• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men are falling behind in our society.

Again, just my opinion, but modern schooling seems to be designed more for women than men.
So even with that included, sitting in school listening to lectures is much less appealing to guys, than getting your hands dirty, in the middle of an engineering design.

I don't know if this is a male/female thing or not, but I do agree that modern schooling is based too much around students sitting in chairs listening to someone talk and not students learning by doing things themselves. I definitely learn by doing it myself and then have somebody tell me the things I'm doing wrong rather than be given a list of how to do something that I'm supposed to follow like a checklist.

One reason why I like to learn by doing is because learning a skill in a classroom is much, much different than applying a skill at a job. So I'd rather not be held back by the expectations of the classroom.

In fact, I read an article a few years ago where scientists lamented that children weren't being given chemistry kits nowadays where they could play around with chemicals and learn how they could be used themselves.
 
Those aren't "women's fields" though. Anyone can be a nurse, and thus get the grant. Could it also be that the fields of primary education and nursing are subsidized because they are vocations that are needed?

Feminism works both ways. Men should be accepted as nurses just as women should be accepted as doctors, if it's really what said man or woman want to do with their lives.

Outside of the social roles, is there any other reason why you think these education programs are more beneficial to women?

I don't mean "women's fields" as in, that's women's work (a derogatory comment).
I mean it as, fields women typically choose to work in.

They are needed, but I remember reading something recently, that a lobby group (maybe a women's lib group, I don't remember exactly) wanted this subsidized to benefit women.
I could be wrong, my memory is hazy at the moment.
 
I don't know if this is a male/female thing or not, but I do agree that modern schooling is based too much around students sitting in chairs listening to someone talk and not students learning by doing things themselves. I definitely learn by doing it myself and then have somebody tell me the things I'm doing wrong rather than be given a list of how to do something that I'm supposed to follow like a checklist.

One reason why I like to learn by doing is because learning a skill in a classroom is much, much different than applying a skill at a job. So I'd rather not be held back by the expectations of the classroom.

Same here, It drives me nuts to have to sit for an hour and a half, listening to lectures.
Let me try it with my own hands or work independently, with looser rules.

In fact, I read an article a few years ago where scientists lamented that children weren't being given chemistry kits nowadays where they could play around with chemicals and learn how they could be used themselves.

Can't help but agree totally.
The Mr.Wizard chemistry set sold ages ago, would get you arrested in modern days, because many of the regents are illegal, without a need based permit.
 
Yes: true (ignoring the feminization thing because that's not realy the issue at all being discussed - we're discussing innovation and change on a business-scale)

Considering the extreme danger and stress of these jobs you mentioned - why is this a bad thing?

At some point people will have to realize that these fields are no longer lucritive - we've moved on and advanced . . . people have to move on and advance too or else they'll only fall further away.

My view: my sons - even my oldest with his disabilities - shouldn't have to shovel **** to put food in his belly when they're 30. . .education, new ideas, and the desire to change and stay ahead of the game is what keeps successful people (men or women) in the loop.

A ****-shoveler as I so crudely put it: in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance this person was called a Mucker - and climbed into the city's poor functioning version of a cess pit to literally shovel it out so it wouldnt' back up into the streets. . .See: innovation made the mucker obsolete, at least for my town, and thank heavens for that. Innovation is the only way to bring an end to such outdated, dangerous and unhealthy practices.

Sadly this is the attitude that many Americans now have, looking down on hard work and hard working people. You still use all the things produced by these working men with their dangerous jobs but you seem to think Americans are too good to do this kind of work and we should sub contract it to 3rd world countries. I deplore this "we are to good to do it" way of thinking and I don't think a MAN should ever be a secretary either, unless he's gay that is, then it's OK. LOL
 
Clearly women should be running everything and doing all the work. I'll lounge about in the sun and only be called upon to breed. Lions are WAY smarter than humans.

On a more serious note, biologically, the default human being is female. Every embryo starts as female. Women have all sorts of well rounded skills, while men are basically the specialized violence version. We're basically for fighting. A lot of our socialization is centered around it. How do men bond with each other? We bond over a common hardship. Building stuff together, fishing together, fighting together. We bond over sporting events, which are exactly 100% essentially simulated fighting.

I think it's far less that society is re-centering around women. It's more that men are becoming unnecessary. Or at least a lot of our old roles are. We don't need to belligerently dominate everything in sight. We don't need to compete over resources as much. Modern society just isn't as much of a competition. There's room for more winners. In the modern age, teamwork is more important than shutting out the competition.

Somehow I do not buy the argument all human embryos start out as female. It most likely is the reproductive system is the last to develop in the fetus. The gender was established at conception, not the diet during gestation. Think that idea comes from watching to many nature studies about bees and a death of a queen.

Kind of neat though how humans will use other animals as role models in societal evolution. Hive colonialism with civic pride packs of social identities pitting predatory and prey behavior patterns in lead follow management positions.

Why is everything called a reality within a real moment? Why are human genders of male and female lifetimes called characters of reality serving huumanity. Ever since I heard "The world is but a stage" quote from some playwriter centuries ago I never could accept humanity completely as there is something missing about being human in every aspect of social engineering a society's identity segregating the population of, you guessed it, male and female results each generation.

While isn't that constant a cornerstone to every ideology? The same about this moment of now all lifetimes were or are present in by the actions of contracting results expanding the details functioning the same way. Education teaches people to ignore it in favor of honoring a symbolic metaphor validated by an "if" theory or spiritual "might be" an afterlife to each sole existing lifetime. Ancestry is defined by nationality, or adapted results of physical appearances.

I have observed psychological manipulation applied to me and others in the functions of social order, and somewhere in my childhood "Treat others how you would want to be treated stuck in my governance to being civil even though I cannot accept becoming civilized.

It is like the term self evident, then universal constants, followed by nobody knows everything. Define everything needed to be known to be able to understand the self evident means now is always here to each lifetime each generation ancestry has overlapping generations living in the same instant nothing here remains as concieved?

There are no physical secrets in a self contained existence. Just denial that it is here to make believe it is out there somewhere else in time. Time waits for no body. Reason is, the only place time physically exists is this moment universally being balanced now. How that encompasses every reality that socialized human lifetimes into humanity's reality on stage now.

Question has always been, give me liberty or take the liberty away by issuing character's rights arguments symbolism is better than substance understood completely. Works for those in charge writing the rule of law that keeps them in power of persuading the next generation to play their assigned roles in societal evolution.

The Blood line and why Horse racing is the sport of Kings. Rule genetic migration within the eternity of now's results. Such evil genius as words leave no physical trace evidence to the actions of those directed by them.
 
Sadly this is the attitude that many Americans now have, looking down on hard work and hard working people. You still use all the things produced by these working men with their dangerous jobs but you seem to think Americans are too good to do this kind of work and we should sub contract it to 3rd world countries. I deplore this "we are to good to do it" way of thinking and I don't think a MAN should ever be a secretary either, unless he's gay that is, then it's OK. LOL

I fully support advancing technology to take the place of 50 men - and I further support continuing such advancements so no men in the mines or shafts are needed at all. I also support paying those who must work the job a higher sum for their knowledge, skills and labor with a cushion of benefits and comforts - such things aren't 100% automated yet.

So - no - obviously I don't believe it's an 'American only' thing . . . I don't support 3rd world slave-labor for such goods, either . . . I think it's disgusting that our country encourages such practices overseas.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I do not buy the argument all human embryos start out as female. It most likely is the reproductive system is the last to develop in the fetus. The gender was established at conception, not the diet during gestation. Think that idea comes from watching to many nature studies about bees and a death of a queen.

Humans do all start out female, at least physically (externally), and reproductive development progresses fairly early, otherwise, we couldn't identify males and females via sonogram early in pregnancy. That's really neither here nor there, I suppose, and there are likely some anomalies that do happen in the process of sexual development which can account for some confusion or identity questions later in life.
 
Last edited:
I fully support advancing technology to take the place of 50 men - and I further support continuing such advancements so no men in the mines or shafts are needed at all. I also support paying those who must work the job a higher sum for their knowledge, skills and labor with a cushion of benefits and comforts - such things aren't 100% automated yet.

So - no - obviously I don't believe it's an 'American only' thing . . . I don't support 3rd world slave-labor for such goods, either . . . I think it's disgusting that our country encourages such practices overseas.
Ok, that's fine.... so long as we can place those 50 men in other jobs and can still provide for their family. Where are they going to be placed? perhaps in currently female dominated jobs, so are you willing for 25 women to be let go for 25 men to be re located? That would be true equality.
 
Just thought I would like to add... thousands of skyscrapers in hundreds of big cities, millions of homes and apartments, roads, bridges.... They still have to be built and maintained. Someone has to do it...
 
I fully support advancing technology to take the place of 50 men - and I further support continuing such advancements so no men in the mines or shafts are needed at all. I also support paying those who must work the job a higher sum for their knowledge, skills and labor with a cushion of benefits and comforts - such things aren't 100% automated yet.

So - no - obviously I don't believe it's an 'American only' thing . . . I don't support 3rd world slave-labor for such goods, either . . . I think it's disgusting that our country encourages such practices overseas.

Some jobs are inherently dangerous and you will never entirely take men out of the equation and believe it or not some men actually enjoy this kind of work. All in all though your response is acceptable, your off the hook mam. Now I have to go do some hard dangerous work as in cutting down trees and I will enjoy it too!
 
Some jobs are inherently dangerous and you will never entirely take men out of the equation and believe it or not some men actually enjoy this kind of work. All in all though your response is acceptable, your off the hook mam. Now I have to go do some hard dangerous work as in cutting down trees and I will enjoy it too!

LOL - well it's true: some people enjoy it . . . and I don't think we'll be 100% fully automated ot the point of not needing people to do the job.

But I don't believe that anyone should *have* to - as an 'only' option. If they want to: great. But everyone should have choices and options for employment to suit their interests and abilities - not just 'it's my only option'

I know I'm blowing unrealistic smoke around - but that's my ideal - people finding satisfying employment.
 
I disagree.
Having separate learning environments, that are engaging for each gender may be better, than trying to cram a one size fits most approach.

Again, I don't think it works that way any more. There is a lot of varity.
 
So - what lessons are there to be learned by these 'failing men' (as the article puts it) that the 'succeeding men' can teach them? What can these 'failing men' learn?

What it seems to me is that gender is no longer the standard for success like it use to be (you know - how many times have we heard 'life is great *if you're a man*' or 'it's easy to find a job if you're a man*' and so on?) - instead: the keys to success seem to be what you do with your time, knowledge and abilities. . . rather gender neutral.
 
Last edited:
Women are more employed RIGHT NOW...because companies are cutting back payrolls, and traditionally, women make less than their male counterparts.
 
Women are more employed RIGHT NOW...because companies are cutting back payrolls, and traditionally, women make less than their male counterparts.

Best guess? There aer so many things you're missing if that's all you have to present.
 
Unfortunately, I've been seeing a gradual disdain for men in our society over the past 30 or more years. It's very common to see men portrayed as nothing but bumbling idiots on television entertainment shows and commercials, especially middle-aged white men. I think it's unfortunate, but it's taking its toll in our culture imo. Men were traditionally viewed as strong, independent, and driven, once upon a time. They are increasingly being viewed as other than those traits, and I suspect that so many single-parent households, with women raising sons without a strong father figure, is reinforcing that image.

i'm not so sure that the old "strong, independent and and driven" were necessarily all that true. i think some was a stereotype and a product of the times. now, women work equally beside men, and make as much money as men (or thay should). since women are fully capable of taking care of themselves, they don't HAVE to look to the man to be always strong and independent and driven, so in sense men have a little more freedom to be themselves.

it is true that men and women learn differently, and i think segregated classes would help quite a bit for the boys.
 
So - what lessons are there to be learned by these 'failing men' (as the article puts it) that the 'succeeding men' can teach them? What can these 'failing men' learn?

What it seems to me is that gender is no longer the standard for success like it use to be (you know - how many times have we heard 'life is great *if you're a man*' or 'it's easy to find a job if you're a man*' and so on?) - instead: the keys to success seem to be what you do with your time, knowledge and abilities. . . rather gender neutral.

No it's not that simple.

The state has replaced the role of men, in some circumstances.
It's nearly impossible to compete with the state.
 
Men are not falling behind. Women are simply catching up now that they aren't shackled with the burdens of discrimination.
 
Yeah same with the blacks catching up...
 
So - what lessons are there to be learned by these 'failing men' (as the article puts it) that the 'succeeding men' can teach them? What can these 'failing men' learn?

What it seems to me is that gender is no longer the standard for success like it use to be (you know - how many times have we heard 'life is great *if you're a man*' or 'it's easy to find a job if you're a man*' and so on?) - instead: the keys to success seem to be what you do with your time, knowledge and abilities. . . rather gender neutral.

I will say this, more women are in college than ever before. I think the last stat I saw said women make up about 60% of the college population. They were becomeing a majority in med school. And still, they made less than male counterparts. How can that be? What would the reasonable explanation be?
 
I will say this, more women are in college than ever before. I think the last stat I saw said women make up about 60% of the college population. They were becomeing a majority in med school. And still, they made less than male counterparts. How can that be? What would the reasonable explanation be?

That women are more apt to spend more time with issues regarding raising children and postpone career for pregnancy.
 
That women are more apt to spend more time with issues regarding raising children and postpone career for pregnancy.

Not as so as it once was, but this involves those who don't. Who are career minded, and still lag behind.
 
Not as so as it once was, but this involves those who don't. Who are career minded, and still lag behind.

I see no reason to believe that women who are only focused on career do less well than men only focused on career. The studies regarding pay don't control for that and only take gender into consideration.
 
I will say this, more women are in college than ever before. I think the last stat I saw said women make up about 60% of the college population. They were becomeing a majority in med school. And still, they made less than male counterparts. How can that be? What would the reasonable explanation be?

Well that's the fault of statistical analysis - it doesn't ring true for every field and it doesn't account for other factors: it just summarizes and reports (sort of)

I don't think you'll find *every* single female doctor being paid less than *every* single male doctor - what you might find are the fields that men/women go into: there are numerous ways to 'be' a doctor: family practitioner, surgeon (which breaks down into specialties), private practice (nonsurgical), and group practice (where multiple doctors join together rather than a sole proprietorship) and maxiliofacial . . . and on and on and on.

See: statistics don't break it down - nor do they take into account region, years on the job.

I think - for those statistics to be more reliable - they must be much more detailed to the umph and exhausting degree. Right now: I don't think ti tells us anything but furthers false assumptions.
 
Best guess? There aer so many things you're missing if that's all you have to present.

Oh, I saw the lead up debate about education, and how boys and girls learn differently, and how girls are supposedly better at certain tasks, and boys are supposedly better at certain other tasks.


It's all bull****. What matters the most, more than anything else, is personal drive, and discipline. There is no amount of state meddling, or education reform, or anything else, that is ever going to change this, or even slightly alter it in any way. Some people are going to succeed, male or female, and the reason why...is going to be personal drive, and discipline.

So, I chose to address the more immediate, in our face numbers...that, right now, more women are employed than men, and more women are BEING employed in higher positions, than men. Sure, some of this is due to maybe having more elligible women than men for those positions. But a lot of it, when it came to layoffs, in large companies, anyway, had to do with numbers...and if Sally does the same work for 10K a year less than Frank...who you gonna keep? A lot of this is done by HR depts who have never even set foot inside of the office their layoffs would affect.
 
Back
Top Bottom