Badly educated men have not adapted well to trade, technology or feminism (2015)
economist.com
economist.com
What would happen if accounting falls prey to automation in the coming years? Would many former female accountants be willing to become nurses or to prepare food for a living?
Well, we don't know. I just find it toxic to look at this topic at the men vs women level even though many of the men described in the article probably are idiots. Who gets labeled what highly depends on circumstances a single actor can not really influence.
These problems are structural and they only exist because society as a whole fails to make sure that every human being finds a productive place in it. Take the guy mentioned in the article who sold small amounts of Marijuana, for instance. In the state he's living, it's illegal and thus he gets labeled a criminal. In another state he could work at a legal Marijuana shop just like others work in food preparation. In one state selling Marijuana makes you a dumb criminal, in a different state you get congratulated for your ability to adapt because you've picked a fast growing occupation.
> It is inevitable that more men will earn less
> than their female partners in years to come.
> To pull their weight, they will have to do
> more at home.
Anecdotally, women seem less interested in partnering with men who make less money than them no matter what other benefits they provide.
I rarely hear of men breaking up with women because they weren't "ambitious enough" or weren't "their equals" however I hear this fairly frequently from women.
Hopefully as more women become the economic winners of their families they will fully accept the position of being the bread-winner instead of continuing to search for men that will 'be their equal' or outperform them. Until that happens men are going to continue to feel pressure to live up to outdated patriarchal ideals, with both winners and losers.
It then wanders around different topics - effects on heterosexual relationship when "eligible" members of one sex are in low supply, etc. But I was most interested in that initial argument, and it wasn't given much support.
" Everywhere you look in Tallulah there are women working: in the motels that cater to passing truckers, in the restaurants that serve all-you-can-eat catfish buffets, in shops, clinics and local government offices. But though unskilled men might do some of those jobs, they are unlikely to want them or to be picked for them."
In my mind, there's a big difference between "not wanting" and "wanting but not getting", but the article lumps those together.
All in all, a great article for raising some theories, and the facts offered point out some questions we might not have had, but precious little evidence of any particular answers, just evidence to shoot down a few theories (and those disproven theories aren't covered).
Not to say I think the article's suggestions are WRONG...I just don't have any reasons from the article to think they are right.
> Few women in rich countries now need a man’s support to raise a family. (They might want it, but they don’t need it.)
I'm a man, and my wife is back to work after giving birth to our child. Raising a family seems to be a massively two person job. I have absolutely no idea how anyone can manage it alone and keep their sanity and not neglect their job and child.
Blanket statements such as this (instead of asking if single family homes might be resulting in worse outcomes for children) are where the article appeared to have an agenda.
Not alone. The State (so, everyone paying taxes) is always here to help single parents.
Its hard to admit standards of living are decreasing. There is def a lot of blame to go around. I agree one should not be disdainful of people who are different.
This red team vs blue team logic is getting us no where.
Then again, there are plenty of caveats: the CPI overstates inflation, there are things on the market today that no amount of money could have bought in 1980, etc.
And if you're going back to 1970: $40k in 1970 dollars could buy you $250k of stuff today.
Median household income in 1980 was $16,671 [0] so someone making $40,000 was a high earner. In 2014 it was $53,013.
Can you cite some specific examples of the authors disdainful attitude?
This is true, but why is it that the shortage of women in technology fields is attributed to them not being accepted or even forced out? Maybe this isn't the general attitude, but I have certainly heard people say that woman aren't in tech as much because they feel unwelcome, whereas when talking about men in those other fields, it's because "they don't want to."
Which means many here find it interesting.
I'm not sure that there's anything left to be said that hasn't been beaten into the ground, over, and over, and over.
Not true IMO. The fact that you still don't see any nuance here should tell us that this is still an important discussion.
Many of us men has experienced being systematically and officially discriminated against during school.
Note: I am not saying girls aren't discriminated against. I actually think they have it worse (I have seen some of it and it was ugly). I'm just saying this discussion really lacks nuance.
And even if nature biases one way or an other, does it explain the measured discrepancy completely? Am I to believe that there's basically a shortage of "nurturing" men, as there is a shortage of technically inclined women?
We also see that the proportions vary very significantly between countries, so clearly there's a societal factor at play, one way or an other.
So I don't really like these types of shortcuts, because clearly the most nurturing man is probably more so than the less nurturing woman. We should judge people on their own merit, not their gender, race or other factors.
I was addressing the larger question of why not many men become nurses. Not saying that those who do are not nurturing and good at what they do.
In particular your example: "Many women would be uncomfortable or refuse to have a male caregiver help bathe or dress them." I think there's a massive cultural component to this, rather than some innate behavior. And the fact that there are many male gynecologists show that many women aren't that picky with their intimacy...
This isn't meant to be read as defensive; just a social observation.
In addition, fields with high female participation are systematically devalued and underpaid, and men may be leaving them for greener pastures.
You mean someone saying something completely normal with no ill intention and someone else, for whatever reason, getting offended?
- teachers, parents, advisors all too often say tech is not for women - daughters are rarely given personal computers at the same as sons - video games, an important gateway into programming, are primarily marketed at boys - we have very few living role models of expert women programmers
Many of these same arguments apply to men and nursing. The primary reason we don't talk much about it in terms of access to opportunity is that comparatively, nursing is yet another underpaid pink collar job. If nursing was a comparable opportunity to tech, there'd probably be more grousing about the cultural barriers of masculinity that inhibit fuller participation.
> teachers, parents, advisors all too often say tech is not for women.
let us know who does this so we can shame them. btw, some parents might be doing this but they're terrible parents. but no teacher or advisor would ever do this. please don't sully these hardworking people.
> daughters are rarely given a computer at the same as sons
rarely? I would dispute that.
...
> nursing is yet another underpaid pink collar job
maybe they're underpaid (I think devs are underpaid too) but it is a very good paying job that doesn't need a 4-year degree and $100k in student loans. and to top it all off they're unionized, have benefits that would make you drool, and many can retire at a young age with full benefits. it's a well sought after job and a way for many people to move up economically.
This might not be the best characterization, but you get the point. I see this in very very young kids. It's innate. Again, these are generalities, but most who work with a lot of young kids understand these things. It's no surprise to me that as boys and girls become men and women we see these traits dominate employment trends. Girls tend to gravitate to fields that tie success (either academically or professionally) with social interaction, while boys gravitate to ones that rely more on demonstration of individual impact.
Sure, there's an element of group dynamics, xenophobia, etc... that influences this stuff, but I've never held the belief that this stuff is the root cause. Why are more men chefs/cooks? Because, they like making food/seeing what they've made. Why are more women waitresses? Because they like serving/interracting with people. It's not that complicated.
"102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin."
Neonate means newborn child.
RNs and CNAs don't have this problem. Male nurses aren't seen as sexual predators, some simply don't want to do it. And most don't have any visibility into the field to see it as a potential career.
"For many men in Tallulah, the greatest obstacle to finding a job is that they have already fallen foul of the law. ...And here the falling fortunes of working-class men do further damage. In 1960, among never-married American adults aged 25-34, there were 139 men with jobs for every 100 women, with or without jobs. ...By 2012 there were only 91 employed men for every 100 women in this group. ...Even a small imbalance can have big effects. Imagine a simplified “mating market” consisting of ten men and ten women, all heterosexual. Everyone pairs up. Now take one man away. One woman is doomed to be single, so she may opt to poach another woman’s partner. A chain reaction ensues: all the women are suddenly less secure in their relationships. Some of the men, by contrast, become tempted to play the field rather than settle down. In most rich countries the supply of eligible blue-collar men does not match demand. Among black Americans, thanks to mass incarceration, it does not come close. For every 100 African-American women aged 25-54 who are not behind bars, there are only 83 men of the same age at liberty."
Even more reason for "ban the box" https://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9660282/obama-ban-the-box
Badly educated would indicate that the education is based on incorrect facts or processes.
Poorly educated would indicate that there may not be enough education, etc.
The American education system fed me lie after lie after lie.
All public schools teach lies, some even don't even pretend and teach creationism.
No English teacher would write that sentence.
Science is not about always being right. It is about knowing and building upon the best knowledge available, while maintaining the intellectual humility and curiosity to continually challenge the best available knowledge and revise it towards a measurably better state. That is how the mountain is climbed.
Some of them had good intentions with their lies (Creationists), but they're still lies.
Regardless, it was overflowing with lies. Especially history.
I hate to challenge you on that, but really, where is this actually done in the US?
If you are not college-bound you get no real attention or guidance. You are not taught about entrepreneurship, trades, or other options that might be good for you. You are not taught about managing money, personal finance, the traps of high-interest credit debt, or anything else practical. It's assumed you'll put in your time and "graduate" (or simply drop out), get some menial job, and that's your life. Nobody spares ten seconds of thought on you if you are not college-bound.
Blaming schools entirely for root causes sometimes stemming from students coming from bad home lives is nonsensical just as much as it is to remove blame from students for their individual performance. Our most often cited statistics simply don't do a good job of decoupling social factors of aggregate academic achievement from the variables schools themselves do control.
A larger essay on many of the problems and sources of these problems: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/23/ssc-gives-a-graduation-...
Surprise! "Education" is the tool to adapt us descendants of egalitarian (gender and otherwise), fraternalistic, communal, polygamous, nomadic ice-age hunters to settled agricultural civilization, aka "trade, technology, feminism"
Nothing like leading the argument...
perhaps the use of the word feminism enforces an opinion right away regardless of what the article says.
Why did various individuals flag it? You'll have to ask them on an individual basis, but it's clear based on the comments that some view the article as inflammatory. I'd bet there are also quite a few that flag anything explicitly discussing gender or politics if it doesn't involve a tech company.
The article also highlighted that class is just as relevant as gender: “the fact that the highest rungs have male feet all over them is scant comfort for the men at the bottom”.
Until the computers do all the truck driving, then you'll need a college degree to program/repair them.
It would be nice if that were noted somewhere on the page (maybe it is on the desktop site — I'm on mobile).
> men like those of Tallulah [...] lack the resources of training, of imagination and of opportunity to adapt to the new demands
> poorly educated men are often much worse at things such as showing up on time and being pleasant to customers
> criminality, alas, remains an option for men of all skill sets
Our direction is unsustainable but nobody likes this particular historical necessity.
The "uneducated men" in this article have the advantage of not being saddled with 50k in debt, and they probably end up getting paid more with jobs like groundskeeper and forklift operator.
Making college free would remove that advantage and loop it back onto the group that is already positioned to get themselves into college.
You can't have it both ways. Pick one thesis and stay with it. I also like how women are still portrayed as victims in this article, even though they have better jobs and better careers than men do. Like I said, pick one.