Trinh Profile picture
Sep 19, 2020 30 tweets 6 min read Read on X
Why do we judge gender equality by certain jobs that we deem more useful to society than others (banking vs teaching or nursing vs being a mom? Women & men start out the same if not women ahead in men in college enrolment but then diverge as they choose diff majors & life choices
From my experience in universities & working, women choose what they like & not forced to focus on more “relationship oriented” education & career choices.

They tend to focus on the humanities & for those that actually enter professions that are more # based, leave b/c...
Only 9% of the nursing population is male & it is a female dominated profession by a ratio of 91%.

In teaching, women make up 76% of total.

Of course these are not economically rewarding jobs but they are socially very rewarding & noble.
Why do women choose these jobs? For various reasons but likely because of biological differences between men and women that dictate them to value relationships more (teaching allows you to have the same schedule as ur children & a very meaningful profession).

Whereas banking?
In banking, many graduates of banks start out with a relatively decent gender ratios. By this I mean not retail banking but investment banking. But the long hours & the grueling aspect of it require a certain type of people to persist. Some do. For for many women, they leave. Why
For one, they probably don't enjoy the material (monetary + status) aspect of it as much as men & care more about the relationship aspect, as in will I be able to spend time with my family & if I choose to have one I'd have to have children (pregnancy, post birth & raising kids).
Most women that I know that succeed in high-level jobs have supportive husbands that take up the other half of child rearing etc because someone has got to do it. If u are career driven, u marry someone who is complimentary.

Or they don't have kids or even a partner b/c well...
None of these choices are good or bad. But if I believe that a woman that wants it all (material things like money & status as well as relationship such as a husband & children & friends) would have to make wise choices so that she can have the support system to be female & hunt.
But we forget that not all women want to hunt & compete in a very aggressive environment & want to just select a mate that would do that for them & then focus on the one job that makes them indispensable: being a mother.

And we shouldn't judge them. That's what they want & like.
In most banks/organizations, u don't see female MDs/head b/c of many reasons but include:
*Women, even if good & success at their job, choose to leave to have jobs that allow them to be both a caregiver & also a career
*Women decide that they don't like reward/costs not worth it.
Career women face different choices than men: She has to decide whether she wants kids & if so must find a mate & have children & that takes time through the biological process.

Even w/ a support spouse (say stay at home husband), only women can give birth so she still needs to.
That means she faces the biological constraint even if she has the same set up as a man (a spouse that is supportive & will do the caregiving) because she has to carry the baby to term, make sure the baby survives before she can pass it off to her partner.

A man doesn't do that.
Companies are increasingly better at accommodating this biological fact as they want more women represented because, let's be honest, we think more holistically & are very good analysts of risks & rewards.

Offer maternity leave & even flexible work schedules. Things improving.
Women will be more represented in professions that were more difficult for women to have it all than before.

That said, a woman sees the world slightly different than a man because she has to make choices much earlier based on her understanding of herself & needs.

And...
Should she upon reflection of her skills, desire, ambition & tolerance of hunting choose to have a life where she wants to teach & have children & spend a lot of time with them, then we shouldn't expect her to be a man.

This is my problem w/ feminism. They want women to be men.
Look, at some point, our career will peak. My take is it is either in our 30s, 40s, or 50s. Perhaps some peak at 60s.

Either way, you are expected to retire and so when that happens whether u were a central banker or not wouldn't matter but your investment in your relationships
Do we judge a human based on monetary & status or the impact they have left behind to others?

Women live longer than men?

Women do because we value the things that matter & invest in them: relationships & communication.

We don't make poor choices, we're just not men.
Btw, women shouldn't try to be men. We are fine as we are. But if we want to have it all like we think that men do (a successful career w/ plenty of $, status, respect & power, a family (spouse, kids etc), then we need to be smart.

Have a partner that supports & wants the same!
Did you know that teaching used to be a male dominated profession? It was considered a stepping stone for a greater career in the law or the church until the 19th century.

The introduction of Common School (pre public school) required more workers beyond male & so women joined.
Here is an interesting fact regarding teaching, which is a female dominated profession:

76% of teachers are women & 54.2% of principals but only 24% of them are superintendents.

Why the gap even in a profession that is dominated by women?
People say women simply are not applying for the high-pressure but highly compensated job.

Unconscious bias on the part of those who make hiring decisions, a lack of a strong candidate pipeline, & a paucity of female role models & networking opportunities surface as reasons

So?
To become a superintendents, you must apply & women don't apply if they don't meet the qualification 100% while men would at 60%.

Got an issue of good candidates not applying. The 2nd issue is the road to become a superintendent is very, well, long & competitive & require focus.
Profile of a superintendent: like a graduate degree in education (MA or PhD), former principal (preferably at a middle or HS not elementary school) & assistant superintendent.

Then u have to apply for the job to get the job. Along the way, somehow, only 24% of women are there.
Stats on principals (prequisite to be a superintendent:

68% women in elementary school
40% women in middle school
33% women in HS.

The Gate Foundation funds an effort to raise this ratio & they focus primarily on getting women to apply for the job (many don't) & some progress.
The ratio of women applying for the superintendent job if they don't quality has risen. Here are some fun facts about women superintendents: they are more likely than men to have children in school. Diff b/n a teacher & a superintendent is salary + influence (individual v system)
Lower gender ratio of women in a field that we dominate highlights:

*Top jobs require singular focus on career (yrs of education to the graduate level + sticking around/focused to get the top job in ur profession)
*Women that make it have support system (spouse, mentor)& apply.
This article has a great video of 6 women that made it & what it takes to have the top job (a lot). The key pt they make here is having a mentor (someone to help guide & strategize career path) & focus, as is wanting & doing what it takes to be there.

usatoday.com/story/news/edu…
Btw, just because men make it to the top jobs doesn't mean that MOST MEN do.

By definition, a top job = extremely competitive & few. So most men don't make it.

The US has 44 male presidents so only 44 men made it to the top job. They don't represent the average man in the US.
If you only look at the gender ratios at the top & miss the gender ratio on average, then we are also skewing the discussion of gender equality.

What we mean is gender equality at the top & not true gender equality of outcome b/c an average man is likely worse off than women.
According to the WHO, "Women generally live longer than males – on average by 6-8 yrs. This difference is partly due to an inherent biological advantage for the female, but it reflects behavioural differences between men & women."

All of this is dependent on how u benchmark.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Trinh

Trinh Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Trinhnomics

Aug 26
Despite the 50% tariffs imposed by Trump, India's future is more trade & not less & why tariffs will need to go down.

Here we go, a thread.
From winning the Trump trade war, India is now the US President’s biggest target. The Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on India. To add insult to injury, Trump announced another 25% tariff, effective tomorrow, on the grounds that India imports crude oil from Russia.

Indian goods bound for the US will now face tariff rates similar to China’s if we include the Trump 1.0 tariffs, making any China+1 strategy in India less competitive for US markets, and relative to Southeast countries, which for the most part face tariff rates of about 20 per cent.Image
Will the additional 25% tariff stick? While Russia’s war with Ukraine isn’t going to end by Wednesday, the secondary Trump tariff is likely temporary. Therefore, the question is not whether India will be able to bring the 50% back down to at least 25%, but when. Image
Read 12 tweets
Aug 22
Eight months after Trump has been inaugurated and we of course have now the EU US deal. What do we know about Trumponomics?

I would say my read is the Miran paper is a blueprint for Trump actions so far on trade. Let's see what I mean by that. And this has consequences of how Trump sees India, which I think is not just escalation to gain leverage.
First, let's talk about an important ally, the EU. The details are out and I would say this is actually rather good for the EU in the context of out of control Trump tariffs.

Why? EU tariffs are NOT stacked. They are ceilings. As in, they get 15% max, including sectoral tariffs like auto (including car parts), pharma, semiconductor, lumber etc but not steel & alum, which they are still trying to negotiate. There are some additional exemptions for EU products such as aircraft, parts, generic pharmas & ingredients etc.Image
Meaning, to trade for this 15%, the EU is falling closer into the US orbit via investment and trade as well as defense, which it is working on being more self sufficient with increased spending but not just yet.

Anyway, what can you say about other allies? It means South Korea and Japan can and hopefully have similar terms.

Remember that reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA aren't the only ones. Section 232s are pretty scary and more stuff being added all the time without warnings.

An example is steel where a few days ago 400 more products were added to include steel derivatives.

So if you want to have access, this is basically what the costs are and so what does that tell you about others? Here I go back to the Miran paper.
Read 14 tweets
Aug 21
Russia import imports since 2022. If this calculation is correct, the arbitrage is USD2.5/barrel currently, then annual saving is USD1.5bn. Image
India trade balance with BRICS: It buys way more than it sells.

Some say more BRICS is the answer. But looking at trade as it is right now, what needs to happen? Image
India total exports to all the countries in BRICS is less than just to the US alone. Image
Read 7 tweets
Aug 1
Guys, let's do it. All things Trump tariffs. Here we go. First, let's talk about the basics. 10% is the floor as in everyone gets that. And these are the economies that get higher than that:
15% (EU, Japan, South Korea and 33 countries: Angola, Botswana, etc.)
18% (Nicaragua)
19% (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand)
20% (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Vietnam)
25% (Brunei, India, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tunisia)
30% (Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Libya, South Africa)
35% (Iraq, Serbia)
39% (Switzerland)
40% (Laos, Myanmar)
41% (Syria)
In Asia, it looks like this. Excluding China and Myanmar, Laos, India got the highest - 25% and maybe more.

China is waiting for talks on extension. Right now, it's 10% reciprocal + 20% fentanyl during extension + 25% during Trump 1.0

Southeast Asia gets 20% to 19% except Laos & Myanmar at 40%, Brunei is 25% but energy is exempt so...Image
India original was 26% so 25% seems bad but frankly not too far from the Southeast Asians. That being said, India was aiming closer to 15% as Vietnam got dropped from 46% to 20%.

Anyway, let's talk about details of the White House info.

It goes into effect 7th August. But if you got stuff in ports/front-loading and not yet consumed till 1 October, there are varied rates for them.

Long story short, there is still time to negotiate this down before it goes into effect basically.Image
Read 13 tweets
Jul 30
Trump tariff strikes India at 25% plus Russian oil import punishment. Is it a surprise? Not exactly. I have been thinking for a week what a US India deal look like. And to be honest, I think I saw this coming. I think India can negotiate down from this threat btw. It's not final. But how much lower and what are the costs?
Why is it not a surprise that India is not getting the deal that it is working hard on?

First, let's look at the EU and Japan - they got smacked with 15% tariff & got reprieve for auto (and other sectors) but auto is key at 15%.

So 15% is the best India can get. And it won't get it. Why? Well, it has to offer a lot to Trump to get that and it won't.
Remember that this is just a threat (similar to what Trump did with Japan before they settled on a lower number) and the threat I suppose can be real or not. Irrespective, he cares about it enough to post about it.

Trump has a few agendas that he wants India or Modi's help with.

Ending that Ukraine War is one. And India is not interested in that. It's an emerging country that buys where it can cheapest.

Russian oil is cheapest & so it buys from Russia & Trump wants to starve Russia of oil revenue. India doesn't want to not buy the cheapest oil possible. Besides, Russia is neither a foe nor a friend.

Maybe the West's foe but not India. So on this point, very hard. What are the costs to India? Well, it will have to pay more for its oil if it doesn't buy the cheapest oil.

Trump is adding to that costs - tariff.
Read 6 tweets
Jul 28
India imported 15,000 cars a year. Why? It has 110% tariff on autos. Now, trade negotiations are not going well and it's approaching the WTO on Trump's 25% auto tariff.

But the reason is simple. India exports more than it imports autos. Why? It has pretty high tariff on auto.

What would an India trade deal look like then? Is there going to be one?Image
What's interesting is that the UK and India signed a trade deal that is supposedly a huge game changer.

Let's take a look at it.

Under the agreement, tariffs on imports of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars will be slashed to 30-50% in the first year of implementation, but with the benefit limited to a quota of 20,000 cars.

The tariffs will be reduced gradually, and after 15 years, they will become 10 per cent, with the quota set at 15,000 units. For out-of-quota imports of ICE cars, the duties are reduced to 60-95 per cent in the first year, and further to 45-50 per cent from the tenth year onwards.
So on the surface, it looks like a big deal but the quotas are so tiny that it makes one wonder.

Of course, relative to annual import, quotas are HUGE as it is MORE than annual import.

But why do people care so much about US 25% auto tariff but don't care so much about India's 110% auto tariff?

Well, because the US imports 8m cars EVERY YEAR.

Look at the big deal that is the UK and India trade deal liberalization. There is a limit in quota.

The quota that the US sets for the UK is 100,000. So in other words, the US remains a big deal and one that needs to be negotiated with.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(