# Why are men falling behind? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037 "2011-10-28T03:31:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/81 "2011-10-30T03:24:38Z")
Look, it’s very simple. Women may control 50% of the vote in this country, but they control 100% of the vagina. Are men really falling behind? Or are more women just getting better grades in “soft” degrees? Men still seem to dominate in technology, finance, law and science professions. Women always seem to end up in marketing, or PR or other “soft” jobs and those jobs tend to pay less. partners at major firms and banks still seem to be overwhelmingly male as well. Keep in mind that the recent economic crisis hit male dominated industries like finance pretty hard. > [@James\_The\_Wise](#): > > Woman should stay out of politic,They may get elected sure,but they have no idea how to govern. If you are a female and read this completely, I doubt you have the mental agility to get it. And if you do read it, it’s only because you got emotionally upset first, which proves my point. > … Ummmm…ok then. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/82 "2011-10-30T03:28:50Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > [From that link:] > > “And it’s now official: Women dominate men at every level of higher education, in terms of degrees conferred. Here’s the breakdown for graduates of the class of 2009:” > And yet women still only make up around 35% of the student body at Caltech, and 40% at MIT. There’s something signifcant about the fact that the figures at two of the most prestigious technical schools go against the grain like this but I can’t quite figure out what. That women on the whole tend to find professions involving living things more interesting than professions involving the inanimate. Why be an engineer or programmer if you’d rather be a molecular biologist or a doctor? Women and men tend to have different tastes; you’re never going to get equal numbers in all disciplines without the government outright forcing or bribing people to take careers they don’t like. > [@James\_The\_Wise](#): > > It is not that woman are getting smarter but it is that men are getting dumber Me think you wrong. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/83 "2011-10-30T04:21:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That women on the whole tend to find professions involving living things more interesting than professions involving the inanimate. Why be an engineer or programmer if you’d rather be a molecular biologist or a doctor? Women and men tend to have different tastes; you’re never going to get equal numbers in all disciplines without the government outright forcing or bribing people to take careers they don’t like. I agree with you. Yet this kind of goes against the thrust of this thread, which is that women are making great strides entering every formerly male-dominated profession. As I mentioned upthread, I don’t see it at all in computer programming. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/84 "2011-10-30T04:34:47Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > > [@James\_The\_Wise](#): > > > > In closing, We have all bean deceived through the educational system > > Waking up in a tub of ice missing a kidney suddenly seems much less sinister. I feel like there’s some kind of kidney bean joke in there, but I’m too tired to figure it out. eta: For the modernized, tldr version of James’ post: Bitches be trippin. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/85 "2011-10-30T16:22:16Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Having done some of that sort of work these past few years I’d say the main obstacle to women in the trades is the continuing perception that women don’t go into the trades. I agree, but that perception is reality for a lot of people. The question is why working class and lower middle class boys are less likely to go to college than their sisters. I think that a lot of those sisters don’t see themselves as having a host of options that the boys have. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/86 "2011-10-30T16:59:59Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > I agree with you. Yet this kind of goes against the thrust of this thread, which is that women are making great strides entering every formerly male-dominated profession. As I mentioned upthread, I don’t see it at all in computer programming. I’ve come across a number of articles over the years saying that the number of women in computer science has actually been _dropping_ since a peak way back in the mid-1980s. Here are a couple of news articles that I pulled up on Google that discuss the issue: Boston Globe (2005): [In computer science, a growing gender gap](http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/12/18/in_computer_science_a_growing_gender_gap/) Minneapolis Post (2008): [As more women enter scientific fields, their numbers in computer science are declining](http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/06/18/2282/this_doesnt_compute_as_more_women_enter_scientific_fields_their_numbers_in_computer_science_are_declining) ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/87 "2011-10-31T00:48:01Z")
> [@James\_The\_Wise](#): > > Woman should stay out of politic,They may get elected sure,but they have no idea how to govern… > If you are the typical female you will not bother to read my review which will only be prompted based on your emotional reaction first.. This is why putting woman in charge by giving them the vote has caused our country to fall to piece. No, you’ve got it all wrong. The key factor is cigarettes. Although they cause cancer, cigarettes contain phytosuperglandins, a chemical that enhances the brain. Men started smoking sooner than women, so their power peaked around the mid-1900s along with their cigarette consumption. Although smoking has decreased in both sexes, women took to smoking later and are giving it up later, so they’ve retained some advantage over men. The overall decline in smoking is closely correlated with the decline in the economy and American power. The Chinese are rapidly increasing their use of cigarettes and this explains their rapid economic rise. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/88 "2011-10-31T02:45:15Z")
[quote=“Chessic\_Sense, post:31, topic:601037”] Whaaaat? I think you read it wrong. [Here](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/06/two-years-of-economic-recovery-women-lose-jobs-men-find-them/) are the stats. I find the title misleading, so read at least the graphs and the fist paragraph. Men take the hit from recessions because they work in recession-sensitive fields like construction, resource gathering (mining/logging/etc), manufacturing, and shipping. I did read that. Where does it show that men are doing worse than women in this recession? Construction jobs did take a hit, but due to stimulus and a small upgrade in construction work, men are doing better, marginally. But it’s still worse for women, because the clerical type of work they normally gravitate to isn’t coming back so fast. And because of technical upgrades in communications and more paperless offices, may not come back at all. The title is not misleading. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/89 "2011-10-31T08:42:09Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Women have been encouraged to pursue classically “male” fields of work while men have not been rewarded for making inroads on jobs traditionally filled by females. You don’t see many male cashiers, HR workers, billing department, secretarial/personal assistants, Medical office specialists, etc… My father’s mother used to rant at me for having chosen such an unfeminine field (ChemE, called “the female enginering” in many countries). One day, I said “Abuelita, what did people say when you joined Commerce School?\*” “Oh my God it was such a terrible scandal!” “And when you started working as a cashier? Was it considered feminine, or was the reason you moved to Pamplona to do it that the reaction in Bilbao had gone through the roof?” “Well, yes, actually those cousins I worked for had a store in Bilbao as well but we thought it might be more acceptable if I moved here…” “And yet, nowadays Business School is 75% women and cashiers are overwhelmingly female.” From that day on, she became my biggest supporter. That isn’t the only field whose “traditional” gender has swung sides in the last 100 years, or swung two/three times in the last 200. There’s nothing inherently feminine or masculine about any given field, only our prejudices make it so. - Se and her four female classmates were the first five women in Spain to get business degrees. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/90 "2011-10-31T11:58:09Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > I feel like there’s some kind of kidney bean joke in there, but I’m too tired to figure it out. > > eta: > For the modernized, tldr version of James’ post: Bitches be trippin. And for the archaic version of a similar idea: Disregard females, acquire currency. (I love that meme.) ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/91 "2011-10-31T18:26:15Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > I did read that. Where does it show that men are doing worse than women in this recession? Construction jobs did take a hit, but due to stimulus and a small upgrade in construction work, men are doing better, marginally. Where does it _not_ say that? Look at the job losses in the recession: 2,100,000 for women and 5,300,000 for men. Men lost more jobs. Look at the graph over time- men lost so many jobs that they fell all the way down to where women were pre-recession. Men had 4 million more jobs before the recession, but the recession kicked men all the way down to a tie with women. So how can you say that the recession hit women harder? And the title is misleading because it’s talking about the recovery, not the recession. You’re aware that the recession ended almost two years ago, right? > [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > But it’s still worse for women, because the clerical type of work they normally gravitate to isn’t coming back so fast. And because of technical upgrades in communications and more paperless offices, may not come back at all. “June 2009 through May 2011, men…lowered their unemployment rate…to **9.5** %” “Women['s] unemployment rate increased by 0.2 percentage points to **8.5** %” 9.5 \> 8.5. So how do you figure that “it’s still worse for women”? > [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > I don’t understand what you don’t get here. There are two different situations. A woman who out competes her male peers has worked harder, or is simply the better person. > > In the other situation, she is preferred over male picks of equal value for matters of diversity. She has worked as hard as the males and operates on an equal level. You said “Those same women are often more motivated than their male peers, having to have worked harder for their spaces. All other things being equal, male dominated workplaces often have incentives to hire women for purposes of diversity.” The former says that women are at a disadvantage and the seconds says they have an advantage. If women are hired due to diversity incentives, then they don’t fight harder for their spots. That’s like saying tall people have to work harder than short people to get on basketball teams because being tall is an advantage. One or the other has to be more influential. Either the diversity incentive is stronger than the taboo, in which case women in general have it easy getting jobs, or the taboo is stronger than the incentive, in which case the women in general are working harder for their spots. It can’t be both. So which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/92 "2011-11-01T05:19:13Z")
“June 2009 through May 2011, men…lowered their unemployment rate…to **9.5** %” “Women['s] unemployment rate increased by 0.2 percentage points to **8.5** %” 9.5 \> 8.5. So how do you figure that “it’s still worse for women”? Because men’s unemployment is decreasing while women’s unemployment is increasing? ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/93 "2011-11-01T08:16:44Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > And for the archaic version of a similar idea: Disregard females, acquire currency. > > (I love that meme.) The meme you refer to is totally fallacious. The phrase it’s based on is “Fuck bitches, get money.” The “fuck” doesn’t mean “disregard,” it means literally fuck. This phrase was somehow extrapolated into the ironic, “archaic” usage that you are referencing, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, even though it seems amusing on the surface. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/94 "2011-11-01T08:28:21Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > There’s nothing inherently feminine or masculine about any given field, only our prejudices make it so. Oh, I don’t know. “Surrogate mother” is a pretty feminine job if you think about it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/95 "2011-11-02T04:36:49Z")
i don’t know about you guys but informal plans hatched by women (and these include secretarials, professionals, academicians, company executives, fulbright scholars, etc.) in which i was somehow involved often bombed. these plans could take any form: an improptu get-together, a out-of-town weekend somewhere, a corporate/management maneuver, petty shenannigans. women can’t seem to understand the word “commitment.” surpisingly, their remission is usually deliberate. “oh mac sure i remembered but i suddenly recalled something i had to do and it couldn’t wait…” times like those is when i give them my usual line, “and that’s why women will always be inferior to men.” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/96 "2011-11-02T04:40:05Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, I don’t know. “Surrogate mother” is a pretty feminine job if you think about it. 😃 And don’t get me started on the patriarchal phallocracy that goes on in gay porn. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/98 "2011-11-02T12:37:07Z")
**Why are men falling behind?** It is a matter of balance. Men do not have the weights, and padding, at the front that make it easier for women to fall forward. Also, because of jokes like this. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ > [@ruthevans41](#): > > It’s the rise of Metro-sexual who are as women as men they are. There is a rise in Emos and they do not define any definition of men and women. Men now days are as much as women are and the society is accepting men who are more homely inclined while women are work oriented. Do this not understand I. ---
**Author:** ![Bloodless\_Turnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bloodless\_Turnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bloodless_Turnip)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/99 "2011-11-02T14:05:55Z")
> [@](#): > > This is why putting woman in charge by giving them the vote has caused our country to fall to piece. I see this attitude in ‘conservative’ circles a lot. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/100 "2011-11-04T10:51:25Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > “June 2009 through May 2011, men…lowered their unemployment rate…to **9.5** %” > “Women['s] unemployment rate increased by 0.2 percentage points to **8.5** %” > > 9.5 \> 8.5. So how do you figure that “it’s still worse for women”? > Because men’s unemployment is decreasing while women’s unemployment is increasing? A 0.2% rise in unemployment is not that significant, especially considering that it’s still a full percent lower. Also, the jobs that have been traditionally held mainly by men are the ones that aren’t coming back. Not only has manufacturing been decimated,m but the economy is just not going to need to build that many houses for a long, long time, certainly not enough to keep employment in building trades anywhere near what it was in 2007. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037/101 "2011-11-05T08:27:52Z")
I usually don’t get involed in threads like these because I find the partisan sniping tedious, but there is some awesome crazy on this page. ETA that would be the previous page [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-men-falling-behind/601037.md?page=4)