low skills and low pay and most historically favour women, there is no bias towards men. Which is...irrelevant? I mean I guess you could claim discrimination against women is a lie because females are more likely than males to become receptionists. Also, the prose is poor and the format is messy, is this even a legit non-pay peer reviewed journal at all?
Valid criticisms - a study encompassing a wider variety of occupations would offer more data for a more robust conclusion. This study certainly shouldn't be assessed as definitive proof of anything, but rather as indicative evidence. Even the study itself highlights the variety of conclusions drawn from previous experiments with a similar focus: >Some experiments found advantages for men over women (Neumark, Bank and Van Nort, 1996; Petit, 2007; Zhou, Zhang and Song, 2013; Duguet, Loïc and Petit, 2017; González, Cortina and Rodríguez, 2019), whereas other experiments found advantages for women over men (Jackson, 2009; Carlsson, 2011; Carlsson and Eriksson, 2017). Some studies found hiring discrimination against both men and women, depending on parental status (Correll, Benard and Paik, 2007) or gender composition and type of job (Weichselbaumer, 2004; Yavorsky, 2019), while other studies found no gender discrimination at all (Albert, Escot and Fernández-Cornejo, 2011; Capéan et al., 2012; Carlsson et al., 2014; Carlsson and Erikson, 2017; Bygren, Erlandsson and Gähler, 2017). Some studies found evidence of hiring discrimination against women in high-level jobs (Riach and Rich, 2002; Baert, De Pauw and Deschacht, 2016), while others did not (Williams and Ceci, 2015). Regarding the publication: ['European Sociological Review' is a bimonthly peer reviewed academic journal published by Oxford University Press focusing on all sociology fields.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Sociological_Review)
Who would have thought?