Support NeoGAF

[MHWilliams]

You guys do realize that we need people that do those fucking jobs, right? Our civilization would go very fast down the toilet without those "badly educated men". Forcing everyone into academic careers is a sure way into a Fallout-esque apocalypse.

This is frequently something brought up in minimum wage and skilled manual labor threads. It's important. We need people in those jobs and those people need to have a living wage. When you take that potential away from people, they turn to drugs and crime.

The problem we have is the one listed in the article, we need people to do those jobs, but not as many as we needed before. So, we have a surplus of men who would be very good at those jobs, but we have no where to put them that can provide them with a living wage. And when they can't provide for themselves and their families, it creates the same reverb effect we see in black communities. It's hard to pull yourself up without resources and a solid foundation. Tallulah, Louisiana is Deep South. I doubt their public education system is great (some children require more effort) and even then, the young men tend to take after those around them.

In some cases, like I assume in the groundskeeper example, what you're seeing is more educated men taking lower jobs because that's what's available. That leaves those with lower educational attainment searching with no hope.

At least two hypotheses have been given. One posits that schools have increasingly been "feminized." That is, schools are structured in a way that benefits how more girls learn at the cost of boys' learning. Specifically, schools require students to sit in their desks and pay attention and there is an emphasis on group learning instead of individual study. Boys, proponents of this hypothesis would say, are more likely to benefit from increased physical breaks (P.E. and/or recess) and working by themselves, preferably with their hands. These proponents also point to an anti-male bias in grading (which I believe has actually been shown to exist).

Others suggest a culture of toxic masculinity is to blame. It's not "cool" to be smart, especially in lower-class regions. So boys, in an attempt to be masculine, eschew homework and instead focus on sports (which is considered "cool"). This is perhaps fueled by a lack of positive male role models outside of sports stars, thanks to the relative absence of males in the role of parent or teacher (as the OP's article touches on).

I lean towards the latter, but have seen research on the former.

To get men into these positions, eliminating the predator stereotype people have when seeing men with children is a pretty necessary thing.

One of my friends quit his job and became a stay-at-home dad. There are issues - interacting with other mother groups, for example - but the predator stereotype is one that he hasn't run into. Anecdotal, I know.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Some took what is essentially one post, maybe one sentence in a post, and caught feelings over it. It's not my fault that some put on blinders and went on a witch hunt based on one sentence, that really isn't all that offensive, IMO. It's not like I referred to women as whores, sluts, or bitches. I simply stated that they are used for nothing more than sex by the most attractive men.

One problem is that you're assuming that having sex is what men do, and that it's something that happens to women. How do you know that women aren't using attractive men for nothing more than sex? Or, maybe people of both sexes are using each other for nothing more than sex.

 

[CornBurrito]

And if you read my previous comments, then you would clearly see that I am referring to women going after men out of their league when it comes to physical attractiveness. If there is a misunderstanding as to what my comments are the equivalent to, then you could always ask me to clarify, or you know, not put on blinders and bother to read my other posts. And no man is entitled to anything, ever.

Look at Technomancer's post, and you'll see men go for women out of their league as well.

 

[Assanova]

Look at this deflection. First you said everybody else made it about nice guys and bad boys, when there is indisputable evidence that you mentioned it and started pushing the same garbage philosophy as the abhorrent "nice guys."

Now you're trying to say it was only one sentence at best, and it wasn't that bad because you didn't call them sluts or whores (no, you only implied that taking the pill was a problem because it allows for more sexual promiscuity with men who only want to fuck them. Jesus. Christ.)

And you're NOT one of these so-called "nice guys"? You're doing a wonderful job convincing us, that's for sure.

I am not going to go back and forth about nice guys and bad boys, but I will clarify for you: I am referring to physical attractiveness. If you want to continue to make it about nice guys, then so be it, but that is not what I am referring to. And no, taking the pill is not a problem. I love the pill. I am stating that the pill has lead to increased sexual activity with men that have no intention of being in a serious relationship. Paint a different narrative if you want, but again, I have clarified it for you.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Once again, my problem is merely with men who try to use females/feminists as an excuse for their failings.

Some people aren't good at school. Still others thrive in environments that are more hands on. Still some others have talents that school isn't necessary for at all. There is no problem with any of this. I love that human beings are so diverse that a person can be born to any one of hundreds of thousands of potential destinies.

My issue are the people who are trying to claim that the reason they don't want to go to college is because the environment is hostile to men because they're taken over by a gaggle of feminists/women or some shit.

First, it's a factually untrue statement in any event. But also... Sorry, men. Nope. Your ineptitude is your own fault. Stop trying to cast blame on a group of people who have been subjugated for your own insecurities for thousands of years.

I follow you and I agree that it is wrong to externalize the blame. The thing is though - You're mocking people who obviously are frustrated and failing at life. Obviously a lot bad decision, lack of good parental guidance and positive stimuli led them down this road, and that is something which requires empathy and understanding to handle, not you mocking them comically in some reductive way.

Look beyond them lashing out. They are frustrated, misguided, just like many other groups of who cast blame on other succesful groups of people. It happens in a lot of places, and I'll reckon that if you came from a shitty upbringing, even as a white male, you're going to squander many of those advantages you have, because you don't know how to function. As you said in your previous post.


I've worked as a substitute teacher for a number of years and I can tell you that we favored girls. No doubt about it. Our school system is hard pressed, we are understaffed, and a lot of the boys required way more attention. That we simply didn't have. They where loud, they where always running around. Couldn't sit still. And our solution to them, to fit in is just to give them a shit load of ADHD medicine. Shit fucking sucks man.

Again, nobody is saying that it has anything to do with girls or women, but there is nothing "comical" or hilarious about these men who are now lost and bitter.

 

[MaschinenZimmer]

And why is that women dominate education and child rearing? Because the majority of men choose not to participate in those roles- not because they are lacking. It is part of the existing patriarchal society mind set that that education and child-rearing is "women work". So women do the work they are that they do well, and are now blamed for the woes of men? Bullshit.

Men need to become part of the solution instead of just blaming women for participate in society. Does boys eduction need to be balance with girls? Absolutely. Do male parental right laws need to be strengthen? Yes. Those are laws. But what really needs to change is how men treat other men/boys.

Men who want to be educators should not be looked down upon by his peers or society (no more "those who can, DO; those who cannot ,TEACH") or as some pervert. Men need to be taught being smart is just as cool as being good at sports. And that there are many ways to be smart (the current model of only selective book smarts is detrimental to boys and girls- trades are good).

And men need to value children. For too many, they are just a obstacle to sex and a financial drain. There nothing wrong with not wanting to have kids or waiting to have them. But when children are so devalued by many men, young boys and girls internalize that message and bring the baggage into their relationships. (yes their are horrible women/mothers too, but I focusing on what guys can do themselves. Guys are not the single source of childhood woes)

I agree with you almost 100%, but I have a problem with the patrachary statement. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
And if you prefer to read: http://agensev.de/agens-meint/end-of-gender

In short: Norway is number one country in gender quality, but most women still prefer to go to work in typical female jobs, more than in 'unequal' countries even. It seems that the more freedom a women and men has, the higher are the changes s/he will choose a job that fits their natural preferences and men choose typical male jobs, while women choose typical female jobs. No patriarchy involved.

 

[Amir0x]

Your original statement was about "someone who has suffered endless generations of injustice." That is different than what you are saying now which is more akin to "someone who has suffered from endless generations of injustice toward woman." Which I do not find as problematic a statement. I want to make sure you differentiate between what has happened and what is currently happening. The men today are not to blame for the injustices of generations past.

Society of today is still massively unjust toward women, and men are largely to blame for that. You don't even need to mention past injustices, despite the fact that women of today are still suffering from the reverberations of past generations as well.

Men of today ARE responsible for keeping the ongoing level of injustice going (which, by the way, does not mean certain wrongheaded females don't also contribute to the problem when they're in power. It's just that men are usually the ones in power, thanks to the injustices of many generations that continue down into today). An individual male may not contribute to this, much the same way I as a man am not individually responsible for keeping the system the way it is (in fact, I fight against it). But every male who is born has to accept that they live in a society for which being born male is an inherent advantage, and has to deal with the fact that if they don't speak up and try to fight those injustices, they share some responsibility for the society continuing to be that unjust.

What I've consistently said in this topic is that the way that men are brought up in society has a lot to do with their actions later. And I've noted that women are generally the caretakers of our children, even today. Now, that doesn't mean I'm blaming women for boys' ills. But I am saying that women are not blameless. That it's not just up to men to fix this. We need to adjust everyone's expectations of men. I don't see why that's controversial to you.

The primary cause of male incarceration rates and education issues is men. Period. If you are saying that sometimes it is the case that a female has contributed to the problem, of course. Females make up a huge proportion of society (and thus it'd be statistically unlikely that they have never at any point contributed to the problem) and as people with stakes in that society they would have an invested interest in seeing the problem improve. But women are not at fault for the issue. They are not the cause. Neither are feminists. If we are trying to actually fix the problem, understand and changing the root causes are what is actually going to change the issue. Females are not the root cause. Ergo, they are not as a group responsible for the ineptitude of failing men.

First off, don't confuse "feminists" and "women." Feminists can be men, who are not an oppressed group.

I don't. That's why like fifty times in posts ITT I said women/feminists, as a way of distinguishing that they are two distinct groups.

But more to the point, any group that advocates equality should be troubled if (and I admit it's a big if) their ideologies are causing (or reinforcing) the inequality they are fighting. Perhaps a smaller focus on "patriarchy" and implicitly blaming males and more on "kyriarchy" and simply blaming those in power.

Except men are a primary root cause for the problem. Pussyfooting around that fact because certain men are too sensitive to facing the inarguable reality of the world is not the problem of women or feminists. Men can either learn to deal with it, or live in some fantasy world where they pretend male contribution to the problem is not the primary cause.

Again, I don't see why you're blaming men today for the environment in which they were raised. They had control over neither past atrocities nor their own upbringing. They are merely products of them. You seem to be ascribing more agency to men then women. Bear in mind that a lot of these men are low-class and/or minorities. They don't actually have a lot of power and are a victim of the system. Just like women.

Female inequality/injustice continues to thrive today, and men continue to be the dominating power which frequently creates oppressive systems for women. Once again, just because things have improved aren't as bad as they once were does not actually change the cause of why things remain unjust, nor that the principle players are the same.

 

[Kaervas]

Good luck trying to explain patriarchy and male privilege to a dude working two shitty jobs to try and keep up with the bills to feed his family.

It is hard to see the disadvantage others have when your own life is a struggle, even if you belong to a group which in the end benefits from some sort of global gender only conspiracy.

Since some of the issues feminism raises are valid and this person who is supposed to be a part of the privileged group isn't receiving any, anger and hate towards women is the only natural conclusion. Keeping in mind of course, that we are talking about poorly educated men who lack the emotional and intellectual resources to properly understand the situation.

I think at the end of the day it won't be about men vs women, but the poor vs the rich, as it always is. This men vs woman thing seems to detract from the more serious issue of income inequality and the poor becoming poorer while the rich become richer.

 

[Assanova]

I really don't think they support your point

So when a women messaged a man, the distribution across those five men was 70%, 22%, 4%, 2%, 0%
When a man messaged a woman the distribution was 48%, 38%, 7%, 4%, 1%
If these numbers can be used for any kind of comparative analysis (which is dubious considering the sample size) they would indicate that men and women are roughly equally likely to direct their attentions towards "attractive" profiles and ignore "unattractive ones", the only difference is in which group is more likely to make contact in the first place

Finally, a post about the actual data. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm sure there might be better studies out there, and again, this was one of the first ones to pop up that I can remember. The percentages can be misleading, in a way. As a guy, I would rather have 1% if that 1% meant several more messages than my female equivalent in he physical attractiveness department, if that makes any kind of sense.

 

[Assanova]

Look at Technomancer's post, and you'll see men go for women out of their league as well.

Men definitely do, however, based on my personal experiences, men are much more willing to settle. Again, based on my personal experience, I don't think that a lot of women are willing to settle until they are either old, or they have fatherless children. And again, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[MHWilliams]

I agree with you almost 100%, but I have a problem with the patrachary statement. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
And if you prefer to read: http://agensev.de/agens-meint/end-of-gender

In short: Norway is number one country in gender quality, but most women still prefer to go to work in typical female jobs, more than in 'unequal' countries even. It seems that the more freedom a women and men has, the higher are the changes s/he will choose a job that fits their natural preferences and men choose typical male jobs, while women choose typical female jobs. No patriarchy involved.

I do question you framing it as a "natural preference". How much of that is the status quo pushing itself forward. Are there way more black people in Basketball and far fewer in hockey because of pure preference? Or simply, many young people gravitate to areas those like them have succeeded? It's one reason I make myself more visible as a journalist, to show other black men and women that it is a possible career path. (Not the best one, but a possible one!)

I think at the end of the day it won't be about men vs women, but the poor vs the rich, as it always is. This men vs woman thing seems to detract from the more serious issue of income inequality and the poor becoming poorer while the rich become richer.

Indeed. Raise the poverty level and you raise the outcomes of many people.

 

[Kaervas]

I do question you framing it as a "natural preference". How much of that is the status quo pushing itself forward. Are there way more black people in Basketball and far fewer in hockey because of pure preference? Or simply, many young people gravitate to areas those like them have succeeded? It's one reason I make myself more visible as a journalist, to show other black men and women that it is a possible career path. (Not the best one, but a possible one!)

Well, the biological role of women coincides with their professional choices.

That is, more developed social skills, nurturing and all that jazz.

 

[The Technomancer]

Finally, a post about the actual data. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm sure there might be better studies out there, and again, this was one of the first ones to pop up that I can remember. The percentages can be misleading, in a way. As a guy, I would rather have 1% if that 1% meant several more messages than my female equivalent in he physical attractiveness department, if that makes any kind of sense.

Okay but women not being as proactive about approaching men isn't at all the same thing as women being more selective about men (and again, these stats seem to back up that men and women aren't that different in how selective they are). And if you're going to suggest that okay, the problem is that women are now less proactive about approaching men than they have been historically or something, uhm, I'm not sure how to respond to that

 

[The Technomancer]

Men definitely do, however, based on my personal experiences, men are much more willing to settle. Again, based on my personal experience, I don't think that a lot of women are willing to settle until they are either old, or they have fatherless children. And again, there is nothing wrong with that.

See, now here's something that some actual statistics would be useful on, if you could figure out some way of measuring "settling"

EDIT: Oh shit, wait, I just saw stats super relevant to this like, last week. Let me track those down...

 

[MHWilliams]

Well, the biological role of women coincides with their professional choices.

That is, more developed social skills, nurturing and all that jazz.

Good point, but these aren't hard rules or anything. There is a great deal of openness in who chooses what.

 

[partyphone]

Well, the biological role of women coincides with their professional choices.

That is, more developed social skills, nurturing and all that jazz.

this is nonsense straight out of evolutionary psychology.

 

[MaschinenZimmer]

I do question you framing it as a "natural preference". How much of that is the status quo pushing itself forward. Are there way more black people in Basketball and far fewer in hockey because of pure preference? Or simply, many young people gravitate to areas those like them have succeeded? It's one reason I make myself more visible as a journalist, to show other black men and women that it is a possible career path. (Not the best one, but a possible one!)

Yes, a valid point. The documentary specifically states how girls in India choose a career in the IT field because they see it as a legit way out of their poverty, while most Norway women are financially free to choose the path they prefer. Now, the natural preferences part is a tricky one, I agree, and I'm afraid I'm not educated enough on this matter to make an intelligent statement. Nonetheless, I found this documentary very interesting.

 

[The Technomancer]

Okay, so here's an update to that ages old "men are more likely to take women up on a random sex proposition than women are to take men up" study from decades ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/women-casual-sex_n_7191424.html

The Background
When it comes to casual sex, researchers have long referred back to the seminal 1989 study which suggested that men are more likely to accept a sexual invitation from a stranger than women are. But clever researchers from Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz in Germany didn’t think this painted a fair picture of male vs. female sexual desire -- they thought that perhaps the 1989 study left out important cultural context, like the potential for slut-shaming and the possibility of sexual violence that are unfortunately all too real to women. These researchers wanted to see what would happen if they added a bit more nuance to the oft-cited study to find out: Would women be more likely to accept strange men’s sex propositions if they wouldn’t suffer the social repercussions or safety risks?

The Setup
To do this, they brought 60 heterosexual men and women into a lab under the guise of testing for an online dating site. Subjects were shown pictures of someone of the opposite sex and told that these men or women had seen his or her picture and were either interested in a date or sex, depending on the condition -- meaning: some of the subjects were explicitly told that the people in the photos wanted to have sex with them.

The researchers left them alone to indicate which potential suitors they would date or sleep with. If subjects were interested in sex with any of the people in the photos who also expressed that desire toward them, a date would be arranged -- a.k.a., how Tinder is actually supposed to work. Since it was subjects' potential concern for their safety that made the 1989 study a poor indicator of true willingness to engage in casual sex, the researchers told participants here that they would film the first 30 minutes of the date -- in effect ensuring their safety for at least 30 minutes.

The Findings
The rates of interest in casual sex were exactly the same for men and women when they were taken off the streets and into a lab that controlled for all of the stigma and potential danger women often face.

The Takeaway
Turns out, when you remove societal judgement and safety risks, women are just as DTF as men are. Who knew safe, sex-positive environments were such a turn on for women? Well, hopefully everyone now.

They don't mention if there was a spectrum of "attractiveness", but I think the point is still very valid: women may not be more "selective", they may just appear that way because of other pressures

 

[Assanova]

See, now here's something that some actual statistics would be useful on, if you could figure out some way of measuring "settling"

EDIT: Oh shit, wait, I just saw stats super relevant to this like, last week. Let me track those down...

Hence, why I said "based on my personal experience", and didn't try to pass it off as what is true based on someone else's personal experience.

 

[Assanova]

Okay, so here's an update to that ages old "men are more likely to take women up on a random sex proposition than women are to take men up" study from decades ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/women-casual-sex_n_7191424.html



They don't mention if there was a spectrum of "attractiveness", but I think the point is still very valid: women may not be more "selective", they may just appear that way because of other pressures

And I agree that women give in to societal pressure. How many women do you come across that won't date a guy below a certain height or works in certain occupations?

 

[kirblar]

lol

A little harsh, but it makes me wish I had a "save post" feature so that every time I was annoyed at a "nice guy"/"nice girl" I could paste this to them.

I've run into so many people that think like this. Some of the views in this thread.... ffs, most educated women I know with a choice would see these viewpoints and run the fuck away. Far, far away.

If someone sees a thread about systemic economic and social upheaval and thinks it's the perfect venue to complain about how no one replies to their online dating ads, I think we've found the reason why no one's is responding.

 

[Tesseract]

video games has done killed us all

ain't feminism about equality for all, at least that's what i hear drummed by campus leaders. the trigger stuff (and other nonsense) is undergrad baby games, don't let that poison your soup.

in all my 16 years at uni, i haven't seen much hostility against men. the opposite, it's been a pleasant ride working alongside women. math is way more fun when there's ample diversity among peers.

 

[CoolOff]

watdafuq

Wait, having personal standards is now a bad thing for women?!

Are you seriously saying that only women have personal standards?!

I'm fairly sure he's not... Given the fact the thread is about a growing mismatch between genders in terms of education level in lower income brackets, the fact that women more often than men take potential partners occupation and income into account is highly relevant to the discussion.

Spoiler

The height-thing less so.

If I'm wrong about the last bit, feel free to tell me so. I'm sure there are studies out there.

 

[Kaervas]

this is nonsense straight out of evolutionary psychology.

From a biological perspective women hold more value than men because they can get pregnant. A female is invaluable while men are expendable, after all you only need one.

The choosing of safer and nurturing jobs goes in line with the previous idea. We men choose more risky jobs because at the end of the day is better to lose a man than to lose a woman.

This doesn't mean that women are incapable of doing these jobs, just that it is not worth it from a biological value point of view.

Again this has nothing to do with intellect or the ability to do a job, I'm about to graduate from engineering and there are a plenty of intelligent, imaginative and capable women in my field. Its just a matter of preference I suppose.

 

[MaschinenZimmer]

This sounds super interesting... can you link it?

I also wonder if this applies in classes where the subject matter is relatively constant- math, history, economics.

Sorry, I missed your post, backslashbunny.

I can't find the specific study anymore but there is a project called Jungenleseliste that has a lot info on that matter. Here is an interview the one of them: http://jungenleseliste.de/interview-mit-sebastian-weber/
Sorry, I only have German links.

The only site I found in English on this matter: http://www.guysread.com/

 

[kirblar]

I do remember reading that for black women in America, they are especially screwed, because (traditionally) men have been more educated / have better jobs than their wives, and that idea carries over until now.

The problem in this is two fold - first, of course, specifically our problem in society with black men being incarcerated, and two, a more general problem, with the idea that a guy MUST have a "better" job and "more/equal" education than his wife. There are some studies showing that men (and women) cheat more in relationships when men earn less than the women, which also is a problem because it may suggest that there is a sense of emasculation if a guy fails to live up to the idea that he must be the provider and is "less" of a man if he doesn't.

We'd do well as a society if we stop tying men's worth to how much money they make, and what sort of job they have, especially relative to women. We should also not make being a stay-at-home-dad or husband be a bad thing, or be related to "manliness."

These are problems that guys face for sure, and I am actually really sympathetic to men in this regard. I do think society's pressure for men to be the breadwinner, the BIGGEST breadwinner, or to even be THE breadwinner at all, is an issue that causes a lot of insecurity. It shouldn't.

That being said, not sure what can be done about it except for more men to say, fuck it, I have worth / I'm not any less of a person even if I don't make more money than my wife, or if I'm less educated than her.

(We could also slowly do away with the idea that a man that wants to teach elementary school might be a pedo or creeper. Not sure how prevalent that idea is, but I do think there's definitely discrimination when it comes to male child-carers than female ones, especially at a younger age.)

Hypergamy is definitely a tough thing to tackle because if you want to have kids, it is much easier to do so if the guy is the primary earner in the family. Pregnancy is neither easy nor simple, and having a stable partner with a stable income flow makes it vastly less complicated, especially with multiples. And this seems to also reflect in the part time work preference we see in survey after survey, regardless of country. Men and women have very different incentives.

The "omg pedo" thing is a huge passive deterrent to males entering educational fields at the elementary level. Anecdotaly, I didn't see a young male teacher while growing up until middle school.

 

[Chococat]

To get men into these positions, eliminating the predator stereotype people have when seeing men with children is a pretty necessary thing.

I agree. Men have to be willing to enter the field in order to challenge the stereotype in order for change to happen. Change isn't easy.

I agree with you almost 100%, but I have a problem with the patrachary statement. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
And if you prefer to read: http://agensev.de/agens-meint/end-of-gender

In short: Norway is number one country in gender quality, but most women still prefer to go to work in typical female jobs, more than in 'unequal' countries even. It seems that the more freedom a women and men has, the higher are the changes s/he will choose a job that fits their natural preferences and men choose typical male jobs, while women choose typical female jobs. No patriarchy involved.

Well, I am talking of experience in the USA, not Norway. I wish we could be more like Norway in respects to gender perceptions. Despite advancing laws, the patriarchy mindset that effect how people interact social has not been eliminated in this western country.

Removing that mindset doesn't mean that women and men will enter all fields in equal numbers. The goal is to eliminate the discrimination that both gender encounter when entering traditional "opposite gendered" work. There is nothing wrong with either sex having work preferences. The patriarchy problem I'm referring to is when either gender is social discriminated against for wanting to enter X line of work.

Males in America are discriminated against if they want to enter children's education. Or if they are stay at home dads. Or want to take time off for the birth of their children. Or if they want standard hours in order to be with their families (socially encourage salary or overtime positions). Or their wife makes more than they do. Or single dads raising kids. Feminism doesn't frown upon those men. But patriarchy does. That wrong.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Let's just be single it's a lot less stressful. I'm doing my part.

 

[MaschinenZimmer]

Removing that mindset doesn't mean that women and men will enter all fields in equal numbers. The goal is to eliminate the discrimination that both gender encounter when entering traditional "opposite gendered" work. There is nothing wrong with either sex having work preferences. The patriarchy problem I'm referring to is when either gender is social discriminated against for wanting to enter X line of work.

Yes, absolutely. Currently we are running a project here in Germany where pupils are visiting typical "man jobs" and "women jobs". They call it girl's day (English link) and boy's day (sorry, no English link for that one). The target is to make both genders interested in workplaces that are traditionally not linked to their own gender. Interesting tho, I didn't know the idea for that came from South Africa.

I think it's a good idea and a nice start.

 

[Kotetsu534]

Excellent article; diabolical thread. I knew as soon as the Sommers link was made that things would go downhill, but I didn't think it would be that bad.

The article was well researched and brought together a lot of well known statistics across employment, education and marriage/parenting to show just how badly things have deteriorated for men towards the lower end of the economic spectrum in the last 30-40 years. I think the root of the problem is fundamentally economic - men simply cannot earn, en masse, wages which support families without good degrees (yes, well paid skilled trades exist; no, millions of male workers can't all do them, especially if they're clustered in poorer areas). And the likelihood is that things will get worse - there will be proportionately more service sector work in 20 years time, especially in caring, and proportionately less traditionally male work (e.g. truck drivers). Since men are expected to be providers in long-term relationships, men in the lower classes have significantly less success in them than those in the professional classes. Women in the lower classes, in lieu of men who can provide for them and their offspring, are increasingly dependent on the state to provide resources.

I expect these trends will get worse, and, partly as a result, the social classes will stratify further (fancy way of saying social mobility will decline). I'm sure there will be other consequences, but I'll leave it to the sociologists and civil servants to predict them.

 

[Diablos]

I would really hope that wasn't what you took away from the article.

Obviously it isn't that simple, but women are kicking ass in the workplace.

As for what to do about paid time off and whatnot... if we actually focused on workers' rights like we used to, you could see a lot of things change for the better. I don't know why people making less than 50K a year don't want to unionize. I don't care if you work at McDonalds, an office, a lab, or the zoo.

 

[Shake Appeal]

This thread seems to be functioning excellently as a mechanism for detecting the confused anti-feminist thinkers among us.

 

[Abinash117]

After reading the article a bit and reading the thread; the issue seems generational, an economic inequality issue, society shifting towards technological and other types of collars that aren't blue, and a gender role issue all rolled into one.

It seems some men that believe in "women should stay at home" mentality and isn't a high income worker mentality is being left in the dust; some of it not necessarily their own doing, but a part of it is.One which would be not wanting to do jobs that is seen as or can be seen as a "women's job" . I really think those guys( which it seems like older men ) just need to deal and adapt to the current changes, because it most likely will not get any better for them otherwise. A few options would be just deal with the fact that the woman is the breadwinner and try to find a well paying job, and take care of the kids or study well enough to get a good job. But at the latter seems easier said then done, as they aren't easy ways for low income people to just suddenly raise up to a higher class. I guess that where the income equality issue comes in.


Perhaps the men should also just come to understand that just because it seems like a "woman's job" doesn't mean you should not do it, especially if you don't have enough money. Certainly, thinking in terms ingrained gender roles and gender stereotypes like that is very disadvantageous, and isn't helpful for no one at this time. Being a stay at home shouldn't be seen as unmanly, especially if some look at it a different way. Being there to help your kid grow into a reasonable adult and installing values while you being physically there at most times, isn't something I doubt would be considered unmanly if framed that way. Additionally, you can still work around the house, including manual labor type of work( not just cooking and cleaning).

The whole "It's the feminization of the education system!" just seems like just bunch of bullshit that losers would say, people mainly blaming problems on others and not solving anything. Ironically, in my opinion, that seems like something a 'man' wouldn't do, but a pussy or a lazy and/or privileged coward. Even if it is true crying about isn't going to change anything.

 

[cyclonekruse]

Society of today is still massively unjust toward women, and men are largely to blame for that. You don't even need to mention past injustices, despite the fact that women of today are still suffering from the reverberations of past generations as well.

Here's where you and I probably disagree the most. Do I think there are injustices toward women today? Sure. But, by and large, I don't think I'd describe them as "massive." Nor do I blame "men" so much as just "society." So, I'm going to make a request that you will almost certainly be indignant about. Show me these massive inequalities that exist for everyday American women. For my part, I'll explain why I don't think the benefit of being a man is so "massive."

Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crimes. (Criminal Victimization, 2013 - Bureau of Justice Statistics (PDF).
Men are more likely to go to and die in wartime conflict (though women may make up more "indirect" victims of war). (Armed Conflict Deaths Disaggregated by Gender - PRIO) (PDF)
Men are more likely to die on the job. (Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Charts 1992-2007 - Bureau of Labor Statistics) (PDF)
Men are also more likely to be nonfatally injured at work. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Men "successfully" commit suicide more often (though women attempt it more often). (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention)
Men are more likely to have drug or alcohol addiction (though the gap is narrowing). (NYTimes) (National Library of Medicine)
Men are falling behind in education. (See OP's article)
Men are more likely to be incarcerated (for the same crime, even) and are given longer sentences. (UTEP)
Women can vote and in fact exercise that right more often than men. (Center for American Women and Politics) (PDF)
Women seem to control the majority of household spending. (Wall Street Journal (blog, so take it with a grain of salt))
Women are about half the work force, perhaps even the majority. (NYTimes)
The gender pay gap is not nearly as stark as it used to be.(Pew Research Center)

And to top it all off, it's often hard for men to be recognized as victims. Male victims of rape or domestic violence have it the worst as far as that goes. Even here of GAF, male problems are downplayed. How many times have you read something sarcastic to the effect of "Oh, those POOR, OPPRESSED men."? Granted, sometimes it's deserved. But not always. Adding to the mix is the toxic idea that "real" men tough out their problems. So our very characterization of masculinity is just exacerbating the problem.

Now, I will say that men are definitely overrepresented in high-power positions (in business and political office). But that doesn't mean "men" have most of the power exactly. If you're an upper-class male, you have lots of power. Lower-class males, not so much. In fact, the upper class is probably busy keeping you out of power, if you're lower class, though that's not a gender-specific problem.

I do want to be clear that none of this suggests that women have it easy or that they lack more than their fair share of problems. I just don't think characterizing the benefit of maleness as "massive" is borne out given the above. But it's very possible my own bias is blinding me. So I look forward to your response.

 

[RedSwirl]

I'm guessing this is pretty much what my brother and his wife figured out.

He's married to a biologist but failed to break into the film industry after college. I don't know what he does with his time every day other than watching movies and taking care of their two kids. He recently got a part-time job to help pay for getting them into a better school. I've had other family members run into serious issues regarding employment and finding mates and whatnot. I'm starting to think the women in my generation of the family are doing much better than the men.

I wonder if we'll start to reach a point where more western countries end up like Japan in terms of birthrates because of this.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Men definitely do, however, based on my personal experiences, men are much more willing to settle. Again, based on my personal experience, I don't think that a lot of women are willing to settle until they are either old, or they have fatherless children. And again, there is nothing wrong with that.

Jesus Christ man. Are you even reading your own posts?

You sound like you need some help dude.

 

[Chococat]

Women can vote and in fact exercise that right more often than men. (Center for American Women and Politics

I don't think you really appreciate history of what it has take for women to get were they are today. Women vote more than men? Of course they do seeing that the first women who could vote was in modern timeswas in New Zealand 1893. In the USA it was 1920, and parts of Europe as late as the1940's. African countries as late as 1970's, and parts of the Middle East are just now getting limited voting in the 2000 (Saudi Arabia is suppose to start in 2015). Before that, only small pockets where women could vote existed.

If men* as a group are failing to use the tool they have had available to them for centuries, that on them. It's not women fault that the men unappreciated the privilege that many have had for thousands of years compared to a mere 120. (*Obvious men who were/are subject to racist/classiest rules have as much right to complain as women).

 

[cyclonekruse]

I don't think you really appreciate history of what it has take for women to get were they are today. Women vote more than men? Of course they do seeing that the first women who could vote was in modern timeswas in New Zealand 1893. In the USA it was 1920, and parts of Europe as late as the1940's. African countries as late as 1970's, and parts of the Middle East are just now getting limited voting in the 2000 (Saudi Arabia is suppose to start in 2015). Before that, only small pockets where women could vote existed.

If men* as a group are failing to use the tool they have had available to them for centuries, that on them. It's not women fault that the men unappreciated the privilege that many have had for thousands of years compared to a mere 120. (*Obvious men who were/are subject to racist/classiest rules have as much right to complain as women).

Like Amir0x, you're conflating women throughout history with women today. Most women today (in the U.S. at least) have had the right to vote their entire lives. They've never known a time when they couldn't vote.

And, in all fairness, most men (even white men) did not have the right to vote in this country (or throughout history for that matter). In the U.S., originally only landowners could vote. Eventually that changed but it wasn't until about the Civil War when most non landed white men could vote. So it's not as long as you might think. Added to that, more men are being disenfranchised nowadays than women (thanks to higher incarceration rates).

Though I'm not saying it's bad by any means that women are voting as much as they do. On the contrary, it's great and more men need to vote. But as it stands women have more power as a potential voting bloc than men in this country since they vote in greater numbers.

 

[cyclonekruse]

...is something preventing men from voting......................................???????

Some men, especially minorities? Yes. Like I said, felonies. Which men are more likely to be convicted of.

Outside that, not really. Perhaps cultural norms that push women to be more socially and politically active? The point I was making in my post is that as far as voting goes, women are on equal if not better footing then men.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

For my part, I'll explain why I don't think the benefit of being a man is so "massive" ... <snip>

You even left out homelessness, where some data suggests 90% of homeless are male.

 

[Stinkles]

There is absolutely no problem with it at all. I am saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too. In other words, don't complain about the lack of men if you aren't going to bother responding to the majority of them.

Me, I'm sorta heinous. If my photo doesn't work, maybe my bio will, if neither works, maybe the combo will. If they don't, maybe real life contact is best. If that doesn't work then maybe, just maybe, I'm super unappealing and I should suck it up instead of blaming more than 50% of people on earth, who incidentally have no legal or moral obligation to have sex with a mysoginist.


Love is not an inalienable right.

 

[IISANDERII]

I worked a bit in the trades. The widespread use of the imperial system was nearly as disgusting and ignorant as the misogyny, racism and homophobia.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

smh at some people that still can't accept feminism. It's as simple as equality for women.

The good aspects of feminism, yeah. But there are plenty of bigoted and selfish feminists out there too, let's not kid ourselves.

Thankfully the bulk of those sort are invisible in the media so their influence on the main segments of the movement are miniscule.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

The education system, especially the universities, are now a hostile place for men. It's been for a while which is why men are avoiding it and checking out. I know I wouldn't go now, though I'd just do everything as possible online.

It's long, but watch & listen to Christina Sommers @ Hillsdale College from a couple days ago.
Victims, Victims Everywhere: Trigger Warnings, Liberty, and the Academy

 

[Chococat]

Like Amir0x, you're conflating women throughout history with women today. Most women today (in the U.S. at least) have had the right to vote their entire lives. They've never known a time when they couldn't vote..w.

If you don't care about women as a whole, then your not worth talking to. People outside of the USA count. You can't ignore them just because they don't fit your narrative. There are women alive today that have NEVER voted.

 

[entremet]

I think there are bigger issues at play here, such as the US moving from a manufacturing economy to a service one.

Another is the fact many long term manufacturing and reliable government jobs that have a strong patrilineal tendency, have been cut in various municipalities.

I had friends that had up to great grandfathers following a certain trade or profession, only to switch due to the changing world and lack of demand.

I think the Wire season 2 illustrates this very well with the longshoremen arc.

Education is the solution here nationally, but we would rather spend money on useless wars and prisons--which further hurts minority men.

 

[Syph Medwes]

Utter nonsense created by someone incapable of taking responsibility for their own failings.

oh the irony
(not talking about you btw)

 

[ChouGoku]

I think there are bigger issues at play here, such as the US moving from a manufacturing economy to a service one.

Moving? Over 80% of jobs in the U.S. are service ones.http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm
But don't worry females beginning to dominate Service industries, your reign will be limited as your successors are basically right around the corner

 

[Brainfreeze]

If you don't care about women as a whole, then your not worth talking to. People outside of the USA count. You can't ignore them just because they don't fit your narrative. There are women alive today that have NEVER voted.

Yeesh, stuff like this is why I'm always so scared to post in these threads and usually end up deleting my big long write-ups; people get incredibly emotional and it starts to get personal. This thread is scary.

(S)He never said those women didn't matter, (s)he's just talking (I presume) about what (s)he knows best, which is the US. That's what this topic is about, remember? US and similar countries and how technological and social advancements are effecting gender dynamics there? Social movements like feminism are so vast and complicated it's okay to break it down and discuss specific pieces of it at times. (S)He's not a bad person for that.

 

[Chichikov]

The good aspects of feminism, yeah. But there are plenty of bigoted and selfish feminists out there too, let's not kid ourselves.

Thankfully the bulk of those sort are invisible in the media so their influence on the main segments of the movement are miniscule.

The fact that there are feminists who are also selfish and bigoted is not an aspect of feminism.