Feminism

[Barrister]

It's actually that plus the fact that women tend to choose more expert specializations (labour, antitrust, environmental etc) rather than more adversarial ones (M&A, litigation) and the latter are better rewarded.

This is anecdotal but in my  litigation/office group, the split is 1/3 women at the partner level and 50-50 at the associate level.
I'd like to think part of that is that my firm is better than average on this but it also reflects the emerging reality of distribution of talent in the marketplace.

I've worked at Malthus' big lawfirm, but as big as it is it's not like a Magic Circle firm.

So maybe it's possible that they remain highly male-dominated - that the insane billable requirements drive out women at disproportionate rates unlike the wider legal profession.

Or maybe Marti doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's just Poland that is the exception.

[merithyn]

The one problem I always had with that theory is that it seems to be so disconnected from reality, at least the kind of reality I experienced.  Are girls after a certain age really ostracized for doing well in school?  If anything, in my experience, it was much harder for a boy to be cool and good in school at the same time.  In my experience, it was quite easy for girls to do well in school without coming off as a nerd.

It appears that you're correct on that. At least, that you're correct on that for today's girls. Not so much for girls when you went to school.

Source

Math skills are considered essential to success in STEM fields. Historically, boys have outperformed
girls in math, but in the past few decades the gender gap has narrowed, and today girls
are doing as well as boys in math on average (Hyde et al., 2008). Girls are earning high school
math and science credits at the same rate as boys and are earning slightly higher grades in
these classes (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007)
(see figures 1 and 2).

[DGuller]

The one problem I always had with that theory is that it seems to be so disconnected from reality, at least the kind of reality I experienced.  Are girls after a certain age really ostracized for doing well in school?  If anything, in my experience, it was much harder for a boy to be cool and good in school at the same time.  In my experience, it was quite easy for girls to do well in school without coming off as a nerd.

It appears that you're correct on that. At least, that you're correct on that for today's girls. Not so much for girls when you went to school.

Source

Math skills are considered essential to success in STEM fields. Historically, boys have outperformed
girls in math, but in the past few decades the gender gap has narrowed, and today girls
are doing as well as boys in math on average (Hyde et al., 2008). Girls are earning high school
math and science credits at the same rate as boys and are earning slightly higher grades in
these classes (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007)
(see figures 1 and 2).

How is the quoted paragraph supporting or refuting what I said?

[dps]

This is not age based. This is rank based. There is a lot of junior or mid-level female lawyers in Poland too. But most of them do not make to a partner.

That would fall in line with the idea that it's a matter of time/work, and if women take time off to have a family, they "fail". That's why the Scandanavian countries are so far ahead of anyone else in the Western countries with gender equality. Men AND women get parental leave when a child is born. And, in general, it's not uncommon for men to stay home for a portion of the child's infancy.

Here's the thing--raises and, to a lesser extent, promotions in most fields are more about putting in your time than merit or anything else, especially at the lower levels where most people are working.  This is even more true in unionized workplaces and the like, where senority isn't just the normal, run-of-the-mill practice, but is codified.  "Bob, Joe, Mark, Kate, and Susan, here's your annual raise.  Mary, Penny, and Betty, you took last year off to spend with with your newborns, and Mike, you took off last year on a sabbatical to the Holy Land, so no annual raise for you."  "Hey, gang!  Larry's retiring!  Everybody chip in to buy him a retirement present.  Bob, you have 12 years of service time here, so you get to move up to his position.  Congradulations, Bob!  Let's have a round of applause for Bob!  I'm sure he'll do a great job as your new supervisor."  What's left unsaid is that Mary would have 2 more years of service than Bob if she hadn't taken 3 years off to have kids, and Mike would have 8 months more service time than Bob if it weren't for that sabbatical.  So the men end up, on average, making more than the women, and Bob got the promotion instead of Mary, but nobody made a decision to pay the guys more or pass over Mary for promotion because she's a woman.  It's just about service time.  I don't claim that this explains all differences in pay rates, but it does explain a lot.  If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

[merithyn]

If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

[merithyn]

The one problem I always had with that theory is that it seems to be so disconnected from reality, at least the kind of reality I experienced.  Are girls after a certain age really ostracized for doing well in school?  If anything, in my experience, it was much harder for a boy to be cool and good in school at the same time.  In my experience, it was quite easy for girls to do well in school without coming off as a nerd.

It appears that you're correct on that. At least, that you're correct on that for today's girls. Not so much for girls when you went to school.

Source

Math skills are considered essential to success in STEM fields. Historically, boys have outperformed
girls in math, but in the past few decades the gender gap has narrowed, and today girls
are doing as well as boys in math on average (Hyde et al., 2008). Girls are earning high school
math and science credits at the same rate as boys and are earning slightly higher grades in
these classes (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007)
(see figures 1 and 2).

How is the quoted paragraph supporting or refuting what I said?

It wasn't a theory. It was fact. Girls did worse than boys in math and science. That gap has changed dramatically in the last decade and a half, erasing the gap, but the gap definitely existed.

My personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

[Scipio]

My wife and I have struggled mightily over this issue of 'feminism.'  My wife feels that feminism allows her stay home, cook, and clean, and rear the kids.  I feel that feminism allows her to work and make money while I stay home, cook, and clean, and rear the kids.

I am not sure that we are in agreement, but I am not sure that we are in disagreement.

[dps]

If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

[merithyn]

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

That doesn't make sense. So long as women make less than men, it will make sense for the woman to stay home with the children while the man goes to work. Financially, that's the responsible thing to do. It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change.

[dps]

My personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

In other words, girls, just like boys, were treated badly by their peers for doing well in school.  Hmm.  Kind of knocks a hole in the idea that differences in school performance were/are due to peer pressure.

[MadImmortalMan]

If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

The biggest shift that would require would be cultural if you ask me.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

That doesn't make sense. So long as women make less than men, it will make sense for the woman to stay home with the children while the man goes to work. Financially, that's the responsible thing to do. It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change.

The generation of women currently having kids are not making less than men though.

[garbon]

If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

Nah, my father made substantially less so he gave up his job in toto.

[DGuller]

It wasn't a theory. It was fact. Girls did worse than boys in math and science. That gap has changed dramatically in the last decade and a half, erasing the gap, but the gap definitely existed.

I'm not questioning the gender difference in math achievement, I'm questioning the "ostracism" theory behind the reason for the differences.  Frankly, I think it's utter bullshit, and that it's popular only because it is a useful kind of lie.  And the achievement gap in math SAT scores hasn't gone anywhere:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/ .

My personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

And this kind of things never happens with boys?  Do the other boys revere the ones who get the highest math scores?

[Malthus]

In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Isnt all you are saying is that one cannot be taught to be creative.  People can be given the opportunity to be creative but not everyone given that opportunity will succeed.

I guess that's true, depending on how you define "creative". I think everyone is creative to some extent, but to go beyond established wisdom and truly blaze new ground in fields like mathematics involves I think having a certain high level of innate ability.

What do you mean by "innate".  That seems to be a self referential definition - those that are able have it and those that dont dont.

You can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems.  The kids who pull a Mono and spend all their time doing homework will get 100%.  But to be a great mathematician takes more than rote learning.  It takes creativity.

Same thing with Musicians.  You can teach anyone willing to learn how to play a song from a song sheet.  Again, the kids that pull a Mono and practise that song over and over again will get very good at playing it.  But improvisation may elude them.  That takes creativity.

I liked your examples of math and music because they are so closely linked.

Yeah, I can agree with that. Greatness requires creativity, which can be encouraged (or discouraged) but cannot be taught - you can either do it or not, meaning it is based on innate ability.

I suck at music, but if I wanted to, I could study and practice very, very hard - Mono-like as it were - and play Mozart. But I could never in a million years compose like Mozart no matter how hard I practiced.