Swedish study finds discrimination against men in female-dominated occupations
I took a quick look at the comments on this article and I find it fascinating that almost every commenter accepts the study's conclusions at face value. Having been a HN reader for several years, I know how incredibly rare that is! The top voted comment is always something like "Correlation is not causation", "Yeah, but did the authors consider ?", or something about how the methods does not allow one to draw very far-reaching conclusions.Even studies about gender or race discrimination always have the same kind of objections. Usually about how the purportedly discriminated against group isn't discriminated against but actually is objectively less competent and thus its worse outcome is "natural". For example, that there are fewer female than male tech entrepreneurs, I have been told, is because women are more risk-averse than men. The reason is absolutely not that investors are biased against female tech entrepreneurs.However! In this discussion, no one has yet offered the hypothesis that the purported discrimination against men could be explained by men being objectively less suitable to work in female-dominated professions than women. Perhaps men have less "emotional iq" than women or something?I find it very fascinating how the general take from a supposedly knowledgeable group of people (HN commentators) changes when the topic changes from "women are discriminated against" to "men are discriminated against"!