[oarabbus_]

Higher-paying executive and engineering positions tend to skew more male, and lower-paying executive assistant/secretarial/administrative positions tend to skew more female.

There is plenty of overlap but the distribution skew results in men, on the aggregate, being paid slightly more than women.

[jadell]

Then the focus should be on why aren't more women being hired for executive and engineering positions? I'm not putting all this on the hiring company; it starts much further back in the pipeline than that. So what is the company doing to get more women onto the track towards higher-paying executive and engineering positions, and keeping them on that track?

[weberc2]

It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be. There's this creepy urge to pressure women to share exactly the same preference distributions as men. This restriction of women's choice for the sake of some neat gender parity is antithetical to human rights and equal opportunity.

[jadell]

> It's all well and good to understand why this is, but if the answer is "because, on average, women prefer a different distribution of work", then we should let that be.

I haven't seen any research showing one way or the other why this is. Have any links to share?

Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than we value work generally done by men?

[weberc2]

Another poster linked to this, which is the clearest explanation I've seen to date: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...

The most likely explanation is not that society values male work more than female work, but rather that men prioritize work that is socially valuable (i.e., prefer salary compensation) while women prefer to do work that affords them more flexibility. No one is punishing anyone or being punished by anyone; just different kinds of compensation.

[oarabbus_]

> Edit: As a side question, if they really prefer a different distribution of work, why do we as a society punish them for it by valuing that work less than we value work generally done by men?

I think you are 100% mixing up correlation and causation. "We" don't value anything. The market places a value on things based on what individuals are willing to pay, and has no knowledge or care about the gender of the person performing the task.

[repolfx]

Have you ever looked? There's lots of research out there and the scientific consensus is that biological differences drive different selection of jobs.

If you think skewed gender ratios are a computing-specific phenomenon, look here:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...

Almost every profession has a skew one way or another. The professions with the most women are at the top. Look at them and ask yourself if they're high earning: preschool and kindergarten teachers at 97.5% female is first, with, oddly, speech language pathologists being the second most female-dominated job. Then there's dental hygienists, secretaries, more childcare workers, nurses, more dental related positions, medical assistant, hairdresser, etc.

At the bottom you have the usual suspects with brickerlayers, electrical line workers, etc, anything heavy and dangerous being dominated by men.

Is it really a total mystery why childcare jobs are >90% female and crane/tower operators are >99% men?

[belorn]

As a side answer, why do we as a society punish men who take low paying jobs but not women? Why is high income only correlated for men with reproductive success, health and social support, but not for women?

When given a choice between safer work, more meaningful work and higher income, why does more men pick higher income? Why do more men prioritize getting an income above studying in their early 20s compared to women?

Lets conduct an experiment with two groups where we punish members of Group A if they don't choose a high income job and keep Group B as control. What should we expect about the relative income between the two from a initial round of just choosing a profession? Next, lets introduce negotiation where the employee balance job security, job satisfaction and wages, and the employer balance the cost of supplying those needs with their own need to retain the employee. Should we expect a different outcome between Group A and Group B? In the last step of the experiment, what would we need to change in order to get equal outcome for Group A and Group B?

[daseiner1]

why is that their responsibility at all? Women are electing not to enter that “track;” it’s companies’ jobs to convince them to?

[jadell]

Are they not electing to because it doesn't interest them, or are they opting out/washing out due to other factors? Have links to any studies that show one way or the other?

[oarabbus_]

I think there are a significant number of initiatives, groups, scholarships, etc which provide girls and women beginning at a young age the resources and tools and encouragement into the engineering track.