Contrarian's picture

    Women in STEM + Men in Nursing & Teaching?

    There's been a ton of ink spilled recently about the dearth of women in STEM fields and there's no shortage of people advocating strategies for significantly increasing the number of women who enter these fields. I was thinking about this yesterday while reading Jeff Guo's Washington Post article about the expanding gender gap in the attainment of college degrees and the theory that it's due to career choice. He mentions the speculation (from Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko) that this is just a result of natural differences making themselves evident. However, like those who discount the idea that the STEM gap is attributable just to 'boys are better at math,' I've always considered it highly doubtful that this is what is really driving the disparity.

    Guo argues that a recent paper, Occupational Choice and the College Gender Gap by Elisa Olivieri, shows first that the real cause of the gap is men's reluctance to enter the historically female fields of nursing and teaching, and second that this is likely not an.economically rational choice. While I find the first claim convincing, I'm less sure of the second.  However, if the second claim is indeed true, and there are many men for whom it'd be in their economic self-interest to enter these fields, then we should consider whether a major effort should, like that focused upon women and STEM, should be made to direct more men to choose these career paths - and for essentially the same reasons.

    WaPo article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/women-are-dom...

    Comments

    I tried to edit the post to add this link, but it's not showing up there. Here's the article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/women-are-dom...


    What's working on the edit is to set the moderation button to "publish" then hit "Save".

     


    I published the change for you. I also disabled the revision functionality, so people can edit at will now, and the changes will be automatically published.


    Many thanks. Works great.


    One of the reasons men don't enter fields like teaching and nursing is because they pay poorly.  It's a chicken-and-egg question:  which came first - the low pay or the predominance of women?  Either way, I think a man in, say, construction, probably earns more than a teacher, and certainly begins earning sooner.


    There may not have been a 'chicken-and-egg' at all.

    It's a chicken-and-egg question:  which came first - the low pay or the predominance of women? 

    I've got family members (both retired now, of course) who were in nursing and who were teaching in public schools back in the 1950's. What I'm told is that there just were no male nurses. So in that case the low pay and predominance of women was constant and arguably came about simultaneously. With teaching, there seems also to have been a 'non-poultry situation': in the first half of the twentieth century, male teachers were paid more than female teachers (based upon the rationale that they had families to support).

     I think a man in, say, construction, probably earns more than a teacher

    That's the part about which I said I'm uncertain. It makes things more complicated if we're not merely comparing salaries. A few things that might make a difference are that one would presumably be able to continue working much later in life as a teacher, the malign health effects would be less, the school calendar has a lot of vacation days, and the benefits are probably a lot better. I don't know if this will remain true a decade from now, but teachers still get pensions.

     


    I think the second claim is most likely true for nursing.  Not everybody can be a doctor and yet for demographic and economic reasons, health care has been one of the most consistently expanding industries.  It will be a place that people of both genders will go to for jobs, from nurses to home health aides to back office and marketing functions in those fields. I'm less sure about teaching, reliant as it is on public funding in an era of ill-planned austerity.

    I seem to remember reading about some migration from heavily male construction injuries to the health care sector during the financial crisis.


    My impression is that for many men, not considering a nursing career is in fact a non-rational economic choice. But I think it is changing, higher percentages of male nursing students, e.g.

    I don't know what longitudinal studies have been done with males and how their aspirations and expectations change during school, particularly into late adolescence. :Undoubtedly socio economic backgrounds play a huge role. My impression is that well heeled families push male students into traditional jobs and males with lesser resources are left out there with some strong attitudes against nontraditional jobs but without actual prospects that are any better. Research and career counseling could really help them.

    Good topic.


    Why should a man spend years at college accumulating a mountain of debt in order to qualify for a low-paying job as a nurse, when he can get a low-paying job as a truck driver straight out of school?


    Good question. Certainly there is the nature of the work. You know, I have no idea what nurses make; and of course benefits matter. Many truck drivers get paid by the mile and the last time I checked they were getting 35 cents per mile. Debt is a huge problem for people who go into nursing. That's where career counseling comes in, that is, look at the trade-offs factually, even go out for a day and try it out. Recently had some dental work and a high school girl sat in as part of a career program to see how she might like to work in such a place. Certainly a male should spend time in a hospital ward or such to get an idea of what the work day of a nurse is like.


    Teaching has deep cultural roots as a job for women. Prior to any organized education systems, women were tasked with teaching their children. As the nation progressed Normal schools where teachers were trained were almost entirely women, as that was an acceptable job for a woman. There were men in Normal schools as well, but it was one way for women to continue their education.  It wasn't always acceptable to educate women. In fact when my grandmother graduated from high school in 1925, her father who was from Ireland said, girls don't go to college. However, her  mother who was from Norway, said, Papa, Betty is going to the University of Washington and he finally said ok. But he was not convinced it was good for her or for society. And she did not go to the education college, she was in the school of journalism and then moved to Oregon on her own to write for a newspaper. 

    It is completely cultural the lines society has drawn on what men do and what women do, which is why those fields that men often populate pay greater salaries. And women from the beginning of time, iff they happened to be in a position that men mostly did, were always paid less for their work. Always. We still haven't made our way over that bar just yet, although we are getting closer. 

    But it is undeniable that there continue to be cultural norms that affect women and men and the jobs they do.  It is true that being a male nurse must come with some side eye from other men, who harass men who they see as less tough than they are, and anyone who does a woman's job is less tough than they are, and this is one of the many ways our culture has impacted career choices.  By the same token I have met many a woman who seem to believe only men can do certain jobs, like my job. I'm a data analyst, data admin, programmer type, and just recently I'd done a big analysis for the Ballet, it spanned decades and the women upstairs in Development asked if the young man in our office produced the analysis. I was pissed and I ranted about it, oh and still am. Those are women in the Development office, not men.  Ugh and in my former position at a college I was harassed by the Dean of Enrollment services who used to tell me daily that I didn't look like a nerd at all, whatever the fuck that means and then he would ask me weekly to move in with him. This is all cultural and has nothing to do with what people can or cannot do and what their skills may or may not be because of their gender. I happen to be a damn solid programmer/analyst even being a woman. I retrain constantly to pick up new languages, the latest being python, and I live in Seattle, where being a programmer/data professional is the norm and where many women do the same job I do, and yet, even being here, and Seattle is incredibly progressive, even here we experience those weird culturally embedded women's work/ men's work beliefs. I am constantly shocked by this. 

    As to the nature of the article, first of all efforts should continue to be made to expand our culturally embedded gender limitations. One way to achieve this of course is to continue our efforts to educate women/girls that they too can be scientists and engineers.  However, we should also continue to encourage men to become teachers and nurses because if men feel like they can make an impact on society through those professions they should absolutely do so, in the end it impacts those students we are educating in those fields that is it acceptable culturally. And then maybe we become more gender neutral as a culture, which would be a great relief and make our nation a better place. 


    Brilliant, tmc. Made my afternoon.

    Case in point. Did you happen to watch the the "Bletchley Cirle"? (I've become a streaming freak). Of course some will point to the development of the computer by a man, and also that there was hardly a male universe left from which to find code breaker material. 

     


    While many credit Charles Babbage with inventing the idea of the "computer", it took Ada Lovelace to figure out how to program it. From what I've read of her, she was a true genius.


    Thanks. Enjoyed reading that piece of history.


    Maybe unrelated, but look in the last 50 years at how female artists like Janis Joplin or Patti Smith or Chrissie Hynde got replaced by cupie dolls like Shakira and Nicki Minaj and Selena Gomez. These singers are largely supported by girls, and reflects the insatiable appetite for glitzy fashion, video consumption and social media. Play an instrument? No longer de rigeur, not even the tambourine.

    Sure there are a ton of women in STEM - doctors, hackers in cloud computing (I see a lot of female CTOs on LInkedIn), even execs like Melissa Mayer. (more than you'd imagine).

    1 Australian study noted girls much less likely to go for team sports and organized sports activities than boys, and that individual activities were much more focused on appearance and weight loss than say competition (from aerobics to the gym to ...?)

    With the likelihood that most females will have kids by 29 and get drawn into being the one most responsible for early care (especially single mothers), it's not surprising that women will continue to choose "professions" or simply jobs that align with raising babies to adults - heavily centered around health care and education, with a bit of childhood activities thrown in like theater, dance classes and chauffeuring kids to sports practice and keeping them in the latest kid fashion.  (I've known a few fathers who retreated out of their STEM careers to help their wives with home businesses, usually around health and education and shopping portals or stores for children).

    While I pushed alternatives for girls like snowboarding & rollerblading, computer hacking, various instruments and love of literature, these options never took hold until some peers got interested, and usually not with any lasting power compared to playing with the latest smartphone application.

    Regarding career choices, I don't know what the typical approach is these days, but I remember a lot of kids hardly thinking about what they would do and more or less falling into a career (if they didn't end up in jail or pregnant before then). Practically none of them thought about this in terms of "which career will pay me more money". But I don't think having more biology & chemistry exposure will make women more prone to science careers. One friend went from a microbiology career to teaching kids (as her mom had done), and seemed to have much more fun in the classroom than in the lab.

    I would suggest there *may* be biological + psychological acclimation at work that makes women more comfortable around growing kids (for example, the same type of mechanism that makes one's own kid screaming tolerable but someone else's more annoying), but of course there's acclimation & "practice makes perfect" that works in the other direction.  (I do know a lot of male teachers, but typically from 5th grade and later).

    Anyway, not sure what people expect to happen - there will not be anything close to equal numbers in STEM careers in 100 years unless we resort to shock treatment and knuckle clamps, but I'm happy for people to come up with ways to make the field be more welcoming and attractive for women (just as I welcome any attempt to make any education more useful, entertaining and productive). Mostly it's nice to give people more opportunity and choice, and then the decision is theirs.


    (I do know a lot of male teachers, but typically from 5th grade and later).

    Before becoming a public high school teacher for two years, I was a substitute teacher for two years, teaching everything from kindergarten to 12th grade. For me personally, kindergartners' were a joy to teach, but fifth graders were intolerable. I found fifth grade through about ninth grade to be the hardest ones to manage.

    As my first sentence mentions, I quit teaching after two years. In my case, it wasn't because of the pay, but because I couldn't take teaching four classes of general/remedial ninth graders physical science. I wanted to teach, not discipline. (And, I recognize that other teachers, male and female, manage to do both far better than I did.) I would've been far happier with a smaller classroom than with more money. That said, after quitting teaching, I found a job writing software, and made nearly twice as much money as I did teaching, with far less effort.


    Lise Meitner discovered nuclear fission and Barbara McClintock discovered jumping genes, & they're a lot more recent than Victorian Ada Lovelace, but somehow these little details are much less relevant than what Lady Gaga or Kim Kardashian did last weekend.

    Perhaps science needs a bit of fashion sense (more aesthetic & less geeky than Google Glass).


    Well if we want some good old scandal to get people interested, many people think that Mileva Marić made significant, unrecognized contributions to Einstein's work, in particular his Annus Mirabilis.


    Hey Oxy, I've never even heard of that show, but it looks good. I've been watching Alpha House, because it is hilariousl


    Thanks, I'll try it. And not to go on forever or digress from thread but take a look at "Rake" (Austrailian version of renegade barristers--lot's of great rants), and "The Hour", BBC.(Dominic West now switched to American role in "The Affair",(pretty good show with unusual counterpoint story telling--- also with Ruth Wilson, who was the great " femme fatale"( I guess it is on thread" in "Luther" series.


    Edit to add:. Actually, a pretty good context for the subject matter at hand. "The Hour" portrays young woman producer in the 50's, Romola Garai, in strong women's role. Whereas "Newsroom" features Emily Blunt in a decidedly stereotyped, or misguided, role as woman exec prone to histrionics.  When this year's Newsroom series began with Blunt, now to be married, carrying on relentlessly about her wedding list ( in the office), I switched the show off permanently.

    (I'm a streaming junkie).

    Sorkin---what could you possibly be thinking about women?


    I learned something new today...

    side-eye noun U.S. informala sidelong glance expressing disapproval or contempt. eg, "after we complained of being ignored she kept giving me the side-eye"

    being a male nurse must come with some side eye from other men

    Indeed. One of my male cousins is a nurse and he complains about this. While it's much more likely, it's not exclusively a problem coming from men. He knew to expect it beforehand, though, because his mother was a nursing professor. Also, he played football in college and is an Iraq war vet, so he can hold his own when someone gives him attitude.

    if men feel like they can make an impact on society through those professions they should absolutely do so,

    Some people focusing on women and STEM fields make the point that girls may not even consider the possibility of becoming a scientist or engineer, and that that's a necessary prerequisite to thinking about whether or not you would enjoy and excel at work in the field. I seriously doubt that my cousin would have considered nursing were it not for the fact that he came to know male nurses through his mother. I don't know how one would go about quantifying it, but I'd bet money that if you could, you would find that the social pressure men have to overcome to become nurses is greater than what a women would face if she wants to become a scientist. I wonder, though, if they're qualitatively different. Are the obstacles in science primarily internal to the professional community, whereas the difficulty for nurses is primarily coming from the community at large?


    My observation is that young women come to grips with the complexities of career decision making earlier than men. Whether that's true, and if it is, innate, I don't know but I think any longitudinal studies, career programs, etc., might want to examine the facts about trajectories of decision making---i.e., the process, and how it differs, so that career programs for both sexes are as effective as they can be. (in today's world, could career programs differentiate between the sexes even if they were based upon good research? Probably not. Should they be? If it helps all students make better decisions, yes.)

    So, if one is trying to open the eyes of a male in late adolescence to the possibilities of a career in a nontraditional field it might be an ineffective and perhaps even negative effort. I dunno.

    Negating all of the above I have among my progeny a female EE and she made the decision later and in a dramatic change of career strategy.    


    I think that is probably true about men and why they don't select careers in Nursing or Teaching. For women I think ti is assumed we just simply aren't good at stuff men do like.. math and there is still disparity in the classroom when it comes to women learning math and science. I think there continues to be gender bias in the classroom and it begins in elementary school.  I don't think we've worked through many of these issues and so the double standard begins here and continues on through higher-education. 

    I believe this to be a significant passage from the link I provided above and holds true:

    The Reay study further demonstrates how socialization of girls occurs at the school level by tolerating different behaviors from boys than from girls. Assertive behavior from girls is often seen as disruptive and may be viewed more negatively by adults. In Reay's study, the fact that the spice girls asserted themselves in ways contrary to traditional femininity caused them to be labeled by teachers as "real bitches". (2001) This reinforces the notion that "...girls' misbehavior to be looked upon as a character defect, whilst boys' misbehavior is viewed as a desire to assert themselves." (Reay, 2001)


    It's hard to slice through this report.

    Puberty is often a time of rebellion, and it seems obvious that the "nice girls" would be rejected by the cool girls of whatever category (see "Rock 'n Roll High School" for classic labeling)

    It's pretty clear that assertive disruptive behavior from boys gets them thrown out of school, leads them to drugs, et al., and unless they were able to funnel it into sports, they were disliked by much of the administration and teachers.

    Did the spice girls act like "real bitches"? because that is part of the vibe. It'd be a shame if they went to all the trouble of putting on an attitude and were instead accepted rather than seen as radical and daring.

    Did the teachers foist it on girls to define themselves in terms of boys, or was that their own self-selection? I'd love to know how to counter a variety of what I see as retro attitudes, but if the girls themselves choose or abet these paths, how much re-education before we accept it as a basic right to decide for themselves?

    Re: Good & Brophy, I don't see here whether there were differences in how outspoken girls and boys were in class. I liked a comment by Joni Mitchell the other day that expresses some of the differences I'd like to see explored in more delving ways:

    Q: Laws you felt needed to be broken. For example, your use of suspended chords in songs—which you say men cannot wrap their heads around. Why?

    A: Men need resolution and suspended chords keep things open-ended. You go to a man if you have a problem and he tries to solve it. You go to a girlfriend and she’ll pat you on the back and say, “Oh yeah, I get it.” She doesn’t try and come up with some stupid solution.

    There was a nice article on Angela Merkel recently exploring how she used her quietness and intelligence to great effect, letting boisterous self-serving male politicians dig their own graves, listening more than speaking until the time is right. What of these qualities relate to fallacies on what's rewarded and what's not in grade school or high school?

    I'm sure there's gender bias, but the dredging up of Ada Lovelace as in a thread above is a kind of feeble solution - hopefully textbooks can focus on the serious admirable women who permeate many fields in modern times, and while the numbers may not be as huge or the breakthroughs & contributions not always at the same level for a number of societal or logistics reasons, 1) games are not always about home runs - some success is about defense, speed, adaptability, holding on - in school and life, not just who gives the best presentation -  2) but we still often admire characters who have one blast with fame - whether writers like Salinger or Kesey who have a rather tiny but important output, or scientists whose contribution is only known for a single success rather than longevity or the much vaunted "Man for All Seasons" of Renaissance days. With women's careers often shortened due to domestic obligations, it's sometimes probably enough to build up an appreciation of ways they play vital roles rather than looking for the alternate history where their greatest achievements were just ignored.  (in an age when teamwork and project management is as important as specific field knowledge many times, we still don't celebrate the manager - we look at the hotshot programmer or sales person or ..., ignoring the structure that sustains. That's a topic for another day)

     


    I'll stack up Ada Lovelace---the enchantress of numbers---against Joni Mitchell any day.

    BTW, Mitchell seems to have a chip about all the blokes. And let's face it, a D sus 2 is a lot simpler to chord, and sustain, than a D major triad.


    I didn't find Joni's comments so chipful - seemed like she was j st commenting from a long career perspective - better than Steve Miller and Boz Scaggs talk about how great they were.

    Actually, I thought she made an interesting point. And she's a great artist.


    women from the beginning of time, iff they happened to be in a position that men mostly did, were always paid less for their work. Always. We still haven't made our way over that bar just yet, although we are getting closer. 

    I don't think we're able to determine whether or not we've made our way over that bar. There are too many variables to consider and it's too difficult to distinguish between legitimate differences in pay and ones resulting from sexism. We may already have crossed the threshold without being aware of it. We may yet have a ways to go to get there. The only thing I'm confident of is that people claiming that it's been established as a fact that we know one way or the other [present company excluded, of course] are primarily interested in promoting their preferred narrative.


    I don't know when we will make our way over that bar either, or if we ever will.  But I do know for sure that so far we aren't there.


    I'm just accepting the conclusion of the '09 CONSAD meta-analysis commissioned by the Dept of Labor. AFAIK, it's still the most exhaustive and it said that inherent limitations on the ability to collect all the requisite data make it impossible to prove or disprove the persistence of a discrimination based pay gap.


    http://consad.com/index.php?page=an-analysis-of-reasons-for-the-disparit...


    Maybe things are changing and we haven't caught on yet.  My grandson is a English major who wants to teach and his wife is premed.  It looks like she will get A's this semester in Chemistry, Physics and Trig.  She moved in when she was in high school with the intention of quilting school but it didn't happen that way. There was never any over thinking about roles in society only what is your talent and how to make the most of it. Her falling into premed even surprised me.    


    Latest Comments