I'd pay women a hell of a lot more to make me a sammich than I would a man.

the most cool guy said:

---

There is no gap

---

Higher risk, higher pay. That is capitalism.

the most cool guy said:

---

There is no gap

---

There is, but it's grossly and intentionally mischaracterized by dishonest democrats.

A pay gap between men, in general, and women, in general, exists. Is it a problem? Not particularly.

p1 Claire said:

---

As someone whose career involves interviewing & hiring people, I can say confidently that any gap in pay between is attributed to men's negotiating skills vs. women's.

---

Every time my wife has switched jobs, she has been inclined to accept the first offer she got. No negotiation. I had to pester and badger her to ask for more. I had to tell her how much to ask for so it is reasonable. I had to tell her at what point to accept.

Every single time.

If I had not done so, her salary would now be a good amount lower than it is now. Of course she never gives me any credit or even a word of thanks. I believe most women don't.

The real sad thing is most of these people know it's a bull**** statistic, but they exploit it anyway for political power.

Truly disgraceful.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Because cat fights aren't good for productivity

I am amazed how brazenly women post about this on Linkedin, taunting the employers to "do better".
Women these days have no fear as they are untouchable.

Then of course you have simps who show up to "express support" and scold men and employers.

captkirk said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

This. Female unemployment would be 0% if this were true

Its been against the law for quite some time to pay a woman less for the same role/experience

---

Social Media: These greedy corporations will do anything to save a dime and refuse to pay a living wage!

Also Social Media: These A-Hole corporations will pay men more just to screw women for the same work!

Caliber said:

---

captkirk said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

This. Female unemployment would be 0% if this were true

Its been against the law for quite some time to pay a woman less for the same role/experience

---

Social Media: These greedy corporations will do anything to save a dime and refuse to pay a living wage!

Also Social Media: These A-Hole corporations will pay men more just to screw women for the same work!

---

The MSM and Academia was transmitting that double message before Social Media. Its not the source, but instead the amplifier.

infinity ag said:

---

p1 Claire said:

---

As someone whose career involves interviewing & hiring people, I can say confidently that any gap in pay between is attributed to men's negotiating skills vs. women's.

---

Every time my wife has switched jobs, she has been inclined to accept the first offer she got. No negotiation. I had to pester and badger her to ask for more. I had to tell her how much to ask for so it is reasonable. I had to tell her at what point to accept.

Every single time.

If I had not done so, her salary would now be a good amount lower than it is now. Of course she never gives me any credit or even a word of thanks. I believe most women don't.

---

I actually had to do the opposite of this for my sister. She demands way way more than almost all men (and women) for the same work, to the point that I expect some significant pushback by employers as things in the economy slow down. I had to instruct her to back down just a bit, otherwise they will go with someone else, possibly even a *gasp* guy.

Also, I paid female doctors more than the few male doctors I had, partly because they were more likely to hold me hostage, waiting until I had a concurrent maternity or when someone just quit. They jumped all over the timing when I was most desperate in their eyes. They often demanded huge raises to take advantage of my situations. The biggest joke of an example was a doctor who was only there for a year (and only been in the real world for 2), jumped all over my male doctor retiring and demanded a 50% raise. She claimed that she had lots of other offers for higher pay, so I laughed at her demands and told her good luck at her new gig. She emailed me a few hours after work that evening saying she was ok with the raise I had just given her (yes, she wanted a huge raise on top of what I had just given), I said ok, and we never spoke about it again. Funny enough, she still parroted the income gap talking points here and there amongst the other women, which I ignored. After awhile, she got pregnant, held me hostage during maternity for a few extra months beyond standard leave (which I was ok with since I valued her as an employee), then quit because she couldn't handle even part time.

Leftists: Employers are greedy capitalists, exploiting the working class for every last dollar

Also leftists: Employers pay more for the labor of men compared to women doing the exact same work

"Equal Pay Day" This Year Was March 15 the Next "Equal Occupational Fatality Day" Won't Be Until September 18, 2032.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/equal-pay-day-this-year-is-march-15-the-next-equal-occupational-fatality-day-wont-be-until-september-18-2032/

This is from 2023, I couldn't find it for '24 or '25.

Quote:

---

Inspired by Equal Pay Day, I introduced "Equal Occupational Fatality Day" in 2010 to bring public attention to the huge gender disparity in work-related deaths every year in the United States. "Equal Occupational Fatality Day" tells us how many years and days into the future women will be able to continue to work in relative safety before they experience the same number of occupational fatalities that occurred for men in the previous year.

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Controlled for years of experience, hours worked, marketable value and difficulty and risk of jobs....women in the US make more than men.

---

Men also are willing to negotiate up front and increase their pay from the get go.

Women will generally accept whatever is offered and start work.

BS. As an HVAC business owner, I'd do back flips if I could hire women to do the same work as men for less.

infinity ag said:

---

This chick delivers a long lecture. But I see that she is a CEO. I looked at her company, she has about 35 people at Scynx.

Why isn't she posting what she has done for women at her company (since she has to find the money to pay the women more)

She tells others what to do. Even makes a checklist. But does not say what she has already done as a female CEO.

---

Bold move to have your company run by a female CEO named something that sounds out as "Skanks".

My only experience is working over 30 years in a manufacturing company where I was in finance. We had to beg women to come work for us during the 80s/90s/and early 2000s. They didn't like our company because we were a predominantly male workforce doing heavy labor and most of the executives had been there since the 60s (circa 90s).

Then we somehow got popular again in the 2010s with the younger crowd who wanted some feeling of security. Again, most females did not like the "male dominant" thinking withing this manufacturing company that has been around since the 40s.

However, after hiring maybe 100 people in my tenure, I have had at least 10 women out of the 20 I was able to hire call me after they to tell me that they had no idea how great they had it...How much we catered to them and tried to make them see we were on their side. Most of them went to big accounting or PE/hedge funds and hated everything about them.

Point is, we tried, Some of it worked, some didn't.

Closing the gender gap in STEM jobs has proved difficult, perhaps because it has more to do with the priorities of men and women than with sexism. Despite years of programs to get girls to code and to pair female scientists with mentors, men outnumber women two-to-one in STEMscience, technology, engineering and mathjobs. The gender gaps are especially wide in some of the fastest-growing and best-paying fields, such as computer science and engineering.

The likely story here is that gender equity matters less than money. Countries with less gender equity tend to be poor, and careers in STEM are one of the clearest routes to financial success anywhere. Women with strong quantitative skills in poor countries have good reason to enter the sciences to make a living. Women in relatively rich countries can afford to pursue less lucrative careers without risking a life of poverty.

The reason for the primacy of social connections among females can be explained largely by child care. Because women have long borne the brunt of reproduction, they have historically needed lots of help raising their children. Men have traditionally helped indirectly, as providers of food and protection, so women who want their kids to reach adulthood had good reason to forge bonds with other women while the men were out hunting.

Connection necessitates caring and communication. We tend to focus on women's under-representation in STEM, but they are also over-represented in careers that emphasize care and communication, such as nursing and teaching.

It is not a coincidence that these jobs typically pay poorly, as we tend to devalue what some call "women's work." The clearest evidence of this comes from an analysis of occupational pay levels from 1950 to 2000, published in the journal Social Forces in 2009, which found that when the share of women in a career grew, those jobs began to pay less.

Market forces have failed to correct this devaluation of care work, but this may change. AI may soon outperform most humans at most STEM tasks, but it looks less likely to replace jobs that require a caring human touch.

Efforts to remove the barriers that may prevent girls and women from pursuing STEM are certainly worthy, but prejudice and discrimination clearly don't tell the whole story. Perhaps the answer is to offer both coding camps for girls and caring camps for boys, and more generally to make sure that so-called "women's work" pays better.

Why Are Girls Less Likely to Become Scientists? - WSJ

There is no gender pay gap because women-especially college educated white women-are just inferior to men. They just aren't capable of reaching the same goals as men because they are controlled by their emotions and their hormones.

If this were true, then every ceo would hire nothing but female employees for 83 cents on the dollar and look like a genius for saving so much on payroll …

rocky the dog said:

---

---

I know this is a meme, but women/the left never answers this question.

Ginormus Ag said:

---

I'd pay women a hell of a lot more to make me a sammich than I would a man.

---

Only simp betas PAY for the sammiches.

samurai_science said:

---

The gap is a myth that is been debunked with actual data many times.

---

Username checks out. Ain't no way I'm arguing with him.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Women don't want to catch up, largely. They tend to choose a category of career or employment options that are more satisfying or interesting to them BUT a LOT of them choose the same categories, more than demand for their labor at high compensation rates. Women flood the teaching occupation because it is aligned on their personal goals and their goals for hours and free time but that keeps wages lower, as the supply more easily meets demand.

Demand for highly technical STEM educated labor is very high because it can generate big returns, but qualified supply is limited, and is mostly male. This is for two reasons: self selection is the biggest: most females find working on things relatively boring or unsatisfying so they don't chose to be an engineer or programmer or lab technician or whatever. Males much more often like that kind of material and actually are motivated to pursue it, meaning they practice it outside the classroom and workplace informally for fun. They get better at it by much more time in application. Building gaming computers or designing some project in the garage or programming something with some friends.
The second reason is not PC but the data is definitely there: the male IQ distribution curve is flatter. Fewer cluster around the mean, unlike females, but more are at the extreme tails, low and HIgh, and the effect at the tails means there are a considerably larger number of very high IQ males than very high IQ females in the population. (Low IQ ones, too, but not applicable for high paying occupations). That means there are simply more qualified high end male income earners in areas that compensate exceptional intelligence.

---

Such a spot on post. But the pareto distribution argument also includes the fact that there are more men who will measure the entire success of their lives on their career achievements. Some of this is cultural, some of this is biological.

Men are just, on average, more aggressive and competitive than women. While this difference is not all that noticeable around the mean, due to how distributions work, it is much more noticeable at the tails. The very most aggressive people in our society are men. It's one of the reason why almost all violent criminals are male. If this wasn't the case, we would see a lot more callus murderers in female prisons.

Most large company CEOs that do well are freaking psychopaths. They will give up everything of meaning in their life to outperform all of their peers. Such a drive seems to be required, but also needs to be pared with off the charts capability as well. This drive his highly related to aggressiveness and competitiveness, which, as discussed above, is dominated by males at the extreme right tail.

The number of people that exhibit this mix of 6 sigma skill and drive is exceedingly small, but so are the number of CEO positions. Not only do you have to be off the charts talented, but also off the charts aggressive. Since either of these attributes are highly biased towards males at the far right of the curve, for different reasons, finding a female that is on the far right of both of these curves is miniscule.

But, we can't ignore the cultural aspects of this as well. While there are fewer women that are likely to want to measure their success completely on their careers, a highly successful family that chooses to send their kids to year round boarding school culturally is looked down on more on the mother than the father. On the marriage front, men are much more likely to prefer a nurturing mate; females are much more likely to prefer an aggressive mate.

These are all reasons why the pay gap really exists, but they are impolite truths that tend to disprove the dominance of a male patriarchy, which is bad for marxism.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I need someone to install my Starlink on my roof, it's a three story fall to the CONCRETE below near my basement.


Any woman want that job?

---

FIFY

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

Closing the gender gap in STEM jobs has proved difficult, perhaps because it has more to do with the priorities of men and women than with sexism. Despite years of programs to get girls to code and to pair female scientists with mentors, men outnumber women two-to-one in STEMscience, technology, engineering and mathjobs. The gender gaps are especially wide in some of the fastest-growing and best-paying fields, such as computer science and engineering.

The likely story here is that gender equity matters less than money. Countries with less gender equity tend to be poor, and careers in STEM are one of the clearest routes to financial success anywhere. Women with strong quantitative skills in poor countries have good reason to enter the sciences to make a living. Women in relatively rich countries can afford to pursue less lucrative careers without risking a life of poverty.

The reason for the primacy of social connections among females can be explained largely by child care. Because women have long borne the brunt of reproduction, they have historically needed lots of help raising their children. Men have traditionally helped indirectly, as providers of food and protection, so women who want their kids to reach adulthood had good reason to forge bonds with other women while the men were out hunting.

Connection necessitates caring and communication. We tend to focus on women's under-representation in STEM, but they are also over-represented in careers that emphasize care and communication, such as nursing and teaching.

It is not a coincidence that these jobs typically pay poorly, as we tend to devalue what some call "women's work." The clearest evidence of this comes from an analysis of occupational pay levels from 1950 to 2000, published in the journal Social Forces in 2009, which found that when the share of women in a career grew, those jobs began to pay less.

Market forces have failed to correct this devaluation of care work, but this may change. AI may soon outperform most humans at most STEM tasks, but it looks less likely to replace jobs that require a caring human touch.

Efforts to remove the barriers that may prevent girls and women from pursuing STEM are certainly worthy, but prejudice and discrimination clearly don't tell the whole story. Perhaps the answer is to offer both coding camps for girls and caring camps for boys, and more generally to make sure that so-called "women's work" pays better.

Why Are Girls Less Likely to Become Scientists? - WSJ

---

What a bunch of crap.

Schools and companies do everything imaginable to get women into STEM but the reality is they tend to only want to go into a few areas of STEM through self selection. Men and women are different both physically and culturally and to deny that is simply delusion, it also works against most of the points made.

Women in STEM tend to go into Health/Biology fields. For instance Biomedical Engineering is often majority female. Biology and similar science fields also are majority female. Women who go into that field also tend to self select out of pursuing and MD and instead go into Occupational Therapy, Nursing, or NP/PA jobs because they pay well (not as much as an MD) but take less time both to get certification and provide more flexibility in lifestyle. Part of that is because women either want to raise children but part of it is just the nature of women because their bodies are not designed to work extremely long hours under high pressure for extended periods. Testosterone and Estrogen really do matter for instance. You also will see a large portion of women that do decide to pursue and MD and especially a difficult specialty like surgery burn out and quit at a much higher rate than men.

Take another field like Marine Transportation and Marine Engineering. They are two of the highest paying areas you can go into with a college degree and are 80/20 male. It's certainly not from lack of recruitment. There just aren't many women that want to do 2 months on/2 months off on a ship as a career in a job that at times requires physical labor and can also be very stressful. Of the women that do go into the field very few stay with it for more than a few years and instead pursue jobs on shore.

Most Engineering fields simply don't appeal to women long term either. They are monotonous and difficult and tend to be less social. A high proportion of women that do go into those fields end up as Product Managers or Project Managers because they don't want to stay in the technology. The exception is Asian women to an extent.

You also aren't going to ever get a significant number of men into nurturing focused fields not only because of pay but because men aren't built that way. Also men don't have the illusions that women do about pursuing their passions and doing what is fun. They tend to understand that work is about making money to establish yourself and attract a mate and then raise a family.

That is not something most women tend to worry about because they are looking for a man to provide that security. It is how they are hard wired in terms of attraction as well. Women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do in most cases. They want a man that can provide and that they can feel comfortable looking to for leadership and that is where the attraction comes from. They want a successful and strong man who can make them feel comfortable being feminine and protected. Lots of biological reasons for that.

It is perfectly ok to be openly sexist to favor women in society, especially in education and the workplace. You can have countless girls only clubs and special awards and promote hiring and admission of women all you want. The fact that colleges are now 60/40 female and approaching 2/3rds doesn't matter, we apparently still need more women than men. It also doesn't matter that many fields are 80/20 or 90/10 female, it only matters that there are fields that are majority men. This is simply accepted even though it is insane.

The true irony is that this system actually hurts women the most long term though it certainly harms men. Why? We are encouraging women to pursue careers and lifestyles that will end up with them delaying or not having children at all. The system also makes it very difficult for them to find a suitable mate because they are naturally drawn to a standard that only a few men can have. This also creates a situation where the few high value men have less incentive to commit to them while the majority of men are disposable. There is a huge problem on the horizon as we are destined to find a massive amount of women who have left their child bearing years and find themselves alone and childless. There is no amount of money or material support that will make up for that and thus you have seen that an incredibly high percentage of these women are on anti depressants or in therapy or both.

This madness is destroying society and making both sexes miserable.

High heels inhibit rapid progress.

infinity ag said:

---

I am amazed how brazenly women post about this on Linkedin, taunting the employers to "do better".
Women these days have no fear as they are untouchable.

Then of course you have simps who show up to "express support" and scold men and employers.

---

My former employer had a women's night dinner during our quarterly new hire training.

I didn't go at first because I wasn't a woman and then I got told that I needed to go to show support since I was a manager.

I show up to this women's event and there are about 40 people there. 2 actual female students, 1 female manager, 2 admins who organized the event and about 35 dudes.

Considering our hiring was about 95% male, the numbers were about right.

Solid post and there's a lot in there.

I'd summarize to say that most women aren't motivated by financial gain or financial independence.

Most men don't have the choice to do anything other than work their asses off to become financially independent.

infinity ag said:

---

I am amazed how brazenly women post about this on Linkedin, taunting the employers to "do better".
Women these days have no fear as they are untouchable.

Then of course you have simps who show up to "express support" and scold men and employers.

---

The other irony is that if you ask most women they would much prefer to work for a male boss, especially after they have worked for both. Men tend to be more clear about expectations and create less drama. Women like to talk about drama with their friends but don't like having drama from their boss and they find it exhausting. Women also tend to be very superficial towards each other but are extremely competitive and sometimes ruthless beneath the surface, especially in a high paying field. If a man doesn't like you they don't typically hide it and often times a man can seem gruff but doesn't actually intend anything by it. Men tend not to hold grudges as long or take things as personally as women do.

The worst boss for my wife has always been a female in her late 30s to around 50 that isn't married (usually had a divorce or two) and doesn't have kids. Work is everything to them in an unhealthy way (not about working extra hard just in terms of being extremely territorial and protective of it) and they tend to resent women who are happily married and have kids, though once again it is always below the surface.

Unfortunately there are a lot of these women and there will be even more in the coming years. Many are very bitter as they feel like they were told they could have it all and now they realize they may have a good job and some money but you can only do so many girl trips and they don't make up for giving up a family which now has passed them by. Many are still quite good looking and that only makes it worse as they realize they simply can't find a suitable mate because a man of similar standing (high income, good looks) isn't looking for someone like them. If a man has financial security there isn't much value in choosing a wife that works 60 hours a week and obsesses over their job and can't have children. Those women also aren't going to "settle" for a man they deem below them. Thus "there are no good men out there".

Of course there are always exceptions but for most the rule holds true.

aggie93 said:

---

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

Closing the gender gap in STEM jobs has proved difficult, perhaps because it has more to do with the priorities of men and women than with sexism. Despite years of programs to get girls to code and to pair female scientists with mentors, men outnumber women two-to-one in STEMscience, technology, engineering and mathjobs. The gender gaps are especially wide in some of the fastest-growing and best-paying fields, such as computer science and engineering.

The likely story here is that gender equity matters less than money. Countries with less gender equity tend to be poor, and careers in STEM are one of the clearest routes to financial success anywhere. Women with strong quantitative skills in poor countries have good reason to enter the sciences to make a living. Women in relatively rich countries can afford to pursue less lucrative careers without risking a life of poverty.

The reason for the primacy of social connections among females can be explained largely by child care. Because women have long borne the brunt of reproduction, they have historically needed lots of help raising their children. Men have traditionally helped indirectly, as providers of food and protection, so women who want their kids to reach adulthood had good reason to forge bonds with other women while the men were out hunting.

Connection necessitates caring and communication. We tend to focus on women's under-representation in STEM, but they are also over-represented in careers that emphasize care and communication, such as nursing and teaching.

It is not a coincidence that these jobs typically pay poorly, as we tend to devalue what some call "women's work." The clearest evidence of this comes from an analysis of occupational pay levels from 1950 to 2000, published in the journal Social Forces in 2009, which found that when the share of women in a career grew, those jobs began to pay less.

Market forces have failed to correct this devaluation of care work, but this may change. AI may soon outperform most humans at most STEM tasks, but it looks less likely to replace jobs that require a caring human touch.

Efforts to remove the barriers that may prevent girls and women from pursuing STEM are certainly worthy, but prejudice and discrimination clearly don't tell the whole story. Perhaps the answer is to offer both coding camps for girls and caring camps for boys, and more generally to make sure that so-called "women's work" pays better.

Why Are Girls Less Likely to Become Scientists? - WSJ

---

What a bunch of crap.

Schools and companies do everything imaginable to get women into STEM but the reality is they tend to only want to go into a few areas of STEM through self selection. Men and women are different both physically and culturally and to deny that is simply delusion, it also works against most of the points made.

Women in STEM tend to go into Health/Biology fields. For instance Biomedical Engineering is often majority female. Biology and similar science fields also are majority female. Women who go into that field also tend to self select out of pursuing and MD and instead go into Occupational Therapy, Nursing, or NP/PA jobs because they pay well (not as much as an MD) but take less time both to get certification and provide more flexibility in lifestyle. Part of that is because women either want to raise children but part of it is just the nature of women because their bodies are not designed to work extremely long hours under high pressure for extended periods. Testosterone and Estrogen really do matter for instance. You also will see a large portion of women that do decide to pursue and MD and especially a difficult specialty like surgery burn out and quit at a much higher rate than men.

Take another field like Marine Transportation and Marine Engineering. They are two of the highest paying areas you can go into with a college degree and are 80/20 male. It's certainly not from lack of recruitment. There just aren't many women that want to do 2 months on/2 months off on a ship as a career in a job that at times requires physical labor and can also be very stressful. Of the women that do go into the field very few stay with it for more than a few years and instead pursue jobs on shore.

Most Engineering fields simply don't appeal to women long term either. They are monotonous and difficult and tend to be less social. A high proportion of women that do go into those fields end up as Product Managers or Project Managers because they don't want to stay in the technology. The exception is Asian women to an extent.

You also aren't going to ever get a significant number of men into nurturing focused fields not only because of pay but because men aren't built that way. Also men don't have the illusions that women do about pursuing their passions and doing what is fun. They tend to understand that work is about making money to establish yourself and attract a mate and then raise a family.

That is not something most women tend to worry about because they are looking for a man to provide that security. It is how they are hard wired in terms of attraction as well. Women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do in most cases. They want a man that can provide and that they can feel comfortable looking to for leadership and that is where the attraction comes from. They want a successful and strong man who can make them feel comfortable being feminine and protected. Lots of biological reasons for that.

It is perfectly ok to be openly sexist to favor women in society, especially in education and the workplace. You can have countless girls only clubs and special awards and promote hiring and admission of women all you want. The fact that colleges are now 60/40 female and approaching 2/3rds doesn't matter, we apparently still need more women than men. It also doesn't matter that many fields are 80/20 or 90/10 female, it only matters that there are fields that are majority men. This is simply accepted even though it is insane.

The true irony is that this system actually hurts women the most long term though it certainly harms men. Why? We are encouraging women to pursue careers and lifestyles that will end up with them delaying or not having children at all. The system also makes it very difficult for them to find a suitable mate because they are naturally drawn to a standard that only a few men can have. This also creates a situation where the few high value men have less incentive to commit to them while the majority of men are disposable. There is a huge problem on the horizon as we are destined to find a massive amount of women who have left their child bearing years and find themselves alone and childless. There is no amount of money or material support that will make up for that and thus you have seen that an incredibly high percentage of these women are on anti depressants or in therapy or both.

This madness is destroying society and making both sexes miserable.

---

What an awesome post. I am amazed that I am the first and only one to star it.

My kid went to college a few years ago, and none of his academically smart female classmates went into Computer Science except 1. Even that girl was forced into it by her Computer Sciency dad. She wanted to do Biomedical Engg. Of course being female, she got many top school admits. And now she got many top internships just for being female. My son has had to struggle but I think it will pay off. All the boys are struggling for good internships. Girls are coasting through, they are even being invited over Linkedin! My son did not get a single call, he had to apply to all himself. Same/comparable profiles.

Now my second kid is a girl so I think we will have an easier time. But she isn't as academically good. None of her friends are in Computer Science, they hate it. Even the sister of the above mentioned girl. My daughter is just with 3 other girls in a sea of boys in their CS classes in HS. All the girls are looking at Med School or BioMed.

And the girl who was in my son's batch? She had a high school boyfriend who was of comparable profile (grades, intelligence etc) who did not get into a Top 5 CS school for some unknown reason. He was devastated at that time. As expected, the girl dumped him in a year and moved on to another guy who I think is from a Top 5 school. Girls always try to find a mate of higher status than themselves.


It is just the way it is.

aggie93 said:

---

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

Closing the gender gap in STEM jobs has proved difficult, perhaps because it has more to do with the priorities of men and women than with sexism. Despite years of programs to get girls to code and to pair female scientists with mentors, men outnumber women two-to-one in STEMscience, technology, engineering and mathjobs. The gender gaps are especially wide in some of the fastest-growing and best-paying fields, such as computer science and engineering.

The likely story here is that gender equity matters less than money. Countries with less gender equity tend to be poor, and careers in STEM are one of the clearest routes to financial success anywhere. Women with strong quantitative skills in poor countries have good reason to enter the sciences to make a living. Women in relatively rich countries can afford to pursue less lucrative careers without risking a life of poverty.

The reason for the primacy of social connections among females can be explained largely by child care. Because women have long borne the brunt of reproduction, they have historically needed lots of help raising their children. Men have traditionally helped indirectly, as providers of food and protection, so women who want their kids to reach adulthood had good reason to forge bonds with other women while the men were out hunting.

Connection necessitates caring and communication. We tend to focus on women's under-representation in STEM, but they are also over-represented in careers that emphasize care and communication, such as nursing and teaching.

It is not a coincidence that these jobs typically pay poorly, as we tend to devalue what some call "women's work." The clearest evidence of this comes from an analysis of occupational pay levels from 1950 to 2000, published in the journal Social Forces in 2009, which found that when the share of women in a career grew, those jobs began to pay less.

Market forces have failed to correct this devaluation of care work, but this may change. AI may soon outperform most humans at most STEM tasks, but it looks less likely to replace jobs that require a caring human touch.

Efforts to remove the barriers that may prevent girls and women from pursuing STEM are certainly worthy, but prejudice and discrimination clearly don't tell the whole story. Perhaps the answer is to offer both coding camps for girls and caring camps for boys, and more generally to make sure that so-called "women's work" pays better.

Why Are Girls Less Likely to Become Scientists? - WSJ

---

What a bunch of crap.

Schools and companies do everything imaginable to get women into STEM but the reality is they tend to only want to go into a few areas of STEM through self selection. Men and women are different both physically and culturally and to deny that is simply delusion, it also works against most of the points made.

Women in STEM tend to go into Health/Biology fields. For instance Biomedical Engineering is often majority female. Biology and similar science fields also are majority female. Women who go into that field also tend to self select out of pursuing and MD and instead go into Occupational Therapy, Nursing, or NP/PA jobs because they pay well (not as much as an MD) but take less time both to get certification and provide more flexibility in lifestyle. Part of that is because women either want to raise children but part of it is just the nature of women because their bodies are not designed to work extremely long hours under high pressure for extended periods. Testosterone and Estrogen really do matter for instance. You also will see a large portion of women that do decide to pursue and MD and especially a difficult specialty like surgery burn out and quit at a much higher rate than men.

Take another field like Marine Transportation and Marine Engineering. They are two of the highest paying areas you can go into with a college degree and are 80/20 male. It's certainly not from lack of recruitment. There just aren't many women that want to do 2 months on/2 months off on a ship as a career in a job that at times requires physical labor and can also be very stressful. Of the women that do go into the field very few stay with it for more than a few years and instead pursue jobs on shore.

Most Engineering fields simply don't appeal to women long term either. They are monotonous and difficult and tend to be less social. A high proportion of women that do go into those fields end up as Product Managers or Project Managers because they don't want to stay in the technology. The exception is Asian women to an extent.

You also aren't going to ever get a significant number of men into nurturing focused fields not only because of pay but because men aren't built that way. Also men don't have the illusions that women do about pursuing their passions and doing what is fun. They tend to understand that work is about making money to establish yourself and attract a mate and then raise a family.

That is not something most women tend to worry about because they are looking for a man to provide that security. It is how they are hard wired in terms of attraction as well. Women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do in most cases. They want a man that can provide and that they can feel comfortable looking to for leadership and that is where the attraction comes from. They want a successful and strong man who can make them feel comfortable being feminine and protected. Lots of biological reasons for that.

It is perfectly ok to be openly sexist to favor women in society, especially in education and the workplace. You can have countless girls only clubs and special awards and promote hiring and admission of women all you want. The fact that colleges are now 60/40 female and approaching 2/3rds doesn't matter, we apparently still need more women than men. It also doesn't matter that many fields are 80/20 or 90/10 female, it only matters that there are fields that are majority men. This is simply accepted even though it is insane.

The true irony is that this system actually hurts women the most long term though it certainly harms men. Why? We are encouraging women to pursue careers and lifestyles that will end up with them delaying or not having children at all. The system also makes it very difficult for them to find a suitable mate because they are naturally drawn to a standard that only a few men can have. This also creates a situation where the few high value men have less incentive to commit to them while the majority of men are disposable. There is a huge problem on the horizon as we are destined to find a massive amount of women who have left their child bearing years and find themselves alone and childless. There is no amount of money or material support that will make up for that and thus you have seen that an incredibly high percentage of these women are on anti depressants or in therapy or both.

This madness is destroying society and making both sexes miserable.

---

I appreciate your response to the WSJ article I shared. I shared that article because I thought it was relevant to the thread, but I probably should have known that William Von Hippel is among those encouraging women to pursue careers and lifestyles that they are not biologically or culturally wired for.