5

Back when I was studying IT there were not many women who were enrolled in course (for whatever reason), and as I progressed through the course and in my career I have seen the gradual change in female numbers in the industry, to the extent where there are a lot more scholarships and entry possibilities for women compared to men. In some way you could almost argue that a disadvantage is actually being turned into an advantage.

Nursing is one that people seem to think that there is, but from what I know male nurses are actually quite well respected and needed because there is also a lot of heavy lifting required with patients that is often difficult for some nurses. I seem to see a lot of females working in recruitment and marketing, but probably not enough to suggest there is a definite bias towards hiring females.

I also just saw some articles talking about sexism in the field of science and how it hasn't changed very much over the years, but I can't help but think that there must also be industries where similar attitudes exist but for males, are there any examples?

closed as too broad by keshlam, Jim G., gnat, Lilienthal, Masked Man Jun 4 '16 at 14:05

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    This question is far too broad to answer in its current state – Anketam Jun 3 '16 at 23:50
  • Primary school teachers are overwhelmingly female, so are cold careworkers. – DJClayworth Jun 4 '16 at 2:05
  • Even if it doesn't make sense, there is discrimination against men in nursing. It probably mostly depends on the hospital, but I've heard of male nurses complaining about that. – Stephan Branczyk Jun 4 '16 at 3:36
  • A lot of secretaries tend to be female. Maybe this depends on region. – Brandin Jun 6 '16 at 5:57
9

Your claim that because there are a lot more scholarships and entry possibilities for women compared to men creates an imbalance where women are now more privileged than men to IT positions is a misunderstanding by you about the concept of diversity projects.

If you think about it this way: The natural order exists where men are 5 times more likely to be hired over a woman with the same work experience, education, and skill level. This is an imbalance of 5:1 where the men benefit over the women from the start. To adjust for that, the industry then creates an incentive where women are now 3 times more likely to get hired over a man for that position. This puts women now at a 5:3 disadvantage.

If you look at it as pure statistics, one could argue that women specifically are given more manufactured opportunities to enter this career path than men. This is, in fact, true. The point, however, is that these manufactured opportunities (ones created via incentives for the hiring company) still do not match the number of opportunities that exist for men in the industry. So because women in the industry start 5 steps behind the men, a lift 3 steps ahead can help, but they still did not give them enough of a boost to match the men.

This explanation typically leads to the question:

"How can we know when industries are equally available to all genders?"

The answer is: When the demographics of the workplace more closely match the demographics of the population.

If you think about it, if there is no gender disparity in how we teach and guide our children, and how we hire and work with our employees, then an imbalance in the number of men versus women that exist in an industry would be much more rare and typically based on very specific industry niches where gender is actually a driving factor or even requirement for the position. (like acting or modeling )

Basically, the issue here is that you are trying to find misandry which in and of itself points to the fact that as a whole, it is not really a thing in the same way misogyny is. This is not to say there are not individuals in the the world who may hold a more sexist view towards men and purposely do not hire men because of that, but that is a case of individual prejudice and less of a case of a systemic oppression of a group.

Basically it is very hard to point to misandry as a struggle for men when men, as a whole, are very much the power players in the world economy. The areas we find where positions are more geared towards hiring women are that way because of misogyny and the definition of "women's work". Essentially, it's the doings of men. These are jobs like child caring and nursing that are typically considered "womens work" and where individual men may hard a more difficult time breaking in it, but this is only due to the presence of misogyny. If misogyny did not exist, jobs and careers as a whole would not be "gendered" and those men would experience less hurdles in those specific career paths, men would not be "pressured" to do things "like a man" or not do things that are not considered "manly". Men would be chastised for enjoying a ballet, or liking kittens, or crying because those are traditionally defined as 'feminine' things and 'feminine' is somehow less than or inferior.

This is why the message of most feminists is that feminism is not about creating benefits for women to take advantage of. It is about destroying the female gender stereotypes that oppress women and constrict men.

To suggest that a person (particularly a man) is being too feminine and that existing as a bad thing is literally saying that being a woman or woman-like is bad. How do you think that makes women as a whole feel?

  • 1
    Related study: slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/06/… – APH Jun 6 '16 at 4:19
  • now at a 5:3 I believe this is miscalculated - isn't it 3:3? Let's say the fulfillment of the position is represented as 100. Then initially the chances are 100 = 5*male + 1*female to give you 5:1. Then it's boosted to 3*female. Now I believe you cannot go above 100 for chances if the position is only taken by a single person (assuming one who is predominantly male or female) and the incentive in itself leave the number of males and females in the population unchanged. I believe it follows then that 100 = p * male + 3 * female and p would be 3. So you'd get a 3:3 chance. – n611x007 Jun 29 '17 at 17:08
  • The natural order exists disagree. I think such order is anything but natural. (I believe humans born naturally equal irrespective of their gender.) – n611x007 Jun 29 '17 at 17:10
  • a man) is being too feminine ... as a bad thing. How do you think that makes women as a whole feel?. I'd advise you to add sympathy towards the man who is wrongfully belittled for his perceivably feminine aspects. Given three imaginary people, an offenser male, an intendedly offended male, and a third-party offended female, the offenser male is the opressor of the other two. A movement such as feminism would benefit from such sympathy, because it changes its isolation into a connection. – n611x007 Jun 29 '17 at 17:31
  • 2
    You said in response to "How can we know when industries are equally available to all genders?": The answer is: When the demographics of the workplace more closely match the demographics of the population. But you didn't justify that. Why wouldn't innate differences mean that even with equal opportunity men and women (on average) choose different career paths? Even infants show differences in attention to people vs things, so it seems silly to suggest that it's all socialization. – Greg Schmit - Reinstate Monica Jan 29 at 19:29
3

Since this question seems quite broad, I'll just give a short answer with some sources.

You can take a look at the breakdown of bachelor degrees by majors to see there are some majors that lean more towards one gender or another. This would presumably lead to a similar gender distribution within the industry as well. The two charts seems match each other decently enough.

In terms of specific industries favoring a certain gender, my experience has been that females are generally more desired for any type of sales position where interaction with the customer is important. Sales positions tend to favor people that seem friendlier and more trustworthy as it helps close more sales. Females tend to portray these traits more easily compared to some of their male counterparts. My only backup for this is my years of experience in sales where I have been continually surrounded by females.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.