Young women earn more than men in some US cities
bbc.com
bbc.com
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/28/young-women...
The problem with anything written about this topic is that 99% of the time, ideology comes first and the goal of the writer is to either be pro-women, or anti-feminist. It's never a balanced view.
Pew's analysis seems pretty balanced. They looked only at young people who work full-time. Within this demographic:
16% - are in metro areas where women earn parity to men, or up to 20% more than men. 47% - are in metro areas where women earn 90-99% of what men earn. 37% - are in metro areas where women earn <90% of men.
It also notes that men work 4-5% longer hours than women.
What it doesn't dare to touch (I don't blame them) are gender roles and proclivities. Questions like: how much of this is due to men being on average more competitive, and valuing career/financial success more than women do? How much of it is due to women prioritizing family over work? How much of it is due to the professions each gender gravitates toward?
Those questions are all based on pretty well established observational data, but people find it very uncomfortable to acknowledge that gender roles exist and men and women continue to have very different preferences about how to live their lives, despite over a century of feminism. I think it's because one camp fundamentally believes that these preferences should be eradicated and the other believes they are natural and acceptable.
And very good point about the Overton window aspect of this issue. There's a large number of things in this world that might potentially be improved but people aren't allowed to discuss the problems or solutions freely.
I believe systems should be dismantled that reward being competitive and do not reward care work.
Who is doing the rewarding and what is the reward? Is getting higher wages for doing longer hours at work a reward? Are vacation days rewards? Is it a reward to get higher paid if you do a night shift compared to a day shift?
You are forgetting there's no experiment controlling for culture. Naturally, laws and cultural habits don't change in lock step, the latter not even equally over all in a particular cultural zone. It is therefore to be expected that ingrained habits disappear only slowly over the generations. This should not be seen as validation of the existence of gender roles. Nor is it even about that (I know politicians try to make it about identity, it's the easiest way to rile up a base). It is about enabling all sorts of habits. Those gender roles you refer to are not and were not shared by all, and those people are thankful for change.
If a cat makes it into a den full of mice, those mice are going to die. There's no favoritism, it's just how reality works.
People who work harder have a strong tendency to be more successful at the thing they're working at. This is just as true for the high school athlete that puts in 4 extra hours on the weekend as it is for the person working 60-80 hours/week.
----
And if I may, this is a major problem. Society has been built such that many people have been able to successfully exist without an innate acceptable of reality. They've been able to do this because they've never had to actually contend with what it means to poke a bear (hint: you'll get eaten) and over time its colored their view of everything as being negotiable (with little to no respect for reality).
But just as smoking crack for years on end has certain realities that you cannot get away with, people working harder than you also has certain realities (such as them giving up family time but making more money).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average woman's annual salary is 79% of the average man's salary, compared to 95% for the adjusted average salary.
TBH I don't think anybody is uncomfortable acknowledging this as "a thing". The issues arise when there are people saying that it's biological and it is how it is because women and men are inherently different while others say it is due to society, beliefs and costumes.
Without even getting into genetics, we have mountains of empirical evidence that sex hormones influence behavior. E.g. if you suppress or increase someone's testosterone, you'll tend to see their level of aggression change. If you administer cross-sex hormone therapy to a transgender person, their behavior will tend to change. Doctors are well aware of all this and tell their patients about it because doing so is important for the patient's well-being.
We've done brain scans of people who are exposed to changes in their sex hormone balance, and found that it physically changes the brain, some parts get bigger, some get smaller.
None of this is to suggest that you should be locked into a certain role in life because of your sex. But it's equally damaging to deny that biology has any role in your personality, because if you do, you're setting yourself up for a lifetime of internal conflict.
This polarity of masculine vs feminine behavior is real and biological. That doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of overlap - some women are predisposed to act more masculine, and some men are predisposed to act more feminine. Which is all fine, as a society we should never deny people access to opportunities because of their biological makeup.
But the poles are absolutely real and at least partially rooted in biology. The recent trend of trying to deny their existence, or claim that they're fabricated by patriarchal power structures or whatever, is anti-science.
People have done studies where they have increase someone's testosterone (within human levels) and observed if there was any changes in aggressive behavior. It was proven repeatably to not cause any change. This caused a bit of surprise among researchers and resulted in a new theory called challenge hypothesis, but popular opinion still believe the old theory that testosterone increase aggression. An even older theory thought estrogen to cause emotional hysteria, and a mountain of research illustrated how wrong that was.
To make a car comparison, how much oil is being pumped in a car has a direct relation to how fast it is going. If it has zero oil the speed of the car is likely to go to zero. Oil is required to reach high speeds (or rather high rpm), and oil has a correlation to speed. Oil has a direct effect on most part of the engine. Oil doesn't however cause high speed, and increasing the oil does not make the car go faster.
It still proves my point. This is a biological feature exclusive to males which influences their behavior. Biological sex influences behavior.
I don't disagree that biological sex influences behavior. What is important however is that what people think it does is generally not what it actually do. To take estrogen as an example, too much or too little do have a link to mental instability. It is very hard however to defined exactly what estrogen do as a biological influencer. As with testosterone and aggression, estrogen does not cause women to go crazy. When people believe that hormones has that kind of effect the outcome tend to be bad, as well as being anti-science.
Testosterone levels in males rises after gaining social status. High testosterone levels in turn increase calorie usages that goes towards behavior which correlated to maintaining and defending existing levels of social status. In some cultures there is a correlation between both gaining social status and maintaining social status with aggression. How should one then describe the biological relation between testosterone and aggression?
One could simplify and say that testosterone has a bias in our culture towards aggression and estrogen has a bias towards mental illness, but even that would likely not be helpful in explaining difference in behavior between men and women.
Edit: Oof looks really bad on users of a predominantly male site that that factual observation is downvoted.
> “ What it doesn't dare to touch (I don't blame them) are gender roles and proclivities. Questions like: how much of this is due to men being on average more competitive, and valuing career/financial success more than women do? How much of it is due to women prioritizing family over work? How much of it is due to the professions each gender gravitates toward?”
> How much of it is due to the professions each gender gravitates toward
I think it is even more interesting and complicated than that, too. Assuming that "women tend to more commonly take roles that pay less", you can ask the followup question of whether those roles pay less _because_ women traditionally fill them. Is cause and effect one way, the other way, or both ways?
Overall, it is a REALLY interesting topic. It is also, however, one where it's very easy to start out having an innocent conversation and accidentally turn out being considered "the bad guy". So it's a hard conversation to have widely.
Men have been seen to be more sensitive to changes in wages and to generally leave professions faster when wages are dropping. Men tend to also rush to professions when wages are suddenly rising. Since wages can change to external factors, there does seem to indicate the order of the cause and effect.
It would be interesting to know if the same could be said about work hours. If you extend work hours (overtime), do women tend to leave the profession, and if you reduce it (like 4 day work week) do women rush to that profession?
You know how usually someone posts interesting job vacancy on LinkedIn, and many people comment or like it?
In some cases it's the other way around. Very attractive female fresh grads post on LinkedIn saying "Hey I need job", and the post got popular. The post itself usually is the cover letter (like "To HR:"), accompanied by her photo (it's typical in job application to attach portrait photo).
E.g. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6996294...
For an organisation that concerns itself a great deal about misinformation, it sure does like to spread it around when it fits its narrative.
The caveat is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, and indeed the mistake a lot of people make is to imply (or outright say) that this means women are paid 30% less for the same work.
In general, there's more to text than the literal meaning. Text suggests, and an institution like the BBC knows that.
If women were accepting less pay, you d have entire corporations trying to get rid of men to make room for cheaper women.
The reality must be that women and men gravitate towards different jobs and different hours per week.
The good thing is that most men and women can unite and create a balance to average their revenue across a couple.
My wife is paid more than me but she's doing a job I cant do and she wouldnt even consider doing mine... like, is that bad ? Hard to say, we just balance it out.
Did you not read that far or did you choose to not include it for a reason?
This is a great example of why no article covering this topic can be discussed sensibly on this site – because of bad-faith comments like this.
I would act in exactly the same way if they were claiming the reason they perceive women to be paid less is because they are less intelligent "by some estimates"[1], but I have a strong suspicion they wouldn't do that. In my view, it is the same principle being broken in both examples and all I desire is treating them consistently.
What is the misinformation here ?
Other sales roles have similar gender wage gaps.
And then there is Only Fans and sex work.
When it comes to some types of employment, most men just can't compete on looks with young attractive women.
Even more ironic, because I’m both cases it us about sex, and women control the sexual domain; women in both of these dynamics are squandering and running unrealized value.
These dynamics are at extreme civilization ending levels, as sooner of us will surely experience first hand, likely sooner than we may think, because the effects are extremely lagging because there are several phases that must be stepped through before the terminal state becomes apparent.
There are some people who push this for political or marketing reasons (think about how much money Andrew Tate or Jordan Petersen have made this way) but a lot of it depends on selectively ignoring the evidence. All of the men who I’ve heard talk like this have some combination of unrealistic expectations (Elon Musk can party with rock stars because his wealth is measured in hundreds of billions; J. Random IT Worker needs to bring more to the table) or, almost universally, being unwilling to accept that their attitudes and politics were the underlying cause. This can be tragic where you know women who are looking for men who won’t rape them or treat them like NPCs and men who are convinced that the problem is their lack of abs, and the latter spend all of their time hanging out with other men telling them to treat women as NPCs and only considering the hottest people they know.
Ten years ago it was still unimaginable when talking about regular people, now completely normalized. Remarkable.
They never even hinted 'sex'. Probably sex work, from people who in other times had other job opportunities besides selling their body online.
>Do you mean that sex is a product of a degenerate society?
So, answering your question, widespread sex work, yes.
Sex work irreparably destroys one's ability to desire or enjoy intimacy. A core function of what it means to be human is completely erased.
Through first hand experience, I have gone from being completely pro-sex work to now viewing it as an evil industry.
Safe, legal, and easily monetizable sex work is a boon for young pretty women. Attractive men don’t generally have that avenue available to them, for example as a way to pay for college.
I’m not really sure it’s a boon for society. It’s purely to placate lonely men who are unable to get a partner. I don’t know any men who pay for onlyfans content and have a partner.
I think widespread sex work is a failure of society and I’m pro-sex work. It usually means you’ve failed men and commoditized sex and relationships.
I wouldn’t lament that sex work being safe and profitable is bad for society. But I also don’t think OnlyFans is significantly inducing demand, and I wouldn’t describe this as “taking” money from lonely men, it seems like a fair economic exchange to me.
I don’t have the hard numbers but I think staying single, being alone (and lonely), are huge and growing issues in modern society.
The internet providing easy & cheap access to dopamine as a coping mechanism is probably better than increasing alcohol or drug use, but certainly isn’t a “good” thing. All of them of course have the potential for addictive and compulsive use.
I don’t see a problem with commoditizing sex when it’s outside the scope of a committed relationship. Not all sex is about meeting an emotional need, and that’s perfectly fine as long as it’s safe and consensual.
Young men are certainly being failed in many ways and seem to be quite lost in the culture wars. My unscientific opinion is that this is compounded by the many environmental toxins pushing down T levels, modern K-12 educational pedagogy catering heavily to girls, and societal change around masculinity and the increasing impossibility of celebrating male gender roles.
It’s a weird argument to say that the cure for incels is to socialize sex work. It’s not going to solve anything. Most men don’t want just sex - they want a relationship too.
The truth of the matter is that we’ve gone past women needing men - and in our current culture… most women don’t really want men regardless of their T levels or role models. They sometimes want the idea of a man (Instagram, TikTok, etc.) but they don’t want the reality.
I don’t think there’s any real cure for this except third spaces coming back and a deemphasis on our extremely commoditized and capitalistic ways. Neither of which will happen for the next 50 years.
I think most people do want a loving partner, if not more than one. Women definitely don’t “need a man” in the historical sense that they couldn’t really survive and be a respected part of the community without one.
Pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children in a nuclear family is still pretty essential for a lot of people, although it can happen a lot later in life now, so there’s a large window in their 20s for women now where they will often outearn and outperform males their age, which certainly makes those men less attractive.
Are they thrilled when they realize men, don't think of them as potential wives after they have become virtual (or real) prostitutes?
It's no all black or white but let's not treat OF as the next best thing after running water, I wouldn't be surprised if it was, as many other websites (social medias cue), a net negative when you start looking at the broad/long term impact
As always with tech, what was once ok at a small scale doesn't necessarily stays ok when it becomes a world wide "1-click" away phenomenon accessible to virtually anyone over the age of 12 with half a brain
It's not a stretch to observe society as degenerating when we have continuously normalized blatantly degenerate behavior with clear harm to younger members of society.
It's not that hard. Hit the gym, stop eating junk food, dress smarter. You can do it too.
This isn’t because women outsell men or because of the attractiveness of a waitress. It’s because waitstaff are tipped and back of house employees (generally) are not.
> young attractive women in sales jobs often do very well
Young hot men also do very well in sales lol.
There is lots of research showing that the more attractive the customers find waitress the more they get tipped. Even straight women seem to tip attractive waitresses more.
With 10x the streamed content, 7x the consumed content doesn't feel too crazy. The next male streamer has a similar profile, also doing pretty much daily streams.
But maybe amouranth just deletes the videos after they're streamed? Again, I don't know how Twitch works.
If you're a woman in a mostly younger male audience platform you get the viewers. All you need is an attractive body and a nice dress.
Ibabyrainbow 21 year old wearing braces showing off her body 1.5k viewers.
I'm not into ASMR but holy crap licking microphones for "the ASMR" where the girls are dressed in tight dresses with perfect make up, where you can guess that the microphone is really a penis replacement. 100% female domain. How many want to see a guy licking a microphone? 5% most likely with the odd spike for curiosity.
I'm saying on average the females have it easier to attract viewers, that is also the traditional female field. You don't have to provide content, your body is content. Idk if you have noticed that women mostly like to film themselves on stream because they know that the males watch them for their looks. Male cameras are mostly turned away from them filming their surroundings.
As a male streamer you need special equipment, at least so they think, so you can stream in 1920×1080 with redundant modem and sim card setup, while female streamers don't bother with the weight and just use a 720p smartphone.
There are of course always exceptions and I don't claim to be an expert. I've only been watching this field since this summer and those are my observations
At every sales and sales adjacent job I've experienced the top salespeople where always men.
This should lead us to ask the two following questions. A) Why are men choosing to go into sales if they are offered less than women for the same work? B) Are there other intrinsic values that sale jobs include or is not included that influence the job decision?
Either way I'm not really sure that counts as a sales job in a more general sense.
>Mothers were identified as the perpetrators in all of the neonaticides and were the most common perpetrators overall (71.0%; 95% CI 63.9%, 77.2%).
What you're arguing, whether you realize it or not, is that equality is only important for the richest in society.
I can't stand behind that, nor do I think most can.