6 ms·

Of course, you truncated only the last sentence of the analysis summary, which contradicted your narrative: As we dug deeper into this relationship, we found t

Of course, you truncated only the last sentence of the analysis summary, which contradicted your narrative: As we dug deeper into this relationship, we found that these women often attempted to make accommodations at work in order to meet their care-giving responsibilities only to be met with resistance from the work environment.

like_any_other 1y ago
It adds context, but doesn't contradict anything - the resistance they faced was to actions that their male peers didn't attempt, so it doesn't imply any kind of disparate treatment.
- gitremote 1y ago
  The comment implied that women left engineering because they preferred taking care of children over working as engineers. The context is that they wanted to choose both, but their work didn't allow it. If young children exist and are neglected, then society blames the mother, not the father. A responsible mother has no choice but to choose family over career if she can't choose both. Young humans cannot survive on their own without being cared for by adult humans.
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    > The comment implied that women left engineering because they preferred taking care of children over working as engineers. That turns out not to be the case. 1. It wasn't "implied" There were no implications, things were said straight out. 2. It wasn't "the comment" that didn't imply this This was a statement by the researchers quoted verbatim. 3. It wasn't "the" reason As the researchers stated: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving So wanting to take care of children wasn't "the" reasons, and it wasn't even the main reason. It was one where men and women actually diverged, whereas for the most part they gave the same reasons. 4. Non-accomodation was a factor > The context is that they wanted to choose both, but their work didn't allow it. That is also not true as written. First, the researchers write "often", which you leave out. Second the researchers write "resistance", you write "didn't allow". Those are not the same thing. Third, the report clearly states "women wanted to leave the workforce to spend time with family". Wanted. Not "were forced to by societal pressures". And of course those pressures are identical for men and women, if not stronger for men. When I started working part time in order to have time for my daughter, there was an almost immediate attempt to push me out, stopped only by my team revolting, and it was made clear to me that I would not be advancing, that my career was if not over than at least dead in the water. And at some level that is actually correct. Once I had my daughter, my job was not just not my #1 priority, I physically did not have the same amount of time to give. This is not some evil discriminatory society, it is physics. The day has so many hours. So companies that often demand total dedication from their employees (especially in the US) simply won't get it from a caregiver. Now I don't agree that that is a legitimate demand. But it is a common one that is made equally of all employees, non-discriminatorily. Choosing family over career is a legitimate choice. It happens to be my choice. But it is a choice, and one I personally would make again and again, even though the punishment society doles out to men for that choice is much, much harsher.
mpweiher 1y ago
1. There is no contradiction (I) When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination. 2. There is no contradiction (II) The point I was making was about what gets published. It didn't get published. 3. There is no contradiction (III) Please look again at the introductory sentence of the report: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving "Roughly the same rates for the same reasons". I repeat: "roughly the same rates for the same reasons". That it isn't exactly the same rates and not exactly the same reasons is not a contradiction, because "exactly" wasn't claimed. It is added nuance and details that does not in any way shape or form contradict the original finding. And it isn't "my narrative", it is what the researchers found. So it ain't a "narrative", it is the empirical data, and it isn't "mine", it is the reality as found by those researchers.
- gitremote 1y ago
  > When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination. Perhaps you are unaware of the legal concept of "disparate impact": https://www.britannica.com/topic/disparate-impact https://www.britannica.com/topic/disparate-impact disparate impact, judicial theory developed in the United States that allows challenges to employment or educational practices that are nondiscriminatory on their face but have a disproportionately negative effect on members of legally protected groups. For example, if a company's policy is "No employee is allowed to pump breast milk anywhere on premises, even behind closed doors, regardless of gender," it disproportionately impacts women even if men are also banned from the same activity.
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    Perhaps I am aware that, to add the part of the article you left out: However, civil rights advocates have been disappointed as federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time. So it's a fairly fringe legal theory with little impact. There are lots of fringe theories, for example some claim that the earth is flat. I don't have to accommodate all of them.

like_any_other 1y ago

It adds context, but doesn't contradict anything - the resistance they faced was to actions that their male peers didn't attempt, so it doesn't imply any kind of disparate treatment.

gitremote 1y ago
The comment implied that women left engineering because they preferred taking care of children over working as engineers. The context is that they wanted to choose both, but their work didn't allow it. If young children exist and are neglected, then society blames the mother, not the father. A responsible mother has no choice but to choose family over career if she can't choose both. Young humans cannot survive on their own without being cared for by adult humans.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  > The comment implied that women left engineering because they preferred taking care of children over working as engineers. That turns out not to be the case. 1. It wasn't "implied" There were no implications, things were said straight out. 2. It wasn't "the comment" that didn't imply this This was a statement by the researchers quoted verbatim. 3. It wasn't "the" reason As the researchers stated: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving So wanting to take care of children wasn't "the" reasons, and it wasn't even the main reason. It was one where men and women actually diverged, whereas for the most part they gave the same reasons. 4. Non-accomodation was a factor > The context is that they wanted to choose both, but their work didn't allow it. That is also not true as written. First, the researchers write "often", which you leave out. Second the researchers write "resistance", you write "didn't allow". Those are not the same thing. Third, the report clearly states "women wanted to leave the workforce to spend time with family". Wanted. Not "were forced to by societal pressures". And of course those pressures are identical for men and women, if not stronger for men. When I started working part time in order to have time for my daughter, there was an almost immediate attempt to push me out, stopped only by my team revolting, and it was made clear to me that I would not be advancing, that my career was if not over than at least dead in the water. And at some level that is actually correct. Once I had my daughter, my job was not just not my #1 priority, I physically did not have the same amount of time to give. This is not some evil discriminatory society, it is physics. The day has so many hours. So companies that often demand total dedication from their employees (especially in the US) simply won't get it from a caregiver. Now I don't agree that that is a legitimate demand. But it is a common one that is made equally of all employees, non-discriminatorily. Choosing family over career is a legitimate choice. It happens to be my choice. But it is a choice, and one I personally would make again and again, even though the punishment society doles out to men for that choice is much, much harsher.

mpweiher 1y ago

1. There is no contradiction (I) When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination. 2. There is no contradiction (II) The point I was making was about what gets published. It didn't get published. 3. There is no contradiction (III) Please look again at the introductory sentence of the report: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving "Roughly the same rates for the same reasons". I repeat: "roughly the same rates for the same reasons". That it isn't exactly the same rates and not exactly the same reasons is not a contradiction, because "exactly" wasn't claimed. It is added nuance and details that does not in any way shape or form contradict the original finding. And it isn't "my narrative", it is what the researchers found. So it ain't a "narrative", it is the empirical data, and it isn't "mine", it is the reality as found by those researchers.

gitremote 1y ago
> When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination. Perhaps you are unaware of the legal concept of "disparate impact": https://www.britannica.com/topic/disparate-impact https://www.britannica.com/topic/disparate-impact disparate impact, judicial theory developed in the United States that allows challenges to employment or educational practices that are nondiscriminatory on their face but have a disproportionately negative effect on members of legally protected groups. For example, if a company's policy is "No employee is allowed to pump breast milk anywhere on premises, even behind closed doors, regardless of gender," it disproportionately impacts women even if men are also banned from the same activity.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  Perhaps I am aware that, to add the part of the article you left out: However, civil rights advocates have been disappointed as federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time. So it's a fairly fringe legal theory with little impact. There are lots of fringe theories, for example some claim that the earth is flat. I don't have to accommodate all of them.