comment: >
  
  Maybe male programmers did a better job who knows. 
  Computer programming in general seems like a terrible example though. It's a market that has absolutely exploded in the last 30 years. Even if no male on planet earth would have entered that field. With how much computers do for us nowadays computer programmers would have had a major shift in importance and pay.
context: /u/Blutorangensaft (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  How do you think people are trying to change the gap? Because almost all of the initiatives that I've heard of stem (bu dum tss) from encouraging women to pursue more lucrative careers >
  
  First, some policy proponents demand a market-wide change of the valuation of different types of work, which I don't find realistic. The reason tech pays well is because it scales well. Social doesn't scale.
  Second, that's not the only argument I heard. I also heard the allegation that jobs are paid inversely proportional to the number of women in them, and that that needs to change. I can cite articles if you like, but that seems to be a pretty popular view. >
  
  I’m trying to understand what exactly what the assertion “the part of the gender pay gap that results from women and men being in different occupations should bot be closed” means, exactly.
  On the surface it sounds a bit like “different jobs can and should pay differently” which unless you are the most rabid of socialists is pretty clearly true.
  What about the factors that cause men and women to make occupational choices?
  Like women tend to choose jobs that are traditionally dominated by women, and ones that are extra forgiving of long absences and/or can flip to part time / reduced hours - all of which is highly correlated to childbirth and nursing of infants.
  Should we as a society be taking any step to alleviate and share that burden?
  The same question goes for different levels.
  The job pay gap mostly goes away at same level - but what we tend to see is women being and seeking promotion less or transitioning out of the workforce in their late 20’s.  Often for the same childcare related reason.
  Should we do anything here or not? >
  
  I'm not OP but I'm curious about this.  
  If I say society should not be taking steps to alleviate the decisions that women make in their life, you call them a 'burden' in some spots but you call them choices in other spots.
  If I did say that, was your point going to be we should be? >
  
  My phrasing - effectively “the choice to bear a burden” - was implicitly acknowledging it could be argued either way, and I was attempting to ask the question in a neutral way.
  I don’t have a well formed opinion here just yet. I tend to think that the ease of doing business - particularly making start-ups - is an enormous competitive advantage of the United States over Europe.  I also see that the attrition rate of women on maternity leave is really high even in the most comfortable & well paid jobs.  
  So I tend to think that you start to get diminishing returns in efforts to try to de-program the way people tend to orient their family lives along gender roles. >
  
  I wonder if it's actually attrition for women in general or if it's just women going the way they really want to anyway.
  I know I've spoken to many women, and my wife, and my sister in law. 
  I suspect it's fairly common that women who even had very professional jobs, find after they have had kids and go on maternity leave, they simply find "Oh... this is actually much more important to me".
  I wonder if they'd actually consider it attrition.  
  Would you want to deprogram that type of thought process?  I wouldn't think so really, on a personal level.  perhaps an argument can be made on a generalized 'societal' level though. >
  
  I meant attrition in the way HR department use it - just a synonym for “left the job”, not as a suggestion of them being worn down by stress or other.
  I do think it’s common for women in their early 30’s, once established, to prefer family - and that’s fine. >
  
  yeah, we probably don't disagree on much of anything then, I don't really see any problems occuring from any of this that needs solved, and you seem to agree that the choices women make are fine as well. >
  
  The question is, why is there a gap in occupational choice?
  For centuries, until about the 1970s, the only careers broadly available to women were nurse, teacher, secretary, and social worker. Women were systematically barred from most prestigious, high-paying fields (business, banking, STEM, etc).
  Now, only a single generation after we’ve achieved “equality,” we still see a very high ratio of women in the occupational fields that they were traditionally forced into for centuries (nursing, teaching) while we see a low ratio of women in fields that were traditionally excluded from for centuries (finance, engineering, etc).
  Now, what is more likely? That it turns out that women never wanted to be engineers or bankers after all, and they just aren’t very good at it? 
  Or is it that 40-50 years isn’t enough to entirely cleanse a culture of its ingrained ideas and prejudices around gender, and that there are still some residual effects from banning women from certain fields for hundreds of years, even if the explicit bans no longer exist?
  I’ll leave you with a personal anecdote—my mother is a very successful businesswoman in her 60s (the age of many successful CEOs and industry leaders). Yet when she was in middle and high school, all the girls in her class still had to take “Home Ec,” where they would learn to cook, clean, and sew.
  Do you not think being “trained” to be a housewife at the age of 13-15 might not seriously effect the later career choices of adult women? >
  
  I agree with you on all that. What I'm having trouble with is people who believe that, eventually, everything will even out and we will have 50/50 in every job, especially the ones that pay well. I believe that's just wishful thinking, because, despite all the barriers that women have faced in the past, once they are overthrown, what will remain are biological differences and temperamental differences. Personality tests have long shown gender differences, and they translate to interests in different occupations as well. That also manifests in the people-vs-things dichotomy, where men are more interested in things, and women more interested in people. So, I don't know how the future will look like. But it won't be 50/50. So we have to think about why certain jobs are paid more and others are paid less, and what being a woman has to do with that. >
  
  I don't think anyone -- except maybe the most extreme radicals -- believe that 'closing the gender gap' means that every field needs to be exactly 50/50.
  When most people refer to 'closing the gender gap,' I think they're referring to things like STEM programs for young girls, breaking up the 'good ol' boy' networking system, making many careers more flexible for women caring for young children, etc.
  In terms of personality tests, etc, I do agree there are certain biological differences that affect personality. But it's also a 'nature v. nurture' thing.
  Going back to the example of my mother having to take Home Economics, almost every woman (and man) of her generation had it ingrained into them at a very young age that, "A successful woman is one who cooks, cleans, and takes care of her husband and children above herself." Do you not think that might affect self-image and personality as an adult? After all, her male peers were not being taught how to cook a tart and repair a stocking in school. >
  
  I agree with everything you wrote, especially how a personality and interest is also shaped by societal norms. Well said. I guess I was just looking for a nutjob to defend a 50-50 split for every occupation, just to understand their reasoning. >
  
  Wouldn't it be because there is a larger supply of workers?
  Like if suddenly there was a huge uptick of female doctors available. Because in 2010 we finally allowed women into the medical field. That would ease some of the scarcity we have for doctors. And thus naturally lower their wages. >
  
  
  The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige.
  
  This would not explain how when more men enter a field, pay goes up. It's not a factor of supply and demand. Women's work is valued less.