Men. Men. Men.

[Week]

21 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I don't think thats the cause and effect.

Female-dominated occupations getting paid less or fewer men seeking to low paying occupations (that are - again - female dominated)?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0

Quote

And there was substantial evidence that employers placed a lower value on work done by women. “It’s not that women are always picking lesser things in terms of skill and importance,” Ms. England said. “It’s just that the employers are deciding to pay it less.”

A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.

The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige.

 

[Toth]

I also want to underline the social stigma that comes with jobs that someone declared a commonly female occupation. Just speaking out of my own experience, this discussion reminds me of an argument among my pupils where I had to intervene: One of my boys (a buff somewhat thuggish looking dude who was in middle school, but looked seriously at least 5 years older) declared with utter conviction that he's aiming for kindergarden teacher and that this is how he thinks he could do the most for society and he thinks it genuinely fun. I was rather impressed, but I had to fold the other boys together because they started to mock him for it relentlessly and stopped only after I demanded to know their aspirations and they were unable to come up with any.

I'm not in the least surprised that peer pressure like this, when left unchecked, makes those guys inclined for child-care think twice about it.

On the other hand the financial thing sure is another reason. If teaching at Primary Schools would pay better than teaching at High Schools, I'd have thought twice about my choice of position. Then again, I do work with Primary Schoolers sometimes and have severe difficulties getting my points across, difficulties I simply don't have with older students. It's easier for me to focus less on upbringing and more on the fun of my subjects. For the most part I do think that's a question of what kind of teacher you are, but it doesn't change the fact that I have only the highest respect for those who can handle the little ones.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Eggegg said:

I don't think thats the cause and effect.

It kind of is. Note that Finland pays teachers very well and considers them a major prestigious job, and they have better percentages than the baseline (and this is increasing). 

But they're still about 80-20 women. 

[mankytoes]

8 hours ago, Toth said:

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

I thought this is supposed to be the "Let's talk about Men's issues the way MRA's don't" thread, not the victim blaming thread.

What Dame Lansbury there sprouts comes from an antiquated view that men are impulsive and sexually violent creatures by default, who can't possibly be bothered to restrain themselves when women dare to enter the public sphere to flaunt their alluring female bodies. That's why women to this day are pushed out of that sphere, to stay at home or to wrap themselves in a bedsheet when leaving it, so that they don't tempt those poor beastlike men who can't possibly do anything about their idiotic behavior.

Seriously, dude. As a man you should feel offended at this kind of reasoning, not support it because it rids us of all responsibility for crappy behavior.

Can I copy and paste your head in hand thing? I know you're trolling me at this point. You can't seriously think posting a link to something is the same as supporting it.

 

[Eggegg]

3 hours ago, Week said:

Female-dominated occupations getting paid less or fewer men seeking to low paying occupations (that are - again - female dominated)?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html?_r=0

 

I don't know. I'm pretty suspicious of many of these studies, there are so many factors at play. For instance if the workforce supply suddenly increases in size due to women entering the market, then the wages will go down. Or what the role of technology is in these wage drops. Or are we comparing low wages jobs that men predominantly do like garbage disposal. Or the way these roles have changed over time ( I remember reading that the actual roles in programming have changed over the years and that has influenced the type of candidate being selected) 

All I'm saying is, I think that its probably far more complex than these studies like to make out. 

I also don't think this is the correct thread to be discussing this, so if you want to talk about low pay amongst women or the wage gap then I'm sure there is a feminism thread somewhere.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I don't know. I'm pretty suspicious of many of these studies, there are so many factors at play. For instance if the workforce supply suddenly increases in size due to women entering the market, then the wages will go down. Or what the role of technology is in these wage drops. Or are we comparing low wages jobs that men predominantly do like garbage disposal. Or the way these roles have changed over time ( I remember reading that the actual roles in programming have changed over the years and that has influenced the type of candidate being selected) 

The roles in programming haven't changed much at all. The major thing that changed was advertising towards boys as using computers. Prior to that computing had been very much a woman-based task, and at the time it was  thought it would be that way because women were supposedly better at paying attention to detail and doing more boring tasks. Those things are still basically hugely important in programming. 

4 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

All I'm saying is, I think that its probably far more complex than these studies like to make out. 

Probably, but every profession where women dominate has lower wages across the education spectrum. At some point you've got to acknowledge SOMETHING is going on there. 

4 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I also don't think this is the correct thread to be discussing this, so if you want to talk about low pay amongst women or the wage gap then I'm sure there is a feminism thread somewhere.

When we're talking about why there aren't more men in teaching, which means fewer male role models, it's kind of a big deal. 

[Eggegg]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The roles in programming haven't changed much at all. The major thing that changed was advertising towards boys as using computers. Prior to that computing had been very much a woman-based task, and at the time it was  thought it would be that way because women were supposedly better at paying attention to detail and doing more boring tasks. Those things are still basically hugely important in programming. 

Again, a simplistic answer to a complex situation. You could write an essay about the many reasons that there are more men in coding, but again, there is an entire thread devoted to that. I think its very simplistic to put it down to simply computer advertising in the 80s.
 

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Probably, but every profession where women dominate has lower wages across the education spectrum. At some point you've got to acknowledge SOMETHING is going on there. 

Yes there probably is something going on there, but my automatic reaction isn't to simply say that someone is pushing wages down simply because they see women performing the role. I think there are probably a large number of factors involved.

 

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When we're talking about why there aren't more men in teaching, which means fewer male role models, it's kind of a big deal. 

If you want to push the conversation towards why women get paid less or the wage gap then I don't think this is the place for it. No.

[Week]

9 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I don't know. I'm pretty suspicious of many of these studies, there are so many factors at play. For instance if the workforce supply suddenly increases in size due to women entering the market, then the wages will go down. Or what the role of technology is in these wage drops. Or are we comparing low wages jobs that men predominantly do like garbage disposal. Or the way these roles have changed over time ( I remember reading that the actual roles in programming have changed over the years and that has influenced the type of candidate being selected) 

Those things are generally considered and discussed in these studies. Your "what about" spray of questioning seems more about an unwillingness to engage rather than critical thinking.

9 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

All I'm saying is, I think that its probably far more complex than these studies like to make out. 

Nothing in the linked article suggests that the conditions are simple. You've made that assumption in order to wave away inconvenient facts.

9 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I also don't think this is the correct thread to be discussing this, so if you want to talk about low pay amongst women or the wage gap then I'm sure there is a feminism thread somewhere. 

My response was to the topic of why men aren't in early childhood care and teaching jobs. Primarily, money and stigma of "female dominated occupations" -- which is a self-reinforcing cycle. I wouldn't expect every industry to be 50/50 across genders, but there are clear barriers that would prevent men from choosing such an occupation. Sorry for introducing some facts and analysis that must have also let some cooties in.

You responded with a comment with no context, evidence, or analysis. Now, you cry foul. Boo fucking hoo. Shit like this is why "men are getting a bad rap".

[Week]

9 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

If you want to push the conversation towards why women get paid less or the wage gap then I don't think this is the place for it. No.

It was an explanation as a contributing factor to why men are not in that occupation. Not hijacking into a "why women are paid less" until: 

9 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Yes there probably is something going on there, but my automatic reaction isn't to simply say that someone is pushing wages down simply because they see women performing the role. I think there are probably a large number of factors involved.

This impacts men as well. 

[Week]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Probably, but every profession where women dominate has lower wages across the education spectrum. At some point you've got to acknowledge SOMETHING is going on there. 

Correct. Hand-waving to decide that SOMETHING is probably too many things for us to understand and just walk away is the kind of behavior that maintains the status quo.

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When we're talking about why there aren't more men in teaching, which means fewer male role models, it's kind of a big deal. 

Precisely.

[Kalbear]

As to getting more men into teaching, I think a couple big parts are that the job itself needs to be more prestigious and needs to pay more. We need to value teachers significantly more than we do today, period, especially at the primary education levels. 

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As to getting more men into teaching, I think a couple big parts are that the job itself needs to be more prestigious and needs to pay more. We need to value teachers significantly more than we do today, period, especially at the primary education levels. 

Agree -- I'd be interested in reading more about how to change that culture and/or increase the pay.

Mostly, a quick google points to NEA (National Educators Association) and only a smattering of others to look at:

http://www.nea.org/home/35916.htm
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/what-if-americas-teachers-made-more-money/463275/

As with a lot of issues with education -- equality within and between districts -- seems to go back to property taxes as the main budgetary source for public education.

[Kalbear]

Oddly, one of the better ways might be to reduce public education and allow private education systems more leeway. They'll likely have a lot more money available, and working privately has always been seen as more prestigious. 

[Toth]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Can I copy and paste your head in hand thing? I know you're trolling me at this point. You can't seriously think posting a link to something is the same as supporting it.

Oh... my sincerest apologies! I actually mistook you for the egg dude and haven't noticed that you were engaged in a separate conversation with Kalbear to which the link was a contribution to. Sorry, I just barged in and completely missed the context by the time I have read the garbage in that article.

Damn... that's what happens when you come home from a stressful day and look into the forum while doing three other things. Believe me, it was not meant as trolling, it was just... ah well, I better keep low and come back when I can think straight again and don't get this riled up as easily...

[mankytoes]

1 minute ago, Toth said:

Oh... my sincerest apologies! I actually mistook you for the egg dude and haven't noticed that you were engaged in a separate conversation with Kalbear to which the link was a contribution to. Sorry, I just barged in and completely missed the context by the time I have read the garbage in that article.

Damn... that's what happens when you come home from a stressful day and look into the forum while doing three other things. Believe me, it was not meant as trolling, it was just... ah well, I better keep low and come back when I can think straight again and don't get this riled up as easily...

Ha, fair play mate, good on you for apologising, I would probably have tried to tough it out!

[Alarich II]

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

As to getting more men into teaching, I think a couple big parts are that the job itself needs to be more prestigious and needs to pay more. We need to value teachers significantly more than we do today, period, especially at the primary education levels. 

I don't know if I agree here. I mean: yes, it would be nice for teaching to have greater social status.

But I don't know if I can really support the reason. If I understood your argument correctly, you are basically saying: (a) men go only (mainly) for well paid, prestigious jobs and (b) we need more male teachers in nurseries and primary schools therefore (c) we need to change the job profile so that it fits better to what men are looking for.

I find that argument problematic for two reasons (please correct me, if I am misrepresenting your argument):

1. I think the ongoing struggle for more prestige and more income is basically what makes a lot of mens working life pretty miserable, so just making another career more appealing to that kind of attitude might attract the wrong personalities and might also make it less attractive for women who now have to deal with more alpha-assholes in the workplace.

2. I believe that it is more important to change the male attitude towards these jobs rather than change the jobs to fit the current male preferences. To me, this is a bit like throwing your hands in the air and saying: oh well, this is how men are, it's not going to change, so let's change everything else to fit that.

So in the end, I agree that it would be good for teaching to pay better and have greater social status (although in Germany at least, I'd say that there's a certain amount of trade off: high job security vs. lower income), but for its own sake and not to make the field more attractive to men, because I think that might send the wrong signals.

[DMC]

How is this thread still going?  Men SUCK.  Even the title - it reminds of the television show Two and a Half Men, which is quite possibly the worst abomination that made it's way to television in the 21st century.  If any man reading this has any type of soul, they will heed the words of Danny DeVito in The Big Kahuna:

Quote

A man hasn't any idea what his soul looks like until he gazes into the eyes of the woman that he's married to.  And then, if he's any kind of decent human being, he spends the next couple of days throwing up.  Because no honest man can stand that image.

 

[Yukle]

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

How is this thread still going?  Men SUCK. 

Just in case this isn't tongue-in-cheek, it's not at all true. The men in my life are indispensable to my happiness and I would be truly incomplete without them.

[Eggegg]

28 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Just in case this isn't tongue-in-cheek, it's not at all true. The men in my life are indispensable to my happiness and I would be truly incomplete without them.

Exactly, Its a little bit too easy to just slag off men all day, we should sometimes get some sort of encouragement as well! Thats a pretty unpleasant quote, even tongue in cheek, most men are pretty damn great husbands, and most women are great wives. 
 

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Oddly, one of the better ways might be to reduce public education and allow private education systems more leeway. They'll likely have a lot more money available, and working privately has always been seen as more prestigious. 

This is one solution, but I'd guess that what would happen is that you would have a group of select teachers earning relatively high wages and the market would depress everyone else's wages. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

Just in case this isn't tongue-in-cheek, it's not at all true. The men in my life are indispensable to my happiness and I would be truly incomplete without them.

It was tongue in cheek.  I may hate myself, but it's more complicated than simply because I have a penis.  But, I really do like that quote - and I'm certainly serious about any and all disparaging comments directed towards Two and a Half Men.