If you want the real examples, you look at daycare workers and elementary teachers. Insurance is an issue with daycares that hire male workers. Plus, you have quite a few parents that are fine with their boys being changed by women, but not their daughters being changed by men. Thus the problems, plus the pervasive stories of child molestation and societal stigma against males in this area.
The shame of it is that witnessing positive interaction between the sexes at that age would do quite a bit for the children later in life. Particularly in communities where the percentage of in-household fathers is low.
It's definitely a problem, and it's not good that male role models are often lacking in earlier childhood education (especially when male role models may be lacking at home at well), but one key difference is that these aren't generally well-compensated positions.
Definitely, compensation is a big factor. In fact, compensation for women in other roles is also a factor. The more that women can be paid in technical / other roles, the more flexibility their partners would have to take on jobs that don't pay as much but that might be more personally satisfying (like this). People who object to women getting paid more often seem to treat it as a zero-sum game, rather than as a rising tide lifting all boats.
It's relevant in the sense that I don't particularly care that it'd be harder for me to get these jobs, as the pay cut vs my current job of software engineer would be so significant that I would never seriously consider it. Conversely, I would care a lot if there's some job that would earn me more money that my gender hinders me in attaining (as is sometimes the case for women in tech).
To the extent that society is worse off for the imbalance, part of the solution is better compensating these jobs in the first place. We're currently taking advantage of people who have a passion for doing the work by underpaying them, which disproportionately affects women.
> Conversely, I would care a lot if there's some job that would earn me more money that my gender hinders me in attaining (as is sometimes the case for women in tech).
It might be useful to point out since this is an internantional forum:
This is very different from northern Europe. Here if I help recruit a male engineer I get a fat check.
If I help recruit a female engineer I get an equally fat check + smiles and possibly mentions, because leaders have this as a KPI.
So for me this all seems really weird but I guess it looks a bit different in the US.
I'll also admit that I once helped a foreign woman get a job in my office (she was cleaning, but had a degree in IT and had the skills), but this is > 10 years ago and she wasn't fluent in the local language.
It's relevant in the sense that I don't particularly care that it'd be harder for me to get these jobs, as the pay cut vs my current job of software engineer would be so significant that I would never seriously consider it.
I'm glad your chosen profession is well paid and you have the ability to do it. Some folks have alternate dreams and maybe not the same abilities you have. Perhaps they would make an amazing educator and find the salary acceptable.
Conversely, I would care a lot if there's some job that would earn me more money that my gender hinders me in attaining (as is sometimes the case for women in tech).
People tend to react badly when their dreams, even if not as profitable as you would like, are hindered or totally roadblocked.
To the extent that society is worse off for the imbalance, part of the solution is better compensating these jobs in the first place.
That doesn't change the fact that these jobs are actually open to a segment of the population. Better salaries just makes the jobs more attractive to people who aren't roadblocked.
We're currently taking advantage of people who have a passion for doing the work by underpaying them, which disproportionately affects women.
Well, the men are being excluded so it cannot take advantage them. If the imbalance is unacceptable then its unacceptable.
I think you're responding to a stronger version of what I actually said. I said that compensation is a factor, whereas you're responding as if I said it were the only factor (which I would disagree with too).
No, I believe the whole compensation argument misses the point. There are males who want to be educators and are actively discouraged from doing the job. Compensation is not a factor in their decision or the employer decision. Its a prejudice against males in early childhood education.
If imbalance in IT is bad then it should also be addressed in education. Compensation isn't the problem.
Insurance companies (mysterious higher rates), existing daycare staff, and parents who are very suspicious of male workers. It’s a socially acceptable discrimination.
The shame of it is that witnessing positive interaction between the sexes at that age would do quite a bit for the children later in life. Particularly in communities where the percentage of in-household fathers is low.