Women, work and the trade-offs behind policy
Restored from Instagram stories ·
here's an interesting graph.
the x-axis is the number of women who are stem grads whereas the y axis is the index of gender equality
this graph literally says that the number of women stem grads in a country is indirectly proportional to the gender equality in the country.
further studies show, that during the first few years of fighting for gender equality, education in STEM subjects are one of the top most priority that's part of the parenting structure.
but once they land in top jobs using STEM subjects, their children are least likely to choose STEM subjects again, possibly due to the fact that the parents themselves discourage their kids from taking the 'difficult' courses and encourage them to enjoy life.
most of those parents do claim - that they forced to study those difficult subjects and get those high paying jobs by their parents who have barely high school education
or else, the child chooses to
only a significant % of second generation parents also force their kids to the same standards as their grand parents. (a major part of this is asians)
even then, the % of women who take STEM heavily reduces by the fourth generation abysmally to near zero levels.
so, even though the literacy rate is up, the type of grad the third or fourth generation women of stem grad women take are mostly related to humanities or generally feel-good useless degrees.
if we sum it up, the graph goes something like this in a bell curve.
this is more evident on societies which are least capitalistic (regardless of the country) where there's less poverty.
and this is super extremely reserved for rich households.
[a point to revisit: the graph and the proposed generational explanation are different claims. the explanation needs its own evidence; a pattern between countries cannot by itself establish why individual women choose particular subjects.]
the facts that we can draw from these conclusions are the following
1. we need more stem focussed education in developing countries and countries where women need equal rights in education (since it statistically proves that it's the path towards success)
2. women when they work hard in their field with no gender bias and opposition usually outsmart and outwork men in the same fields. it's some kind of raging determination and heavy competitiveness as they go higher up in education or job hierarchy. it's literal domination.
3. economies where women contributed equally or more in stem usually become rich faster than counterparts where women aren't allowed to work.
which means, we need more women in tech and STEM fields.
4. rich economies where women suddenly do not fill in their workforce after getting rich (in generations as they discourage their children in not taking the hard path they took) find massive stagnation in growth.
it's as if women came, they obliterated and just retired to a better version of their former lives.
it's as if they want to show, hey... i just came there to show i can. i no longer depend on you for money. have earned enough. now you better provide for me and pamper me masculine man.
it's badass. it's amazing.
so, how do we make sure that the rich women encourage their kids to make it big in STEM ?
5. freaking make STEM easy for women to take. make it more attractive for women. remove gender bias as much as possible. make it easy like arts, humanities or other degrees. make STEM fashionable.
(i don't want to start talking about discrimination of women in stem degrees and research. i was oblivious to this before until i started putting some of my money in there)
6. government should bring policies that'd make employing women more easy in SMBs, MSMEs and small startups.
these are the actual workforce multipliers in any growing economy. not big MNCs. they don't need any incentives. they'd do it for brand value.
incentivise the workforce multipliers in employing women. we need more of them to take serious STEM jobs and more white collar positions.
so how does the govt. as a policy maker see this?
they've brought amazing policies in.
but still, there are families which are heavily patriarchal and refuse to allow their women who want to be independent, work and have their own freedom from having any of that.
this affects the nation's growth as a whole. they cannot enact laws to make it forceful for work. they can only do that for children's education. can't prevent these hardliners from stopping their higher education once the children become adults. they'd say yes to the existing family structure as most adults in India are non independent.
this is where targetted affirmative action comes in place.
see in which demographics these hardlines families fall in. structure policies in such a way, that the ones who are lower than them in social structure get more benefits in higher education
(which is restricted with lesser seats for merit and far more lesser for rich management seats due to less number of them. to ensure this, always make sure there are lesser universities)
and jobs. (especially govt. jobs)
see where the hardline families get their main income from.
once you locate that these hardline families get their major revenue from one to two sources of business or any other income,
slam it and make it harder for them to do it profitably. encourage mega MNCs to enter these sector and bleed these hardliner's income so that they go out of business faster than ever.
the goal is to push them to poverty or low income as soon as possible so that they'd start sending their kids back to education and high paying jobs since that's the only way they'd have a future.
but if these hardliners have enough votes, in a democracy - they're gonna make enough statement to ensure they can control who's gonna be the ruling party.
so how do you do it without affecting your power or making this a big issue ?
this is just the tip of the ice berg.
striking a balance on such a trivial issue is the govt.'s job.
this is just one factor that a govt. has to take on one small issue.
[a serious problem with this proposal: deliberately reducing a family’s income could also harm the women and children it is meant to help. would direct access to education, income and independent choices achieve the goal without making poverty the instrument?]
now multiply this at every different govt. functionality, every portfolio they hold. at a single time, the govt. is facing millions of problems that they'd have to face.
inbetween all of this, they have to take care of the problems their opposition will create.
when idiots talk about youngsters can win in politics and shine, no they won't. you don't even understand how it works.
politics is a seasoned veteran business and in the grand scheme of things, corruption or swindling money are the least of the problems.
no one can stop corruption in any government. don't trust anyone who says so. the max. someone can do is to bring steps to reduce it to the max level that the common civilian is not affected. (this is the biggest optics any political party can try to achieve)
i just explained a small part. i can't sit and explain each and everything. i am just quantifying what goes behind each policy decision.
each will affect one or many negatively and would enrich another positively.
in the age of internet, the voice of the affected gets louder and the way to tackle this in politics just got even more complex.
consider the previous ones as answers to the questions some of you guys asked me on how do you see this policy, how do you see that policy ?
no, i don't see them the way you do.
politics is quite different.
opposing people in the spectrum are going to oppose that with the ones supporting are going to welcome it. people are going to fight with one other.
govt. communication on its politics would also be completely different.
arm chair experts are going to sit infront of media and tell their own conspiracy theory on why this was formed. media companies will mint more money with air time.
it's a circle. the wheel always turns back in. just as things will get heated, the govt. will feed another PR piece to distract.
it's a circle. i am bored on seeing this repeatedly. it all started from greek city states. the Romans evangelized it and it didn't stop till now.
All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026 Jason Samuel