As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops

[Crown]

If any moron genuinely believes that multi-national corporations are aware that they can reduce their wage bill by 23% overnight by just hiring women and somehow haven't done this then I've got some magic beans to sell you.

The study quoted in the OP, showing significant decreases in wages in fields as women enter them, indicates that corporations and other entities are doing exactly that. So, excellent job proving my point.

No it's not. It's still saying EARNED, the article also stated; "Yet the gender pay gap is largest in higher-paying white-collar jobs, Ms. Blau and Mr. Kahn found. One reason for this may be that these jobs demand longer and less flexible hours, and research has shown that workers are disproportionately penalized for wanting flexibility."

This is inline with the BBC article I posted which showed that men who were fathers were being payed 21% more than men who weren't; because they tended to work more. It's not some evil sexism at work, its rewarding workers for their time and commitment. The same article also noted that women still have an earning gap (which I don't deny) but the difference between women who have children later in their careers than those who have children earlier of about 12% but they both suffer next to childless female colleagues.

Christina Hoff Summers has debunked this fucking repeatedly, when you use proper controls of looking for like for like, the 2009 Labor Department study showed that the 'pay gap' was between 4.8% to 7%. And even this you wouldn't attribute to sexism outright.

I'm not going to take an article by a philosophy professor working for one of the longest-lived conservative and reactionary think tanks at face value. If you do, the more fool you.

Ad hominem. She cites her sources, they being inconvenient to your argument doesn't give you carte blanch to ignore it.

[Crown]

You realize that undermines your claim that the pay gap is somehow not motivated by sexism, don't you? In fact, it's worse - it means that the "controls" designed to shrink the 23% figure are tinged with it as well, since women get hit with a set of punishing norms regarding working and child-care.

You addressing this to me? I assume so, I suspect you thought the post would appear directly under the BBC article right? Well on that assumption; I find it neither immoral, sexist or outrageous that wages earned over a period of time worked be affected by such a thing as attendance. Shocking, I know.

Explain to me comrade why the filthy Aristocracy and their despicable Bourgeoisie foot soldiers haven't immediately fired all the proletariat men and hired all proletariat women if they could actually save 23% on labour costs?

Gee, it's almost as if firms can be full of discriminatory individuals and a discriminatory culture. I'll have to go remind black folks that discrimination against them in employment doesn't exist either, because obviously all companies realize the ridiculousness of reducing your pool of potential job candidates and clearly don't do so.

Firms care about their bottom dollar; a 23% decrease in overhead would be snapped up faster than a Louis Vuitton handbag in a 90% reduced price sale.

[Terralthra]

She cites a source and immediately contradicts it. "Bypass the verbal sleights of hand," is her way of handwaving the conclusions of the study she cites, which is that there is still a significant pay gap after controlling for all confounding variables. "She cites her sources, with which she disagrees" doesn't exactly endear me to her argument. Her next source, which she selectively quotes from the executive summary as claiming that the wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

Just before that, however:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

What's that? Your non-expert conservative think tank writer misrepresented her evidence to try to prove a point? Say it ain't so.

[Crown]

She cites a source and immediately contradicts it. "Bypass the verbal sleights of hand," is her way of handwaving the conclusions of the study she cites, which is that there is still a significant pay gap after controlling for all confounding variables. "She cites her sources, with which she disagrees" doesn't exactly endear me to her argument. Her next source, which she selectively quotes from the executive summary as claiming that the wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

Just before that, however:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

What's that? Your non-expert conservative think tank writer misrepresented her evidence to try to prove a point? Say it ain't so.

So it's reading and comprehension that you have a problem with eh? Both the AAUW and Department of Labor reports are saying 7% and 4.8% to 7.1% respectively ... which is exactly what she is reporting;

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, “We are still trying to figure that out.”

and

What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings.

Well you can 'win' this argument by pointing out that Hoff-Summers said the AAUW is saying 6.6% 'unexplained' rather than the 7% if you're really desperate.

And if you listen to the radio interview of the AAUW spokesperson of this study; here she is again representing exactly what the AAUW study is showing. The gap is around 7%, everyone agrees with it, Hoff-Summers, me, the Department of Labor and the AAUW.

What is not proven is why this is there. Get it?

Fucking hell, Lisa admits she doesn't account for pregnancy or break down engineering into respective disciplines or as the example Hoff-Summers used "For example, its researchers count “social science” as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that “social science” includes both economics and sociology majors."



EDIT :: I struck through the pregnancy part, as while listening to more of the interview Lisa is discussing it as a future issue not one that she may not have accounted for in this study. It's ambiguous, feel free to ignore the point.

[Terralthra]

So, everyone involved, yourself included, says there is a gender-based wage gap. I'm glad you agree with me.

[Crown]

So, everyone involved, yourself included, says there is a gender-based wage gap. I'm glad you agree with me.

Which is not 23% ... which is what I replied to ... if you could have been bothered to read ... might have saved ourselves some time, no?

[Terralthra]

That's actually *not* what you replied to. I know because you replied to me, and my post is quoted in your reply, and I never said "23%" in my post to which you replied. S'ok though, no one can scroll or anything. I only quoted biostem, whose source gave the 77% figure. Your argument is apparently with him, since he feels there is no gendered pay gap.

[Crown]

That's actually *not* what you replied to. I know because you replied to me, and my post is quoted in your reply, and I never said "23%" in my post to which you replied. S'ok though, no one can scroll or anything.

Oh, I'll save them the bother. I'll quote it and highlight the relevant part;

Even though wage inequality has become less significant for younger women, the gender pay gap still exists and reportedly becomes wider with age. On average, women still get paid just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns doing the same work.

The pay divide is even greater in finance jobs. A woman financial manager earns 66 cents for every dollar a man earns to do the same job. And while women are gaining ground in obtaining degrees, a 40 percent salary gap exists between men and women with MBAs, 10 to 15 years into their careers.

Should i click on the others? I mean, c'mon, man, you cited an article claiming some 25% of women earn more than their husbands. Can you do math? That means 75% of women earn the same as their husband or less, and it also made no attempt to correlate the wives'/husbands' jobs to see if say, the 25% of women were in higher-paying fields, and if their husband were in the same field he'd be making more.

Your evidence is shit.

The operative word in what you quoted was earn. No one denies that women (even for same jobs, although as biostem pointed out the original study didn't differentiate between jobs) earn less then men, the argument is if they get paid less then men for equal work.

If any moron genuinely believes that multi-national corporations are aware that they can reduce their wage bill by 23% overnight by just hiring women and somehow haven't done this then I've got some magic beans to sell you.

How fucking gullible are you?

Christina Hoff Summers has debunked this fucking repeatedly, when you use proper controls of looking for like for like, the 2009 Labor Department study showed that the 'pay gap' was between 4.8% to 7%. And even this you wouldn't attribute to sexism outright.

But again, if you're desperate 'for the win' you can say; ah-ha! But I didn't say 23% now did I? Just the article I was quoting as proof said it ...

You're funny, dumb. But funny.

[Terralthra]

You mean the article someone else was quoting as proof that there isn't a wage gap? Again, your argument is with biostem for linking that source, not with me for actually reading it.

[Crown]

You mean the article someone else was quoting as proof that there isn't a wage gap? Again, your argument is with biostem for linking that source, not with me for actually reading it.

Fuck me! You're incapable of admitting even the slightest possibility that you didn't take the time to properly read something aren't you?

I mean we already know you didn't read the Hoff-Summers article and just chose to Ad Hominem your way out of looking at it (and then got rekt after the fact - fun times ), but now when faced with irrefutable proof that the 23% myth was something you posted in this thread (for whatever reason); you can't just pretend it wasn't posted by you and quoted by me and not made ABUNDENTLY CLEAR by me as to what I was referring to.

Well actually, I think that's exactly what you just did. Well played, joke's on me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Terralthra]

I'm still not sure why you're arguing with me over this. You already agreed with me that there is a gender pay gap. Biostem posted an article which they claimed as evidence that there wasn't. I replied to them, quoting their article, showing why it didn't actually support their position. And this makes me incapable of reading? Not, say, biostem, who posted the article?

Interesting.

[K. A. Pital]

Explain to me comrade why the filthy Aristocracy and their despicable Bourgeoisie foot soldiers haven't immediately fired all the proletariat men and hired all proletariat women if they could actually save 23% on labour costs?

They are trying (the influx of cheap migrant labour + all the female workforce of industrialized nations). It is not a simple and instantaneous process (no replacement of labour ever is, even with machines), but they are trying.

Why shouldn't it be women are poorer negotiators? Why add entities without necessity? If women being bad at negotiating can explain it and explains also the difference that occur in the same-field occupations, it has to be accepted as a valid explanation. Even if it does make you scream at me for no particular reason.

Why would I need to scream at you? "Negotiation" theory of the price of labour is bunk anyway, if you ask me. I only buy the class warfare part. As women are generally less prone to, well, active class warfare and are, due to a mix of circumstances, more accepting of capitalist superexploitation, they aren't "poor negotiators" but more like simply a weak and isolated segment of the workers class that's especially vulnerable to capitalist oppression.

Hope my daily Cultural-Marxist sermon was inspiring and eye-opening. Duh.

[Crown]

I'm still not sure why you're arguing with me over this. You already agreed with me that there is a gender pay gap. Biostem posted an article which they claimed as evidence that there wasn't. I replied to them, quoting their article, showing why it didn't actually support their position. And this makes me incapable of reading? Not, say, biostem, who posted the article?

Interesting.

Sincerely; I'm starting to believe you.

[Crown]

Explain to me comrade why the filthy Aristocracy and their despicable Bourgeoisie foot soldiers haven't immediately fired all the proletariat men and hired all proletariat women if they could actually save 23% on labour costs?

They are trying (the influx of cheap migrant labour + all the female workforce of industrialized nations). It is not a simple and instantaneous process (no replacement of labour ever is, even with machines), but they are trying.

That's an evasion of the question asked. The cheap migrant labour is predominately male, but more to the point Asian-American women are approaching parity with white men (and in some instances out performing them). The simple question is; if a company could at a stroke reduce its overhead by 23% why haven't they? If the argument is that sexism is keeping women out of the workforce, is it true then that sexism is actually a more powerful force than practical capitalism theory?

Why shouldn't it be women are poorer negotiators? Why add entities without necessity? If women being bad at negotiating can explain it and explains also the difference that occur in the same-field occupations, it has to be accepted as a valid explanation. Even if it does make you scream at me for no particular reason.

Why would I need to scream at you? "Negotiation" theory of the price of labour is bunk anyway, if you ask me. I only buy the class warfare part. As women are generally less prone to, well, active class warfare and are, due to a mix of circumstances, more accepting of capitalist superexploitation, they aren't "poor negotiators" but more like simply a weak and isolated segment of the workers class that's especially vulnerable to capitalist oppression.

But that analysis, one of capitalist oppression, is irrespective of the spectre of a "patriarchal master plan" to disenfranchise the sisterhood. It would be the natural tendency across the board; and if that is your thesis then bandying 'sexism' about is as about as useful as using a cat as an umbrella during a snow storm.

Hope my daily Cultural-Marxist sermon was inspiring and eye-opening. Duh.

Marx is something most of us grow out of.

[aerius]

This is inline with the BBC article I posted which showed that men who were fathers were being payed 21% more than men who weren't; because they tended to work more. It's not some evil sexism at work, its rewarding workers for their time and commitment.

Totally anecdotal. Back when I worked in the tech industry where we long shitty hours and on-call status (they could call us in at 3am and make us work a 20 hour shift), nearly everyone who had on-call status was a male. The employees who were on-call had a pay premium and racked up massive amounts of overtime pay. In my case, something like 3/4 of my total pay was from the on-call premium and overtime pay, it was fucking bonkers.

[K. A. Pital]

That's an evasion of the question asked. The cheap migrant labour is predominately male, but more to the point Asian-American women are approaching parity with white men (and in some instances out performing them). The simple question is; if a company could at a stroke reduce its overhead by 23% why haven't they? If the argument is that sexism is keeping women out of the workforce, is it true then that sexism is actually a more powerful force than practical capitalism theory?

Yes. Some elements of the old order (including prejudices of any kind) can be preserved for a long time and even exist alongside "modern capitalist relations" where each person regardless of race and gender is a nominally equal "workforce unit". They are being destroyed or let live depending on how useful they are. Totally eradicating sexism would lead to pay equality, thus removing the benefit from female labour on the cheap. Also I'd like some proof about cheap migrant labour being predominantly male.

But that analysis, one of capitalist oppression, is irrespective of the spectre of a "patriarchal master plan" to disenfranchise the sisterhood. It would be the natural tendency across the board; and if that is your thesis then bandying 'sexism' about is as about as useful as using a cat as an umbrella during a snow storm.

See above.

[Broomstick]

Also I'd like some proof about cheap migrant labour being predominantly male.

The more visible migrant labor is male - the agricultural and construction workers. The maids, nannies, and housekeepers are widely dispersed and inside homes where they're hard to see or count.

[ArmorPierce]

The main cause of the pay dropping as women take over previously male dominated fields is a increase in the supply of labor offering their services driving equilibrium price down for what the labor is demanded at. Increase in supply = Downward pressure on wage.

It is economics 101 folks.

But of course this phenomenon certainly isn't universal. For example, Women account for 40% of the engineering workforce in China and a whopping 58% back in the days of the USSR. I wonder how conservative naysayers who dismiss this sort of thing and assert that women simply aren't inherently predisposed to gravitating towards "manly" STEM fields would explain this...clearly it's the result of evil godless commie mind-control rays meant to prevent women from assuming their god-ordained role of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Yes, in more repressive and sexist societies, there actually is an increase in women in stem compared to more liberal and open countries. It does indeed say something, but not exactly what I think you think it does.

What it says to me is that privileged white folks don't want to have to continuously work and compete with others to maintain their position in society. How dare you measure my competence based on math and standardized testing and other objective measures!

[ArmorPierce]

As a minority in corporate America, I have never observed women being disadvantaged at the workplace. What I do see is men bending over backwards to 'network' with them to the point of what I can see as being annoying. As a minority, I have the opposite problem. People not wanting to have anything to do with me. Women would receive a tremendous amount of support with folks willing to go the extra mile and competent women would move up organizations rapidly. The men in positions of power will support one another. The men with no power and the undesirable women are kind left at the sidelines and used as punching bags.

It gets on my nerves when privileged white women attempt to equate or assert their obstacles to be greater than that faced by myself and other minorities.

Payscale constructed a breakdown on the wage difference between men and women. It shows that the pay variance when controlled for the same job and other factors are in the single digits.
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/g ... p/job-type

When comparing like to like, we calculate a controlled gender pay gap of 2.7 percent. (Based on our database, the uncontrolled gender pay gap is 25.6 percent.) That means that women earn 2.7 percent less than men with similar characteristics working the same jobs. Yes, that margin is much smaller than the uncontrolled figure, but it's equally disturbing. Even more disturbing is that when we run the numbers to find out how things like marital and family status, job level, job type, industry, location, education and more affect gender pay equity, we see that the pay gap widens as you climb the corporate ladder, that men get promoted faster than women, and that women report more negative feelings about job satisfaction, job stress, and communication with their employers.

[K. A. Pital]

But of course this phenomenon certainly isn't universal. For example, Women account for 40% of the engineering workforce in China and a whopping 58% back in the days of the USSR. I wonder how conservative naysayers who dismiss this sort of thing and assert that women simply aren't inherently predisposed to gravitating towards "manly" STEM fields would explain this...clearly it's the result of evil godless commie mind-control rays meant to prevent women from assuming their god-ordained role of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Yes, in more repressive and sexist societies, there actually is an increase in women in stem compared to more liberal and open countries. It does indeed say something, but not exactly what I think you think it does.

So you seem to think that the USSR is a "sexist society".

I need not remind you that, unlike many Western nations of the period, the USSR had made greater progress in pay equality.

It also did not require of women to justify their intention to divorce; in case both partners agreed to a divorce, no state-enforced "separate living period" of 1 year (North-Western Europe) or 3 years (!!!, some states of Souther Europe) were required.

You seem to think that women go to STEM in the USSR and China because of... what? The logical answer is that these jobs are more open to women in these nations, but obviously, you have found a different explanation. Do share!

[ArmorPierce]

But of course this phenomenon certainly isn't universal. For example, Women account for 40% of the engineering workforce in China and a whopping 58% back in the days of the USSR. I wonder how conservative naysayers who dismiss this sort of thing and assert that women simply aren't inherently predisposed to gravitating towards "manly" STEM fields would explain this...clearly it's the result of evil godless commie mind-control rays meant to prevent women from assuming their god-ordained role of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Yes, in more repressive and sexist societies, there actually is an increase in women in stem compared to more liberal and open countries. It does indeed say something, but not exactly what I think you think it does.

So you seem to think that the USSR is a "sexist society".

I need not remind you that, unlike many Western nations of the period, the USSR had made greater progress in pay equality.

It also did not require of women to justify their intention to divorce; in case both partners agreed to a divorce, no state-enforced "separate living period" of 1 year (North-Western Europe) or 3 years (!!!, some states of Souther Europe) were required.

I actually misread and thought that it had stated India and China rather than USSR and China.

That said, yes, sexism in Russia is a sexist society. The social dynamics differed due to the legacy of communism. State ideology encouraged sex equality in its face, but that did not actually translate to attitude transformation on the individual or even social level.

You seem to think that women go to STEM in the USSR and China because of... what? The logical answer is that these jobs are more open to women in these nations, but obviously, you have found a different explanation. Do share![/

The obvious answer is not that more women go into those jobs because it is more open than woman. That is only one of many overly simplistic and unsupported assertions that can be made. I find it quite ludicrous for you to even suggest with a straight face that China is a less sexist and more open society than the United States when female infanticide is a real problem there. But HEY!... Why let facts get in the way of your assertions?!

The fact that less developed, more sexist and repressive societies have a higher number of women entering STEM fields is quite telling. So why is it that in less sexist, less repressive societies, less women go into STEM fields? In fact, it's not just less women! Lower percentage of MEN go into stem fields as well! Well, given all the hate given directed homework and standardized tests here in the United States, and leveraging my experience as a racial minority having lived in both ghettos and suburbs, I am inclined to believe that the reason is simply that both men and women don't want to put in the work necessary to attain more advanced and challenging degrees. There is also the other mitigating factor that a larger percent of the population are attaining higher education. So whereas in China, the population attaining advanced degrees represent the cream of the crop, in the US, it is just about any Joe fuck, hence less ambitious folks.

In summary, given more choices,opportunity and the benefit of living in a wealthy society, a greater percentage of people simply choose the less challenging path, and instead choose the path that they find more fulfilling for themselves. Their wealth simply allows them to engage in decision-making regarding life decisions that simply does not maximize and prioritize wealth. This applies to both men and women, with more men deciding to engage in the more challenging STEM field.

Now, you can argue that the United States does not encourage the STEM fields enough, which I would agree with. Academics are portrayed as awkward nerds and the jock type is glorified. Nobody wants to strive to be the awkward nerd. The other part of the problem is that in the United States, no reverence is given to those who achieve educational attainment in the interest of the façade of 'equality' or 'power distance' in society or social settings. Everyone wants their opinion to count equally despite actual formal qualifications.

Below is a breakdown of sex equality per nation mentioned (US, China, Russia) per the World Economic Forum's 2012 list of rankings of gender pay equality by country:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Gender ... t_2012.pdf

United States
Pay equality: 22
Economic Participation and Opportunity: 8
Educational Attainment: 1

Russia
Pay equality: 59
Economic Participation and Opportunity: 39
Educational Attainment: 35

China
Pay equality: 69
Economic Participation and Opportunity: 58
Educational Attainment: 85

[K. A. Pital]

I actually misread and thought that it had stated India and China rather than USSR and China.

Your reading comprehension does not interest me.

That said, yes, sexism in Russia is a sexist society.

1. The subject was the USSR, not Russia.
2. The burden of proof is on you.

State ideology encouraged sex equality in its face, but that did not actually translate to attitude transformation on the individual or even social level.

See point 2 above.

I find it quite ludicrous for you to even suggest with a straight face that China is a less sexist and more open society than the United States

I am not qualified to judge China. I asked for proof of your statements.

In fact, it's not just less women! Lower percentage of MEN go into stem fields as well!

In the USSR, where education up to tertiary level was completely free? Seriously? I understand that in China or in the US hardly any family can afford the murderous debt levels required to get a university education, but not all countries are like this. Sorry.

Below is a breakdown of sex equality per nation mentioned (US, China, Russia) per the World Economic Forum's 2012

Could you provide one for 1980 or at least 1990 so that I could see the USSR anywhere?

[ArmorPierce]

I actually misread and thought that it had stated India and China rather than USSR and China.

Your reading comprehension does not interest me.

That said, yes, sexism in Russia is a sexist society.

1. The subject was the USSR, not Russia.
2. The burden of proof is on you.

State ideology encouraged sex equality in its face, but that did not actually translate to attitude transformation on the individual or even social level.

See point 2 above.

The fact that there higher levels of representation of women in STEM fields in more repressive and sexist cultures (India, China) subjects the argument to suspect that lower level of representation in the United States is due to sexism. The argument is not whether the soviet union had more or less sexism, the United States was far more sexist too, the question at hand is whether increased or decreased representation of women participation in stem fields are signals of sexism... given the fact that very sexist societies have far greater representation, this appears to not be the case.

What makes you think that attitude changes would transform over the course of a single generation in Russia from the collapse of the USSR when the population and culture are still largely the same? If there are such strong sexist attitudes now, clearly sexism was already present within society.

No it does not appear that stats go back to the days of the soviet union. There are anecdotes and numbers available but they are more subject to biases and I wouldn't consider that wholly reliable sources in of itself.

In fact, it's not just less women! Lower percentage of MEN go into stem fields as well!

In the USSR, where education up to tertiary level was completely free? Seriously? I understand that in China or in the US hardly any family can afford the murderous debt levels required to get a university education, but not all countries are like this. Sorry.

That doesn't matter. The quoted comment refers purely to the people who do pursue higher education.

In the United States, a far less percentage of folks who pursue college majors pursue it in the stem fields compared to China.

There was a table available that showed a breakdown of stem graduates by country but I cannot locate that right now. Below is the best I could find at this time.

This chart shows percentage of graduates that graduates with a stem degree. Even if female participation rate matched male's in the United States, they would still be trailing India and China by a large margin.

https://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Business ... orSTEM.PDF


Per the graph ( Accenture Institute for High Performance).

Below is a breakdown of sex equality per nation mentioned (US, China, Russia) per the World Economic Forum's 2012

Could you provide one for 1980 or at least 1990 so that I could see the USSR anywhere?[/quote]

I don't think that the studies go back that far.

[Civil War Man]

To me, this could actually point to a different, but still real, issue. As more women enter a field, there are more total qualified candidates to take jobs in that field then there were when just men were in it, so the workers in that field becomes less valuable. It seems possible that existing male workers continue to earn their old larger salaries, while new male and female workers earn less.

That is certainly a factor, and should be accounted for. However, the article in the OP also cites the opposite happening when men took over a previously woman-dominated field. As more men became computer programmers, pay increased. In that case, either pay was increasing even though the labor pool was growing, which means that the size of the labor pool is not the sole factor (though other factors may not be related to sexism, like if increase in demand outstripped the increase in labor), or female programmers were leaving the field in such large numbers that the total labor pool was shrinking despite the influx of male programmers, which raises the question of why women would leave the field in such large numbers.

[Broomstick]

If women left the field in the late 40's/early 50's then the men returning from WWII were a factor - the prior social pressure for women to enter the work force during the war (to compensate for the loss of male labor) flipped when the men came back. Then the social pressure was for women to yield their jobs to men and go back to home, kitchen, and children.