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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Whaaaat? I think you read it wrong. Here 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.
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.
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?
“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”?
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?
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.
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.”
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.
