• 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.

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
31,552
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Women are more employed RIGHT NOW...because companies are cutting back payrolls, and traditionally, women make less than their male counterparts.

I tend to suspect that it's more likely because we have become a heavily service-based economy, and women tend to dominate in the service industry fields.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.

Well your little one-liner screams that you don't understand many things that have happened.

1) what happened o the economy
2) why
3) how failing and struggling businesses responded
4) what made them fail or struggle to begin with
5) the sectors that were affected
6) how men and women are situatuated differently in regard to the effect the collapse(s) have had on them
7) education and how it varies (everthing from learning patterns to degree choices)

and so on.

You actually opted for the one thing that has no bearing on this at all: the false notion that women are paid less and thus were the ones kept around because it saved money. Reality: When some companies have pancaked it has been to decrease surpurfluous numbers and restructure the entire bsuiness structure to become more streamline and fluid. . . which didn't just affect the 'little guy on the bottom' - it affected managers, supervisors and even CEOs and executives . . . men and women alike and the higher up you go - the more men were affected in many sectors of employment.

Pay? Most companies reduced overall numbers and reworked their business structure which put a heavier workload on the remaining staff - and thus those staff actually, on average, received and increase in pay or benefits. . . because the ywere doing more work. Now - they weren't paid as much as two were paid before . . . but on average it was an increase. Now - if your opinion was true: this wouldn't have happened.

and on and on . . . i could rattle on all night and pick your statement apart: I think you get the point: there's far more to what happend and how businesses responded that 'boys vs girls'
 

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
26,293
Reaction score
12,716
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well your little one-liner screams that you don't understand many things that have happened.
No, it simply addresses the here and now.

1) what happened o the economy
It took a nose dive.
Because we were, and continue, to run on debt, which is to say, future earnings...and the biggest accumulator of debt in the US is the housing industry...this many other industries were involved, under the guise of securities, which is just double speak, because they were anything but secure, but no one knew, because the rating agencies gave them all clean bills of health, allowing the banks, who KNEW they were bad, to pass them along. And when one card fell, it started a chain reaction that brought down the house. More or less.
3) how failing and struggling businesses responded
By continuing to struggle and fail, or by petitioning uncle sam for a big sweaty wad of money. The former made cutbacks on payroll and other expenses, while the latter got nice bonuses.
4) what made them fail or struggle to begin with
Because when people started foreclosing on houses they couldn't afford, those "securities" became toxic, over night, wherein money "vanished" because it was never there to begin with, which hurt the stock market, which hurt businesses, which causes layoffs, which caused more foreclosures, which hurt more and more and more. Oh, and some failed and struggle because they were too big for their own good...but it's OK, they got a bail out.
5) the sectors that were affected
Just about everywhere.
6) how men and women are situated differently in regard to the effect the collapse(s) have had on them
Statistically, men get paid more than women counterparts, ergo, they are a higher expense. Now, included in this is the fact that there are more senior management and CEOs that are male than female, which would cause you think my brief assessment about more women employed is wrong...senior management and CEOs make up a very small minority of the work force. Mid managers and below make up the majority, which is what I am talking about...majorities.
7) education and how it varies (everthing from learning patterns to degree choices)
Fine. More women go into nursing than men, and since there are more nurses than doctors, THAT'S why there are more women employed than men. But I don't care about any one specific field, I care about the picture as a whole.

and so on.
And so forth.
You actually opted for the one thing that has no bearing on this at all: the false notion that women are paid less and thus were the ones kept around because it saved money.
Pay Equity
Male
Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME
A 5 second google search yielded contradictory information to what you assert here.
Reality: When some companies have pancaked it has been to decrease surpurfluous numbers and restructure the entire bsuiness structure to become more streamline and fluid. . . which didn't just affect the 'little guy on the bottom' - it affected managers, supervisors and even CEOs and executives . . . men and women alike and the higher up you go - the more men were affected in many sectors of employment.
And these were the people who's pay was most closely scrutinized. So, thanks for backing me up, here.

Pay? Most companies reduced overall numbers and reworked their business structure which put a heavier workload on the remaining staff - and thus those staff actually, on average, received and increase in pay or benefits. . . because the ywere doing more work. Now - they weren't paid as much as two were paid before . . . but on average it was an increase. Now - if your opinion was true: this wouldn't have happened.
Those staff did not get raises, they got more hours. And if they were salaried, they got nothing...MAYBE another grand on the bonus, that year. Ask me how I know. If my opinion were true, this still would have happened. I'm wondering what the logic was that led you to this conclusion? It's simply...you restructure to cut out all shrink, or waste, pinch pennies, and cut some corners. You look at who you need, and who you don't. If you are getting the same amount of work from both employee A and employee B, but employee B makes 10% more, employee B is the one you're gonna cut, if you can afford to lose them. It ain't quantum physics.

and on and on . . . i could rattle on all night and pick your statement apart: I think you get the point: there's far more to what happend and how businesses responded that 'boys vs girls'
I never said it was boys vs girls. I merely offered ONE reason why female employment is higher now, than male, while less females were laid off than their male counterparts, and why MORE females are being rehired. And I'll repeat, from the previous post, just to be thorough, that on the rehire subject, or just hiring in general...skill sets and qualification play the most important role...BUT, pay is there as well. As an employer, I'm always going to hire the best, cheapest person I can find. And typically, depending on the area of business...that's women. Now, if you want to go into the reasons WHY women make less money, that's an entirely different thread, and could go on and on and on.

Next time, before you post, don't make assumptions.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
to OP: I would have to agree with you a little on this. Why as a society would we use men as nothing more for reproduction or to keep a women company. I mean the Amazon's FAILED for a reason. Women lack the self discipline that men have to get things done, no matter how gross, how un-comfortable, un-cool. Men take more risks for success, while women "seem" to only take risks if they are under the influence or loose. Men need to show dominance, this is mine "don't touch." While women are more passive aggressive, would much rather talk about doing something than actually doing it. Also what I hate about my generation of Women, is that they feel entitled to everything. I rarely ever meet a women my own age that is down to earth, most seem to think they are everything (and in their infinite wisdom, that they talk to me to acknowledge I exist). Some are just plain jealous that I accomplished more in my life by age 14, that they have their entire life.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not as so as it once was, but this involves those who don't. Who are career minded, and still lag behind.

Because with their fickle nature, there is the chance that "Career Girl" turns into "Housewife and Mother to Be" almost overnight. How many guys do you know who fall in love, quit their jobs, and become house-husbands? I don't know too many. However, I do know more than a few career-minded ladies who have done exactly that.... They fall in love with Mr. Perfect and suddenly decide that he's more interesting than that pesky career.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because with their fickle nature, there is the chance that "Career Girl" turns into "Housewife and Mother to Be" almost overnight. How many guys do you know who fall in love, quit their jobs, and become house-husbands? I don't know too many. However, I do know more than a few career-minded ladies who have done exactly that.... They fall in love with Mr. Perfect and suddenly decide that he's more interesting than that pesky career.

A friend of mine quit his job to stay home when they had a baby because her job had insurance. That lasted about 6 months until he was going bonkers. Men are not made for that role.
 

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A friend of mine quit his job to stay home when they had a baby because her job had insurance. That lasted about 6 months until he was going bonkers. Men are not made for that role.

As if women who stay at home don't go bonkers.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As if women who stay at home don't go bonkers.


Women are nurturers as a rule, they thrive on holding a baby. Men are hunters by nature, they thrive on leaving the domicile to provide the food for the woman and the baby. Yes men and women really are different, this whole gender neutral thing is pure crap.
 

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Women are nurturers as a rule, they thrive on holding a baby. Men are hunters by nature, they thrive on leaving the domicile to provide the food for the woman and the baby. Yes men and women really are different, this whole gender neutral thing is pure crap.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, use your sexism to your advantage if it gets you out of the house. Nobody else cares.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Women are nurturers as a rule, they thrive on holding a baby. Men are hunters by nature, they thrive on leaving the domicile to provide the food for the woman and the baby. Yes men and women really are different, this whole gender neutral thing is pure crap.

Ironically: we talked about this idea in anthropology class yesterday. We were dividing this view up from two views: idealism (which centers aroudn beliefs and feelings a culture might have regarding something) and materialism (which focuses on the practical physical effects and reasons for holding views in society)

to learn about these things we're learning about an island in Micronesia called Pulop - traditional man/woman distribution there in regard to the classic beliefs based on gender. . . but without negativity - it's just 'practical this way'

in a materialistic view: why do men hunt and get in boats to fish? Why do women stay on the island and farm the taro (foodsource)?

For one: the woman have interruptable work - the taro fields are close to home - they can have children of all ages with them if needed and nurse/be pregnant without risking newborn/pregnant woman. However: women hunt as well - they hunt for foods on the island (birds, dog, etc) and from the beach (like octopus). But men don't harvest or care for the taro or the young children - they fish, build boats and are gone a lot.

Their natural predators are all i nthe ocean - thus - ocean work is dangerous work, women don't do that.

So why is there a difference if all work together and are seen as equals on an intellectual level? The men don't think leser of the women - the women don't think they're downtrodden or treated poorly and even hold some types of (what we would see) of influence over the men.

To explain their differences:
Idealism woudl revolve around feelings and thought processes and doesn't apply to the pullops because they don't think it through - it just 'made sense in a way that enables their lifstyle to continue" . . women are weaker - can't fish (but that's not true, they catch octopus and climb trees to care for the taro, etc - so weaker? no. They could easily wrangle a shark for food if they wanted). So it's not thoughs about the women that are present - idealism doesn't explain it (but idealism explains american views - all about our feelings)

Materialistically speaking: What it comes down to is procreation: men - in a short period of time - one man could father many children with different wives
Women can only have one (maybe two) children in a 9 month period . . . if a man got around enough he could father 25 in that same amount of time - or more.

So men: are more expendible. The future of the islanders won't end if a man or 5 men die at sea because of a shark attack.
But if one pregnant woman dies with a child - who will care for her existing children? If she's nursing - it makes the likelihood of that chlid not being nourished and her unborn child dying far more dangerous, likely and frightening.

Thus: older women do join the men on the hunt and going island to island - the younger ones of child bearing age do not. . . the men do the more dangerous work becaues they're more expendable.

to me: being thought of as expendable human - is ****ty . . . . you guys can keep it.
 
Last edited:

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ironically: we talked about this idea in anthropology class yesterday. We were dividing this view up from two views: idealism (which centers aroudn beliefs and feelings a culture might have regarding something) and materialism (which focuses on the practical physical effects and reasons for holding views in society)

to learn about these things we're learning about an island in Micronesia called Pulop - traditional man/woman distribution there in regard to the classic beliefs based on gender. . . but without negativity - it's just 'practical this way'

in a materialistic view: why do men hunt and get in boats to fish? Why do women stay on the island and farm the taro (foodsource)?

For one: the woman have interruptable work - the taro fields are close to home - they can have children of all ages with them if needed and nurse/be pregnant without risking newborn/pregnant woman. However: women hunt as well - they hunt for foods on the island (birds, dog, etc) and from the beach (like octopus). But men don't harvest or care for the taro or the young children - they fish, build boats and are gone a lot.

Their natural predators are all i nthe ocean - thus - ocean work is dangerous work, women don't do that.

So why is there a difference if all work together and are seen as equals on an intellectual level? The men don't think leser of the women - the women don't think they're downtrodden or treated poorly and even hold some types of (what we would see) of influence over the men.

To explain their differences:
Idealism woudl revolve around feelings and thought processes and doesn't apply to the pullops because they don't think it through - it just 'made sense in a way that enables their lifstyle to continue" . . women are weaker - can't fish (but that's not true, they catch octopus and climb trees to care for the taro, etc - so weaker? no. They could easily wrangle a shark for food if they wanted). So it's not thoughs about the women that are present - idealism doesn't explain it (but idealism explains american views - all about our feelings)

Materialistically speaking: What it comes down to is procreation: men - in a short period of time - one man could father many children with different wives
Women can only have one (maybe two) children in a 9 month period . . . if a man got around enough he could father 25 in that same amount of time - or more.

So men: are more expendible. The future of the islanders won't end if a man or 5 men die at sea because of a shark attack.
But if one pregnant woman dies with a child - who will care for her existing children? If she's nursing - it makes the likelihood of that chlid not being nourished and her unborn child dying far more dangerous, likely and frightening.

Thus: older women do join the men on the hunt and going island to island - the younger ones of child bearing age do not. . . becaues they're more expendable.

to me: being thought of as expendable human - is ****ty . . . . you guys can keep it.

Good informative post EXCEPT the last line LOL
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Auntie.... Whether it's Idealism or Materialism, the outcome should be the same. It's about Right and Wrong more than anything else. The two "stay at home dad" types that I know personally are about the most effeminate and worthless bums I've ever met. They are more feminine than masculine, and always have been (I've known them since college). Interestingly enough, one of them ended up marrying a very tomboyish woman. She had the looks and body to be a Playmate at age 18, but you would never have known it. About as unfeminine a woman as I have ever met. It works for them (mostly) in a very twisted way, but I personally see it as a great example of why that sort of thing should not be the standard operating model for humanity.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Good informative post EXCEPT the last line LOL

LOL

We did a cross-cultural simulation in which we were all silent and in a greeting-ceremony led by tribesmen (not real, of course- the whole simulation was designed to emulate what some otherculture do in an effort to break down our ethnocentrism and naive realism that all people hold in some way so we could be more open minded while taking the course)

via this simulation the men sat in chairs with shoes on, were fed, and cleansed their hands. Women sat on the floor barefoot, fed theirselves and didn't clease their hands.

To us Americans - this was a 'men are being treated better than women' in this society. . . most of us who shared our thoughts came ot the conclusion that men were valued more than women because they received 'better treatment'

So when we were abl eto ask the tribesman to explain the reasoning for these activites we learned that: women are blessed (in the culture we were emulating) so they can be barefoot and touch the ground, men can't. Men can't even touch their food until they've been blessed so they were fed. they were fed first, though.

When someone asked 'why did the men eat first?'
They answered 'because the food might be poisoned'

Everyone was kind of shocked at that answer - didn't expect that.

cultural perceptions - apparently are HUGE when it comes to these things and I'm just now realizing how very different women and men are seen throughout the world - in America and europe we share some views but to islanders in the middle of the Pacific: our views make NO sense.

Did this change my views about myself as a woman? No - but it did soften some of my views I've held about other cultures and their treatment of women and men. To us they're treating women 'negatively' - but to them they're treating men and women in respect to natural differences ONLY - and not necessarily telling one that they're worthless and telling the other that they're better.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Women are nurturers as a rule, they thrive on holding a baby. Men are hunters by nature, they thrive on leaving the domicile to provide the food for the woman and the baby. Yes men and women really are different, this whole gender neutral thing is pure crap.
I don't know....I don't think I'm a hunter or a gatherer...I'm a builder. I'm the cave man diging out the irrigation ditches, setting up the sweat lodge and/or shaping the cave opening.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Auntie.... Whether it's Idealism or Materialism, the outcome should be the same. It's about Right and Wrong more than anything else. The two "stay at home dad" types that I know personally are about the most effeminate and worthless bums I've ever met. They are more feminine than masculine, and always have been (I've known them since college). Interestingly enough, one of them ended up marrying a very tomboyish woman. She had the looks and body to be a Playmate at age 18, but you would never have known it. About as unfeminine a woman as I have ever met. It works for them (mostly) in a very twisted way, but I personally see it as a great example of why that sort of thing should not be the standard operating model for humanity.

No - in many ways they violate your view of 'what's right for the gender' so don't think they're a patriarchy adn oppose equality.

Example: the clans (families) get their lineage from teh mother. In the US we get our lineage from our fathers (when we marry we take our husband's name). . .For them: the husband marries *into* the clan and moves *into* the wife's home (which is also her mother's home, etc). . . women hold the family together: men do not. IN this way it's exact opposite of what you'd like to see in a nation.

So you see: in some ways the outcome seems the same (men go hunt - women stay at home with kids) but it is not the same. Of course you dont' realize that because of your own naive realism and ethnocentrism and prejudice.

The Pulops have difference for the genders - but none of it is negative. It is all positive towards furthering their existance. You know: they have a school - they're all taught to read/write, are engaged in their politics (which is tribal and interconnected with neighboring islands) . . .

But you: you see women AS being lesser and unworthy of involvement in community and goverment (you don't believe we should have the right to vote). That's not my faulty idealistic interpretation of your views: that is your view - that is your thought process.

It's amazing, I think - in what I've learned abotu some other cultures already: that they can survive giving equality that we lack in the US but they still live what we might see as 'primitive' lifestyles. I can't imagine what they'd teach you about life and love if you were there.

You think you have it all figured out and you definitely do not.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
(afterthought)

Reasons do matter - they matter quite a lot.

Reason for why the Pulopese and their way of living isn't applicable to the US: they're subsistence only. We're not - we're an economically driven society. We're not bound by our genders or our natural 'functions' in relation to genders as much as other cultures might be - because in our society if you have enough money: you can pay someone else to farm for you, harvest for you, hunt for you, care for your children . . and so forth.

Now - in the US: for a woman to be a stay at home mom for young children the husband must make a considerable income. Or the wife has to have a solid enough of a career to afford to care for everyone else. Money is the driving factor. . . and for others both must work - and this barely covers all the bills including the cost of childcare.

Yet in other cultures (like Japanese): the notion of a woman being a stay at home mom is a lazy rich luxury that they do not encourage or support.

None the less: it's fascinating how we've evolved differently all on the means of trying to survive and satisfy human needs.

You, Tigger, might consider our changes to be maladaptive - but they're cultural differences none the less.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No - in many ways they violate your view of 'what's right for the gender' so don't think they're a patriarchy adn oppose equality.

Example: the clans (families) get their lineage from teh mother. In the US we get our lineage from our fathers (when we marry we take our husband's name). . .For them: the husband marries *into* the clan and moves *into* the wife's home (which is also her mother's home, etc). . . women hold the family together: men do not. IN this way it's exact opposite of what you'd like to see in a nation.

So you see: in some ways the outcome seems the same (men go hunt - women stay at home with kids) but it is not the same. Of course you dont' realize that because of your own naive realism and ethnocentrism and prejudice.

The Pulops have difference for the genders - but none of it is negative. It is all positive towards furthering their existance. You know: they have a school - they're all taught to read/write, are engaged in their politics (which is tribal and interconnected with neighboring islands) . . .

Actually it sounds very similar to the Clan structure of the Celts in Ireland, Scotland and Wales during the time of the Roman Invasion, around the 5th and 6th Centuries. You know, the system that has been deceased in the Western World for about the last millenium because it doesn't really WORK in larger societal structures. Which is why you cannot find a significant and sizeable Matriarchal society anywhere in the Western World in the last 1000 years or so.

But you: you see women AS being lesser and unworthy of involvement in community and goverment (you don't believe we should have the right to vote). That's not my faulty idealistic interpretation of your views: that is your view - that is your thought process.

It's amazing, I think - in what I've learned abotu some other cultures already: that they can survive giving equality that we lack in the US but they still live what we might see as 'primitive' lifestyles. I can't imagine what they'd teach you about life and love if you were there.

You think you have it all figured out and you definitely do not.

No, not lesser, Auntie.... DIFFERENT. The problem is that our modern society doesn't allow for DIFFERENCE anymore. Everyone and everything has to be not just Equal but THE SAME. Different roles for different people. It's not a difficult idea. I know I've used a different version of this analogy before, but I'll try again....

4 American Quarters have an EQUAL value (in the grand scheme of things) to 1 American Dollar. However, when you're mighty thirsty and the soda machine doesn't take bills, it's value is not THE SAME as those 4 quarters. On the other hand, the bills fit much better in a wallet and are more convenient for carrying larger amounts of money around. Each one has its place. They have an EQUAL value but not THE SAME value. The difference is something we'd be smart to pay attention to in other parts of society as well.

I can't imagine that they'd actually change a single part of my view on the world and life, Auntie. Right or wrong, figured out or not, I am who and what I am. I really don't see that changing without some form of Divine Intervention.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.

Did you know male nurses tend to make more than female nurses?

But, if they are not broken down, how can you be anymore sure than I am? ;)

Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and "work patterns." The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns," including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men during the entire period 1983 to 2000. In a subsequent study, GAO found that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor “should better monitor their performance in enforcing anti-discrimination laws.”[20][21][22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

Two key findings—that men were more likely to start their first post-M.B.A. job in higher positions than women, and that women's average post-M.B.A. salary was lower than men's—held true even when those surveyed had no children. "From their very first job after getting their M.B.A. degree, women made less money than men," Ilene Lang, president and CEO of Catalyst, says in an interview with National Public Radio. "On average, they were paid $4,600 less."

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo.../study-examines-male-female-wage-gap-post-mba

http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml
 
Last edited:

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, not lesser, Auntie.... DIFFERENT. The problem is that our modern society doesn't allow for DIFFERENCE anymore. Everyone and everything has to be not just Equal but THE SAME. .

You are SO full of crap.

YOU are the one who wants everything and everyone to be the same. YOU are the one who stomps your feet about traditional gender roles being the one and only acceptable ones.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
71,661
Reaction score
37,274
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Who benefits the most from this? Think about it, what group of people did not benefit in society prior to men being pushed down? Hint: It's not about gender.

well that's a good point. as Burke points out, strong families, societies' little platoons, are the natural bulwark against an overpowering State.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
71,661
Reaction score
37,274
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Reason for why the Pulopese and their way of living isn't applicable to the US: they're subsistence only. We're not - we're an economically driven society. We're not bound by our genders or our natural 'functions' in relation to genders as much as other cultures might be - because in our society if you have enough money: you can pay someone else to farm for you, harvest for you, hunt for you, care for your children . . and so forth.

Now - in the US: for a woman to be a stay at home mom for young children the husband must make a considerable income. Or the wife has to have a solid enough of a career to afford to care for everyone else. Money is the driving factor. . . and for others both must work - and this barely covers all the bills including the cost of childcare.

what? I was an E-3 and my wife was a SAHM and we covered all the bills just fine, even managed to put a bit along the side.

I tend to suspect that for many (not all) the "we both have to work in order to make it" is really "we both have to work in order to sustain a higher lifestyle".
Yet in other cultures (like Japanese): the notion of a woman being a stay at home mom is a lazy rich luxury that they do not encourage or support.

which is part of why that nation is soon to die. something like half of Japanese women have checked out of the kid-making business all-together,and the other half aren't exactly making up for the loss.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
what? I was an E-3 and my wife was a SAHM and we covered all the bills just fine, even managed to put a bit along the side.

I tend to suspect that for many (not all) the "we both have to work in order to make it" is really "we both have to work in order to sustain a higher lifestyle".


which is part of why that nation is soon to die. something like half of Japanese women have checked out of the kid-making business all-together,and the other half aren't exactly making up for the loss.

But yet they suffer from overpopulation.

Some changes can have a perceived negative but at the same time address a different situation with a positive. . . like a malnourished child being less likely to contract malaria because mosquitos will look them over in search of a more sustainable foodsource.
 
Last edited:

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know....I don't think I'm a hunter or a gatherer...I'm a builder. I'm the cave man diging out the irrigation ditches, setting up the sweat lodge and/or shaping the cave opening.

The term hunter just means brings home the food. I am a builder too, it is very satisfying work.
 

gtown25nick

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
104
Reaction score
18
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
First of all, I thought the last thing I read on this topic was someone (a couple of weeks ago in an article) complaining about women not getting paid as much as men.

Putting that aside, who cares? If women have better skill sets for this economy, I would expect them to achieve more. If they are more productive and better at their jobs than men are, they should move ahead. Anything else would require a policy of sexist discrimination and would be wrong.

(BTW: I'm a man, so there's no bias)
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You are SO full of crap.

YOU are the one who wants everything and everyone to be the same. YOU are the one who stomps your feet about traditional gender roles being the one and only acceptable ones.

You missed the point about as completely as possible. You are correct that I want each gender to have a settled and accepted ROLE in society. However they are DIFFERENT roles. What modern society wants is a total removal of the differences between Men and women. "Anything He can do, she can do better." would appear to be society's motto these days.
 
Top Bottom