On the topic of California

If you need to argue some point, do it here.
User avatar
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:41 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: On the topic of California

Post by Beleriphon » Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:27 pm

There an interesting book on the topic of women in different fields. Primary focus is on STEM, but the basic concept applies to a wider array of fields I think.

Any ways, basic analysis is that in low income/developing/regressive countries the rate of male/female job holders in the STEM fields are something around 40/60, so very nearly equal. In most developed countries the rates are around 25/75. The question becomes why? Why would women take to STEM fields? The answer is apparently they choose STEM to get a good job or they get married and have kids until they can't any more. Those are really the only choices for careers. While in the USA, Canada, EU and other similar regions women have choices, a multitude of choices women often choose to follow what interests them even when given the option of a STEM career. That doesn't explain why woman don't choose STEM versus being a kindergarten teacher.

User avatar
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:47 am

Re: On the topic of California

Post by saint_matthew » Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:53 am

Beleriphon wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:27 pm
That doesn't explain why woman don't choose STEM versus being a kindergarten teacher.
No but what does is freedom of choice & how all traits aren't distributed equally among all people. And because they aren't distributed equally among individuals, that compounds in demographics, meaning that all traits are not equally distributed in demographics. Patterns emerge.

See in poor countries, men & women have the same interest, that of not dying. So they go in to fields that pay a lot. However in wealthy nations where there are fewer immediate concerns of survival men & women steer in to their individual interests.

This is seen in Maslows Hierarchy of Need, a five tier hierarchy that measures motivational needs, from the things you need for survival at the bottom right up to self actualisation at the top. The model also states that needs lower down in the hierarchy MUST be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up.

So when you live in a country where survival is an issue that is where your focus is, ditto people who live in countries with low employment prospects (their focus is on having a job, any job & hopefully one that will still be there tomorrow).

However when you live in a country where your survival isn't constantly in jeopardy & where work is readily available, you can climb the hierarchy pretty quickly & people have the luxury of steering in to their personal preferences & those preferences, as we've already covered tend to form a pattern because all traits aren't equally distributed between men & women (either as a collective or as individuals).

And that is why more women go in to child care than STEM, because their freedom of choice is empowered by living in a wealthy first world nation.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:40 am

Re: On the topic of California

Post by Ares » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:13 am


San Fransisco is literally going to shit. As in they now have a group of city funded individuals that go to the worst parts of the city with a steam cleaner to clean out the piles of human feces littering the alley ways early in the morning before people can complain about it. Combine that with the high rate of property crime, open drug use, etc., this city sounds absolutely nuts.

Post Reply