Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

> We know they watch more television and do less childcare than working-class women, and are less likely than more affluent men to work long hours.

I love the implied slur against working class men not working 'long hours' or doing their share of the childcare.

You can only write a sentence like that if you've never been physically tired from exertion after doing a days work. There simply isn't any more energy to do anything. And putting in 'more hours' is going to be counterproductive since you're expected to perform another act at 6 am the next morning.

I know quite a few of these 'working class men' and none of them seem to live all that long past the age of 65, their bodies a shell of what they were when they started working. And with the recent increase of the age at which the pension system kicks in it's become more common that they don't reach the pensionable age at all.

Not all work-hours are equally taxing.

View on HN

I think you're being unfair. The author is a sociologist. She's not criticizing working men's behavior. On the contrary - she's simply using it as an indicator to point out that there's something unique about how recent societal changes are impacting this group.

Working class doesn't mean that the work itself is more physical: the majority of these jobs have been taken over by automation and/or transferred abroad. A recent study in the US shows that mortality in white males has increased since the Great Recession. Not because jobs have gotten more physical, but because permanent joblessness has increased. It's increasingly difficult for men - especially those without the economic and employment flexibility that many of us enjoy - to find meaning in their lives according to the traditional roles under which they were raised. Long term maybe this turns out for the best as gender roles ultimately become less pronounced. But it's a hard transition and right this is a real issue that impacts everyone. Just look at current US politics.

> The author is a sociologist. She's not criticizing working men's behavior.

It's not particularly necessary for the article. It reads more like elite signaling- "watches more TV," "does not contribute to housework," are there to remind you that you shouldn't feel empathy, that the subject is low status and low value.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think the author would as well. I'd argue he's not saying that working-class men are failing anyone, rather that being a working-class man is becoming a mentally and morally exhausting pursuit, as well as a physically exhausting one. I'm not old enough or well-read enough to know if the halcyon days when this wasn't the case are actually disappearing, or if they were always a myth (as perhaps the last paragraph implies), but the author seems to be arguing that these men are suffering on a much deeper level than society gives them credit for.

>these men are suffering on a much deeper level than society gives them credit for

As a man I don't want society to give me credit for suffering. I also don't want pity or empathy. Help? Maybe, but only if you let me pay it back.

What I want is to be allowed to solve my own problems. And then a chance to contribute to society. All this while not denouncing my manhood. I'm pretty sure most men feel the same deep down.

>I'm pretty sure most men feel the same deep down.

No, actually. If I wear my body down so much that I'm dying of work-inflicted wear-and-tear, I damn well do want society's empathy and help. "Manhood" and "self-glorifying martyrdom" are not synonyms.

One's ordinary contribution to society shouldn't be cast-from-hitpoints, especially not when it will get you an unremembered early grave. This is the year 2015, not D-Day.

But human genetics mostly unchanged from the days we hunted mammoths.

I'm not advocating sacrifice. I just think most guys need the feeling of contributing to stay sane.

Not actually true! Human adaptation has accelerated in the last 50,000 years, recording more changes than in the previous million. Adapting to crowded cities, monotonous diets, close socialization, rote work has marked our genetics in profound ways.

You would love this novel. http://www.amazon.com/Independent-People-Halldor-Laxness/dp/...

Independent People is one of those rare books that manage to make bad choices relatable to the reader.

I guess I don't get what's so great about "manhood". Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe the help is owed to you, not the other way around.

It doesn't matter. If my identity is not about owing.

Owing is one of the bases of all relationships. You are free to say that you do not wish to be owed anything, but that does not actually free society from its obligations to you, nor you from your obligations to it.

Just sayin'.

The author is a woman. Which seems typical these days with regards to articles talking about men. Or maybe it's just that more sociologists are women (?).

Wonder no more. The American Sociological Association reports data from the National Science Foundation in the U.S. showing over 20 consecutive years of enrollment skewed about 2:1 in favor of women [1].

[1] http://www.asanet.org/research/stats/gender/graduate_enrollm...

BTW, this is a hell of an article. It describes an "intransigent masculinity," yet women are not supposed to let men define their femininity?

And it blames mass shootings on "masculinity." But take a look at this hocky-stick graph of the frequency of the history of mass-shootings in the U.S. [2]. There's something more than "masculinity" going on here:

[2] http://thesocietypages.org/feminist/files/2015/07/Mass-Shoot...

Completely anecdotal but I intentionally took a number of sociology courses (despite majoring in a vastly different field) and this was my impression as well. While many of the 101 and low-level courses were closer to 50/50 higher level courses seemed to have a larger and larger majority women.

So it would make sense that more sociology-styled articles are indeed written by women.

Still anecdotal though.

Do you know if there was some correspondence with seniority and teaching higher or lower level courses? One way or the other.

It seems to be that some things that are female dominated at lower levels, like undergraduate studies, might still be either more gender balanced or male dominated at higher levels, like research. Whether that is due to a glass ceiling or whatever else, I don't know; you'd have to ask a sociologist about that.

This was the case for me, during my UG and PG studies in psychology.

90% female undergraduate (approx 36 girls, 4 guys including me).

Around 80% female postgraduate.

About 75% male lecturer/senior lecturer/professor.

One of our lecturers brought it up, and I suggested that it might be due to more guys doing psychology in the past, but he refuted this, saying that the gender skew had been like that since he started in the field.

My only real explanation for this is unconscious/institutional sexism.

Generation effect

Womansplaining?

My apologies - I didn't even check. I'm not sure that changes my view on the piece though, it felt remarkably objective.

> I'm not sure that changes my view on the piece though,

In the spirit of gender equality, it shouldn't in any case. ;)

The discussion is around gender, the gender of the author does actually make a difference in how the article is received (as it should).

People get stupid around gender. If this were an article about christian and muslims, no one would blink at using the religion of the author to help decipher intent.

Why are you interested in deciphering intent in the first place?

Because pure objectivity in social sciences is a myth, a utopic state at the best of times? We all have biases when it comes to deciphering human behaviour -- the best scientists will try to shed them harder than others, but they'll likely still retain some.

On top of that, you have to consider that social sciences (including economics) are "Schrodinger objects": as you observe and describe them, they change. Once you understand that, you can leverage the dynamic for personal or political gain, which is extremely common.

As other people have said, the author is not criticising them herself.

However, I think your statement is strange. Firstly, she states that "working class" generally means "without college degree" - that doesn't mean physical work. Secondly, knowledge workers also get diminishing returns from longer hours, potentially with even more dramatic effect. Thirdly, many common non-physical working conditions are also extremely tiring mentally and damaging physically in the long-run. Finally, you're implying that child-care is not physically exhausting.

My impression of your response is that it has more slurs than the article, to be honest - just re-inforcing the primacy of manual labour. I have the impression you know what it's like to work long hours in a stressful non-physical environment, so I find that odd.

> Firstly, she states that "working class" generally means "without college degree" - that doesn't mean physical work.

No, but it in general greatly increases the likelihood.

> Secondly, knowledge workers also get diminishing returns from longer hours, potentially with even more dramatic effect.

To their bodies? Or to the work they do?

Because that's the difference, your body only takes that much abuse and then needs to re-charge. Go work a jackhammer for a couple of hours and let's talk about diminishing returns.

> Thirdly, many common non-physical working conditions are also extremely tiring mentally and damaging physically in the long-run.

Sure. Let's talk after you've been hauling garbage for a day, been bent over under an engine hood or any other physically taxing workday. There is nothing that quite compares to being able to sit in a chair and think all day long and push a few buttons to wreck your ligaments, muscles and joints.

> Finally, you're implying that child-care is not physically exhausting.

I think you made that up, I did not imply that at all. As a father of 3 I'm more than aware of how physically exhausting child care is.

> My impression of your response is that it has more slurs than the article, to be honest - just re-inforcing the primacy of manual labour. I have the impression you know what it's like to work long hours in a stressful non-physical environment, so I find that odd.

An my impression of your response is that you would like all of the above to be true, however and for the record: I've done both. I've had a number of very physically intensive jobs when I started my career and to this day I'm grateful every bloody day that my life took a turn for the better and that I don't have to work until I can't stand up straight anymore. Being not the most physically strong person I realize that if I had continued down that path I would have been a physical wreck by now.

Have some respect for the people that do the heavy lifting. And if you're unconvinced: go take a manual labor job for a year or so and re-read your comment here.

> for the record: I've done both. I've had a number of very physically intensive jobs when I started my career and to this day I'm grateful every bloody day that my life took a turn for the better and that I don't have to work until I can't stand up straight anymore. Being not the most physically strong person I realize that if I had continued down that path I would have been a physical wreck by now.

> Have some respect for the people that do the heavy lifting. And if you're unconvinced: go take a manual labor job for a year or so and re-read your comment here.

Jacques, why the rancor and assumption that the OP and other commenters (like the GP) haven't also had physical jobs? I certainly have… It's all I did the first several years of my working life. And like you, my life is now quite different.

You have a different point of view, but it's not because we haven't done physical work. In fact, in my case I'd say it was my experience doing that kind of work that leads me to identify with what the OP describes in the linked article.

> why the rancor and assumption that the OP and other commenters (like the GP) haven't also had physical jobs?

I'll be happy to accept evidence to the contrary, but by the looks of it the OP has not.

> I certainly have…

Good, so you'll appreciate my viewpoint a bit more than those of us who happen to have lucked out and have been desk jockeys since the start of our professional lives.

> It's all I did the first several years of my life. And like you, my life is now quite different.

My assumption is that because of having had a period in your life where you worked really hard for relatively very little pay that you appreciate what you have today a lot more than you would otherwise.

> You have a different point of view, but it's not because we haven't done physical work. In fact, in my case I'd say it was my experience doing that kind of work that leads me to identify with what the OP describes in the linked article.

I subscribe to some parts of what the article relates to but I take exception with certain parts and the casual way in which 'men without a college degree' (which the lady writing the article is not on both counts) are being labeled as implied slackers because 'We know they watch more television and do less childcare than working-class women, and are less likely than more affluent men to work long hours'.

I've done both. I found manual labour hard but overall easier hours by a big margin. I have physical issues from the non-physical work and I know people who've had (true) burn-out and stress-related illness. My personal experience is that I can keep going physically when I'm exhausted but productivity drops to near zero when mentally tired. My experience is that people massively underestimate the toll of non-physical work rather than that they underestimate physical work.

I'm not understanding the level of emotion. Sorry if your friends & relatives are suffering from their jobs.

> I found manual labour hard but overall easier hours by a big margin.

The toll adds up if you do manual labor long enough. Bodies are machines and they wear out.

> I have physical issues from the non-physical work and I know people who've had (true) burn-out and stress-related illness.

Been there, done that. And these can be serious issues as well, but it's not the same as dropping dead 2 days after you finally receive your pension because your body is done with living.

> My personal experience is that I can keep going physically when I'm exhausted but productivity drops to near zero when mentally tired.

I think we all can relate to that. Which is why we - as a rule in the industry - estimate that people are productive in knowledge work for 4 to 6 hours per day.

> My experience is that people massively underestimate the toll of non-physical work rather than that they underestimate physical work.

My experience is the opposite, people find it very easy to relate to things they have personal experience with and find it hard to relate to things that happen to others.

> Sorry if your friends & relatives are suffering from their jobs.

Where did my relatives come in?

so, responding only to the office work vs. manual labor work, I come at it from a different angle.

I had a (very little bit) of warehouse work as a teenager. I mean, real warehouse work where you get minimum wage for picking things up and putting them down again, assembling shelves, picking up stuff, etc.. - and I was exhausted at the end of those days in ways that I never am now, even when I do work that is physically more demanding, and I'm in my mid 30s with a body that isn't nearly as resilient as when I was 16.

I've done a lot of data center work that had similar physical challenges, often greater physical challenges; have you ever tried to rack a c6509? bastards are heavy. In fact, I've gone out of my way, and probably taken some pay cuts so that I still get to spend significant time picking things up, putting things down, and turning screws. I enjoy it in ways that I didn't enjoy that warehouse job.

The thing I want to point out here is that doing physically demanding labor while you are in a position to get paid a whole lot of money, like I am, is very different from doing physically demanding labor when you are getting paid very little, simply because respect, flexibility and the ability to ask for changes and exceptions scales with the rest of your compensation.

As a sysadmin, if I need a break? I take a break. Nobody gives me a hard time. There's no grope and grab at the door to make sure I didn't steal anything. If I want a tool or something to make my job easier, really all I've gotta do is find a link and send it to the boss and it gets ordered for me. If lifting something the standard way doesn't work for me? the boss gets someone to help me. My judgment on "yeah, I need a second pair of hands" is never questioned.

I mean, yeah, there are legal protections for minimum wage workers, and workers comp laws incent employers to make sure that they don't screw up employees too badly; but power differentials matter; As a sysadmin, while I'm not going to say I'm irreplaceable, if I walk, the boss will be noticeably inconvenienced. I get a pretty good say in how my job is done.

I imagine the same thing goes for being an independent electrician, or being a mechanic with your own shop vs. being a level one person in either one of those roles. Having the power to make exceptions in how you work, I think, makes a huge impact on how good or bad that work is for you.

I wonder if white collar work is the same way; if you are some minimum wage call center monkey with zero choice in the ergonomics of your workstation setup, is that way worse than being a programmer who can get a $400 keyboard and $6000 chair by just asking? My guess is yes, but I have even less time in the callcenter than I have in the warehouse.

Agreed.

I moved furniture as a young man, and that was only in 8 hours stints at the longest. At the end of the day, my body seemed to rebel against me if I even slightly exerted myself.

My current 60+ work weeks are mainly spent sitting, and although I'm tired at the end of the day, it's nowhere near as taxing as moving furniture was (and I'm older).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com