[afavour]

For that to be plausible it would mean the vast majority of women choose their profession based on enjoyment with no consideration of earning potential. Which doesn’t feel all that plausible. At the very least you’d expect a study on it, any data at all.

[xboxnolifes]

That is not the only plausible way for that outcome to happen. It could be that both, men and women, are biased toward professions they enjoy, and, due to our economic system, the activities that men tend to prefer end up paying more. It wouldn't even need to be a "vast majority". It could be a small bias over the entire population, or a large bias over a smaller subset of the population.

At the very least, why isn't every student in the same major? Why isn't everyone working toward the highest paying field at any given time?

[1659447091]

> It could be that both, men and women, are biased toward professions they enjoy

I would also be interested in data on this. I simply can not buy into it being biologically based. Approved social-cultural identity is the likely culprit.

An example I keep thinking about when this topic comes up, is how computer science and programming was considered "women's/secretarial" work in the early days. It's one of the few STEM areas where looking at it's history, no one is having to dig though obscure archives to find women who were buried or left off co-discover/creator list just to prove they did that work back in the day. This is in part to that profession's invisible "identity badge" being beneath a man to wear (still many males enjoyed it then and got into it, but I doubt his buddies looked at him the way they would today). Women were secretaries; computers and programming was secretarial work. Main stream (US) society looked to this as the way god made men and women at that time; these days they are working with an updated list of approved men-this, women-that and still attributing biology for things far outside the actual body.

Once home computers started marketing the machines to males a rapid shift happened, and now it's male dominated -- and paid at higher rates than when it was "secretary" work and for the "human computers" -- women who did the calculations of computers manually; see early NASA. Yet, today, its looked at as male bio-backed bias thing? It simply doesn't make sense to me to chalk it up to a biological sex difference in determining one's profession.

As far as I know, biological differences don't flip in a single human generation. But social-culturally, absolutely -- when the right incentives are there. In-power groups (e.g., current churches and religion with male deities vs ancient matriarchal religion/societies with female deities) will be able to change the owner of an "identity" type to whatever they want, including gendered Identity badges (example: boys prefer to be programmers and scientist, girls prefer to be care-takers and english majors/writers yet so many of the classic books I read in school were written by male authors) and then sell people on it being a biological sex difference. This includes making it difficult for males who want to be care-takers and nurses, they are harassed for choosing a profession not in their current gendered-approved work Identity lane. It's lose-lose all around, but not always equally.

[bradlys]

Arguing with someone like this is just pointless. You'd argue over whether the sky is blue. You're in denial about basic tangible realities.

Damn, first time I'm hearing that women can't choose their majors in college but for some reason men can!

What kind of learned helplessness wokeist bullshit is this?

It's no wonder this country has gone to the capitalists. Idiotic arguments like this are at the forefront of every left movement. "Women can't do anything! They can't choose their own careers!" Left leaning people just like to shoot themselves in the foot and say, "I blame the right!" You could, you know, maybe fight for something and actually choose a direction in life rather than being a victim of everything.

Where's the old left that would actually fight and kill for their rights? This country fucking sucks.

[afavour]

What a ridiculous response.

My objection is to explaining away observed data with unsupported assertion.

There is a pay gap = fact

The pay gap is largely attributable to women working in fields that pay less = fact

Women work in these fields because they choose to = unsupported assertion

Dress it up in some internal dialogue you have with yourself about “left” “right” and “woke” if you wish but it doesn’t speak to my point at all. You’re just settling on an answer that feels right to you and shutting down any further thought. “Everybody knows it’s true” is pure laziness.

[xigoi]

> Women work in these fields because they choose to = unsupported assertion

The assertion is supported by the fact that in most modern countries, women are free to choose what school they’ll go to.

[afavour]

And you’re saying that is the only factor that would determine what job someone does?