Inequality vs. Underrepresentation vs. Divergence

[NotHardUp1]

As a child of the 60's, I've always been somewhat focused on proportionality when it comes to social representation of the population. This is true by class, race, religion, region, nationality, and sex.

Are jobs, movies, clubs, organizations, and social roles represented in the same proportions as the surrounding society? And should they be?

We hear this theme often in couched language such as "underserved" or "underrepresented", but in fairly limited applications that carry with them the presumption that equal statistics connote some social equality that is virtuous. Forums like the Academy Awards, the Olympics, universities, and selected careers usually are the focal points for these disparity discussions or initiatives. Often noting disparity is treated as prima facie evidence that unfairness is proven.

But, there are SO many different and varying examples that it isn't hard to find many that indicate otherwise. This doesn't negate the very real examples of oppression such as glass ceiling for women, as redlining for blacks, or for profiling of Muslims in travel, but it does raise the issue of bias in progressive media and whether it is good social theory or just inherited presumption.

Examples:

Women constitute less that 25% of architects in the US. Is it demonstrated that representative numbers equal to their general population have initiated paths in that career, only to be blocked? A similar disparity is much published in commercial pilots, with women less than 5%. Is it because men have closed ranks to keep women out, or is there simply less appeal to women to face a panels of dozens or hundreds of controls and physically control a commercial jet, or the computers that do?

There is always froth in white hate groups about Jewish influence in economics and media in the West, and to be sure, it is clear that Jewish people are disproportionately represented in national news programs, political shows, and in government. The hate groups connote it with conspiracy, a worldwide one at that, but you don't have to ascribe to hate or conspiracy theories to simply note that disparity of representation exists. An example would be that there are nine U.S. Senate seats occupied by Jewish people currently, but the prevalence of Jewish Americans is under 3%. So, out of 100, a representative number of Senators would be only 3.

The examples could fill and encyclopedia, whether women in the trades (plumbers/electricians/termite exterminators), or men in early childhood education, quilting clubs, or nail salons, many seem organic or results of conscious preferences by the members of the groups to so choose their paths versus those not allowed to cross lines.

Lawsuits are often brought with disparity of outcomes as evidence of intent of suppression or oppression. HR policies can often be shaped by such suits and assumptions. We've recently seen affirmative action rebuffed in the courts after decades of its use to right past wrongs. Now, if we are progressive, we must be deliberate about defining when representation is or isn't a sign of unfairness.

 

[Latimer]

"Women constitute less than 25% of architects in the US. Is it demonstrated that representative numbers equal to their general population have initiated paths in that career, only to be blocked?"

The two sentences quoted above are completely outside of my experience. The only way that the 25% figure could even come close to the demographic realities of the profession today is that there are enough male architects aged 50+ still practicing that they distort the numbers vis-a-vis those under that age--where the number of male and female architects are practically equal. Or perhaps female professionals leaving the practice in order to raise children is also a factor, as it is in many professions. Or do fewer females seek to be licensed as architects although they practice as such? Again, I find it difficult to understand this number. I think is false.

In architecture graduate school at both Berkeley and UCLA, there were equal numbers of men and women, and when I taught at both undergraduate and graduate level at USC there were again both equal numbers of men and women.
Likewise in the two offices I worked in after graduation--one medium size, the other large, the design and production departments were just about equally divided between men and women.

In preparing this response, I visited the site of Gensler Associates, a highly regarded international firm, which states the office is 51% women, 49% men. The board of Gehry Partners--Frank is probably the most famous architect in the world-- is made up of nine women and four men. The managing partner of classicist Robert A.M. Stern's office is a woman.

Additionally, the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards states that applicants for the exam they offer are equally divided between the sexes. And in the fashion of the New York Times and the Washington Post--where headlines tell you what the publications want you to believe rather than the actual facts hidden deep in the article--a site on architecture graduate schools states that the number of women architecture students is lagging--leading one to believe lagging behind men. Only a concerted effort led me to the statistic showing 54% women, 46% men--which only lagged in relation to numbers for graduate schools as a whole: 60% women, 40% men.

Finally, never once in my academic or professional career did I sense that female architects, both aspiring and practicing, were less highly regarded than male. Rather, I see that very often mediocre female architects receive commissions that should have gone to more talented men.

Such is the world we live in.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I have no idea how or if women are in any way opposed by the status quo of architects, but I'm sure their late entry into the field would MORE than explain their lower representative numbers.

More importantly, current graduating and licensing ratios would not represent the population of certified architects in practice, or holding licenses. It would take many years to make the distribution of actual architects equal the incoming ranks.

However, it's good to hear someone from the field reports the prospects for equity and equality in gender are good.

There is such a vast difference in many cases between data and truth or accuracy. That is the whole point of the thread, no matter who is averse to examining it.

Disparity is a data point. It isn't necessarily a problem, either. It depends on the disparity, and the reason(s).

Some cites listing 25%:

Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on Gender in Architecture - Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture

The farther up you look in the world of architecture, the fewer women you see. We’ve rounded up some publicly available metrics behind this claim, in order to examine them more closely.

www.acsa-arch.org

Architect Demographics and Statistics [2024]: Number Of Architects In The US

How many Architects are in US? More than 152,775. Learn more about 2024 demographics based on factors such as age, race, sex, salary and location.

www.zippia.com

 

[Norri]

I’d like to expand on Latimer’s comments just a bit. Given the gender make-up of college students today where woman outnumber men almost 6-4 and maintain a higher GPA than men do I’d say all professions will look dramatically different in the next 10-15 yes. I dunno if it’s macho not to go to college but if that’s it real emasculation awaits down the road.

 

[NotHardUp1]

That's an interesting demographic, but it also needs the context of how many female college students go one to join and stay in the work force. There's also the question of which majors the women are pursuing. After all, a Business Administration degree is not the same as an Engineering or Nursing, etc. Many lower level white collar jobs list a college degree as a prerequisite, yet we were told more than three decades ago that university degrees were replacing high school diplomas for basic qualification to enter a white collar job.

And white collared jobs are professional, but ask any bank teller what her take home pay is and what prospects she has for a good career or advancement.

All that, before one considers the increasing worthlessness of a degree without excellence. My bank teller two years ago at the largest credit union in my city chatted while I was waiting, and mentioned his degree, and that all tellers had to have degrees there. He then proceeded to mis-count my $13k in withdrawal three times before he got it right. That is indeed an anecdotal point, but it is really not inconsistent with the low level skills too often found in graduates who really were not in college to learn, only to get the shingle.

And, men continue to outnumber women in the most lucrative careers. That includes "the trades," for men, field swhere women barely move the needle, yet they are very high paying careers with no college training required at all. Women continue to predominantly go into female-dominated fields like education, nursing, and clerical work, where pay is lesser than the male work in the same fields.

To a lesser degree, there are still women who go to university to meet a husband, as their prospects are statistically better for lifelong income, and for other reasons.

Then there is the disparity of parenting. Single mothers far outnumber single fathers, so federal and other aid available enables more women to enroll than men who have to be earning and cannot return to the classroom.

As a man raised by women exclusively, and as a grandson of a woman who took a computer science degree while she worked full time, without scholarships or tuition assistance, in her 60's, I am a huge champion of women and their fair treatment. However, I'm not as optimistic about their wealth and status prospects, although I do see them much improved.

There is finally a racial question. When minorities enroll in greater numbers, and they have, then the gender gap increases, as fewer of their households have the luxury of the head of the household going to college rather than being the primary breadwinner full-time. This statistic is devastating community college enrollments, as males drop out in record numbers, or do not enroll. This is a recent change, and the gap between genders is really hitting hard there.

Here is a good article on the trends:

Women increasingly outnumber men at U.S. colleges—but why? - THE FEED

The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the shifting gender ratios on U.S. college campuses, where women now account for 59.5 percent of students. Experts say the decline in men’s community college enrollment is especially concerning.

feed.georgetown.edu

 

[Latimer]

University of California demographics:

Female: 52.8
Male: 44.0

Asian: 33.0
Hispanic: 23.3
White: 21.6
African American: 4.7
American Indian: 0.6
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 0.3

Domestic Unknown 2.7
International: 13.9

The University has no category for mixed race.

Fall enrollment at a glance | University of California

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Proportionality?

Lesbian bars.

Lesbians are supposed to be as numerous as gay men.

If there's one group of entrepreneurial emancipated women it's lesbians.

Where are all the lesbian bars?

In my (semi-)home town Haarlem a lesbian lady took over my favorite artists bar. She still seems to have it (which is commendable since everything else there closed), but it is now an eatery.

My recently late girlfriend wanted us to drink something there, and although the bar was washed white and had tables, the lady took our orders. Good memory.

How many lady/lesbian bars does Amsterdam have?

One?

Is that because Amsterdam is such a sexist place?

 

[NotHardUp1]

Proportionality?

Lesbian bars.

Lesbians are supposed to be as numerous as gay men.

What would lead one to surmise this? If we were to accept the speculations that a birth condition in the womb, in addition to genetics, causes the abnormality that we call homosexuality in men, then why would lesbianism be present in the same incidence of occurrence, if it has completely different origins?

If the origins of male homosexuality have no biological origins, and are purely environmental post-birth, then the same question would apply. There's no reason to conclude same-sex attraction occurs at the same rate in the two genders (or sexes).

Where are all the lesbian bars?

I don't follow, or agree, with the logic. Bars, by their nature, serve the male behavior of seeking multiple sex partners over time. This comports with how evolution has shaped many herd mammals.

Females have also been conditioned by millions of years of evolution to favor preferring a protective male to help her ensure her progeny would survive.

This doesn't make females invariably monogamous by any means, but is nonetheless a real behavioral factor that has shaped human societies over many thousands of years. and before societies.

Lesbian and bisexual women are statistically far less likely to be seeking multiple partners in the same degree that men of all orientations do. So, lesbian bars don't exist in significant numbers because they don't serve the needs of lesbians in large degree.