US The so-called "boy crisis" isn't real

[Clueless Git]

Question:

How did we end up with a patriarchy in the first place?

 

[das_nut]

A popular refrain, which ignores the fact that, for every socio/economic level, women fare worse than men.

So if your metric is "chance of graduating college", "life expectancy", "homelessness", "chance of being in prison", "chance of death from homicide", "chance of on-the-job death", etc, for every socio/economic level, do women still fare worse than men?

 

[FortyTwo]

That is true. Stuff like access to children, being a in-home parent, etc, are dismissed by this culture. Where stuff like wealth, violence, etc, are emphasized by this culture, at least for the male role.

That's what I was saying: culture does not need to favor women to create a negative impact on men. The absurd thing is acting like society favors women over men in situations like these, and that it does not ultimately trace back to anti-woman ideology.

Those who do not adopt the traditional male role are considered unusual at best, and often are considered to have something off about them.

Look to mlp's post for an explanation about this. Just because some males are favored over other males doesn't make women favored over those males. Male privilege is a thing that very much exists.

Are gamers nerds? Some probably are. Not all. You're taking a subset of the group, and a subset of gamers at that, and considering that to be the norm.

Okay, I did generalize a bit there. My mistake.

Perhaps it'd be better to look at this in two ways. Nerds nowadays are considered, if eccentric, to be smart. Male nerds, anyway. I've never really seen a positive nerd stereotype for women - in any nerd communities, or at Cons, you usually see girls being alienated for either "bandwagoning" (you've just seen Avengers so you can't like Thor! I have all the comics!) or simply being female.

Gamers are usually very hyper-masculinized. Girl gamers are mercilessly picked on - the proof is basically the entire internet.

So even with those two groups separated, male bias exists.

It's pretty easy to kill someone. Perhaps we'd be better off if we realized that everyone was vulnerable. Violence turns deadly way too often.

True. That doesn't mean that negative stereotypes against women are somehow positive to them and negative against men simply because some cases cause benefit for them.

It's interesting to note that you need to buy into the whole idea that violence is strength to believe that violence against men is good.

This I agree with. Violence is very ingrained into the male norm. That's not really even a point to debate.

Of course, this neglects the men who can't handle it. But the "patriarchy", for all its supposed to favor men, tends to favor a subset of men.

See mlp...

The solution is to reject such outdated and bigoted social norms.

Congratulations! Have some pie.

So do you agree that traditional gender stereotypes can give advantages and disadvantages to both genders?

Clearly. I think I've said this exact thing twice now.

A popular refrain, which ignores the fact that, for every socio/economic level, women fare worse than men. IOW, while the "patriarchy" doesn't favor poor and uneducated men to the same extent as it favors rich and/or educated men, it still favors them considerably more than it favors poor and uneducated women.

A patriarchy does not need to favor all men equally over all women in order for it to be a patriarchy.

"Society favours men" is not a sweeping statement????

It's a sweeping statement, but a demonstrably true one. In the case of what you're quoting I was referring to das_nut's tendency to end his posts with a profound and sweeping statement that really has only a tangential relation to the subject matter.

 

[FortyTwo]

Question:

How did we end up with a patriarchy in the first place?

To answer this requires several references to the theory of organic evolution, and I don't want to make anyone too uncomfortable.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Eve's fault. It's all Eve's fault.

 

[ledboots]

Eve's fault. It's all Eve's fault.

Yes. And I think a snake and a delicious looking apple.

 

[mlp]

So if your metric is "chance of graduating college", "life expectancy", "homelessness", "chance of being in prison", "chance of death from homicide", "chance of on-the-job death", etc, for every socio/economic level, do women still fare worse than men?

Well, let me ask you these questions:

Chance of graduating college: What's the benefit to women as a group that their chances, as a group, of graduating college is higher than that of men, as a group, when men as a group still outearn women as a group, and for same/similar jobs? I mean, knowledge for its own sake is nice, but if it doesn't translate to better lifetime earnings, how does it actually work for the benefit of women and to the detriment of men? All this *point* of yours underscores is how badly women are still disadvantaged - they may have more education, but men are still rewarded by higher wages.

Life expectancy: Are you seriously arguing that biology plays no role in the difference between male and female life expectancies?

Homelessness:

AGE

In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population; 42% of these children were under the age of five (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2004). This same study found that unaccompanied minors comprised 5% of the urban homeless population. However, in other cities and especially in rural areas, the numbers of children experiencing homelessness are much higher. According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, in 2004, 25% of homeless were ages 25 to 34; the same study found percentages of homeless persons aged 55 to 64 at 6%.

GENDER

Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).

FAMILIES

The number of homeless families with children has increased significantly over the past decade. Families with children are among the fastest growing segments of the homeless population. In its 2007 survey of 23 American cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that families with children comprised 23% of the homeless population (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007). These proportions are likely to be higher in rural areas. Research indicates that families, single mothers, and children make up the largest group of people who are homeless in rural areas (Vissing, 1996). All 21 cities with available data cited an increase in the number of persons requesting food assistance for the first-time. The increase was particularly notable among working families. (U.S. conference of mayors 2008)

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html

And yet:

The poverty rate for women (14.5 percent) was 3.3 percentage points higher than it was for men (11.2 percent). The extreme poverty rate for women (6.3 percent) was 1.4 percentage points higher than it was for men (4.9 percent).

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/povertyamongwomenandfamilies2010final.pdf

Homelessness is just one aspect of poverty. The fact is, a higher percentage of women than men live in poverty, and a higher percentage of women than men live in extreme poverty. Do women fight harder to hold on to a place to live than men do? Are men more prone to using what few resources they have to buy alcohol and drugs, while women prioritize their spending on some kind of roof over their heads? Do poor women who resort to selling themselves not fall within the homeless statistics because their pimps provide a room which a number of them share? Probably all of these factors, and others, contribute to the fact that even though a higher percentage of women than men live in extreme poverty, more women manage to somehow keep a roof over their heads.

Chance of dying from homicide: Are you really going to try to claim that this is because males are disadvantaged by our society? Really? I'd like to see you give that a shot. (No pun intended.)

Male offender/Male victim 65.2%
Male offender/Female victim 22.6%
Female offender/Male victim 9.7%
Female offender/Female victim 2.4%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2336602

Chance of being in prison: See the homicide statistics above. The statistics for violent crime, short of homicide, aren't that different. Again, it would be amusing to see you explain why all of that is a result of how disadvantaged men have been by our society.

Chance of employment related death: Yeah, it's really fortunate for women that they've been traditionally excluded from so many employment opportunities, and have been kept confined to such nice, safe occupations as teaching, nursing and secretarial work. It's just one of the many perks of being the sex who is considered incapable of doing anything else.

Here is the full list of work-related deaths in 2011 (per 100,000 workers):

1. Fisherman (121.2)
2. Loggers (102.4)
3. Pilots (57.0)
4. Farmers and Ranchers (25.3)
5. Police Officers (18.6)
6. Construction Workers (15.7)
7. National Average (3.5)
8. Firefighters (2.5)
9. Cashiers (1.6)
10. Office Admin (0.6)
11. Business and Finance Staff (0.5)

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/11396

 

[das_nut]

Well, let me ask you these questions

Chance of graduating college: What's the benefit to women as a group that their chances, as a group, of graduating college is higher than that of men, as a group, when men as a group still outearn women as a group, and for same/similar jobs? I mean, knowledge for its own sake is nice, but if it doesn't translate to better lifetime earnings, how does it actually work for the benefit of women and to the detriment of men? All this *point* of yours underscores is how badly women are still disadvantaged - they may have more education, but men are still rewarded by higher wages.

Well, young women are outearning young men. It's only later, as women are considered better parents, that they lose ground in their careers due to trading family time for career time.

This may be a curse or benefit, depending on how you prioritize time spent with family vs career advancement.

Life expectancy: Are you seriously arguing that biology plays no role in the difference between male and female life expectancies?

What biological differences do you consider would explain the life expectancy difference? The main one I can think of is childbirth (and the risks thereof), but that should shorten women's lives, not men.

Homelessness:
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html

And yet:

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/povertyamongwomenandfamilies2010final.pdf

Homelessness is just one aspect of poverty. The fact is, a higher percentage of women than men live in poverty, and a higher percentage of women than men live in extreme poverty. Do women fight harder to hold on to a place to live than men do? Are men more prone to using what few resources they have to buy alcohol and drugs, while women prioritize their spending on some kind of roof over their heads? Do poor women who resort to selling themselves not fall within the homeless statistics because their pimps provide a room which a number of them share? Probably all of these factors, and others, contribute to the fact that even though a higher percentage of women than men live in extreme poverty, more women manage to somehow keep a roof over their heads.

The "are men more prone to using what few resources they have to buy alcohol and drugs?" question seem close to blaming the victim. Unless you are going to argue that there's a biological reason for that.

Women somehow (perhaps through stronger social bonds, or being taught that it's more acceptable to seek help) are more competent at keeping shelter, even if they are in poverty. I'd argue that society would be better off if we could reduce homeless rates among the highest-risk groups to that of the lowest-risk groups.

Chance of dying from homicide: Are you really going to try to claim that this is because males are disadvantaged by our society? Really? I'd like to see you give that a shot. (No pun intended.)

I'm arguing that it's more acceptable for men to be the victims of violence, one way or another. And, same as above, we'd be better off if we brought men's risk of violence death down to a woman's risk of violence death.

Chance of being in prison: See the homicide statistics above. The statistics for violent crime, short of homicide, aren't that different. Again, it would be amusing to see you explain why all of that is a result of how disadvantaged men have been by our society.

Once again, you brush aside concerns. Why is it that I doubt you'd do the same if women were the ones at higher risk? It seems like there's some confirmation bias going on here in the rejection of the idea that society's traditional roles and stereotypes can lead to unfavorable outcomes for men.

Chance of employment related death: Yeah, it's really fortunate for women that they've been traditionally excluded from so many employment opportunities, and have been kept confined to such nice, safe occupations as teaching, nursing and secretarial work. It's just one of the many perks of being the sex who is considered incapable of doing anything else.

I'd say "not dying" is a pretty big perk, even if there are other drawbacks.

---

Here's what gets me about the whole thing. My philosophy is pretty simple to sum up: Our culture (more accurately, collection of interrelated cultures) ends up being a net positive or a net negative when it comes to a specific outcome for a specific group. I'd argue that, socially, we're better off when we remove the barriers and implement solutions to bring all groups that underperform in a specific task to parity with others.

It's a pretty easy philosophy to measure. Take an outcome. Decide what the desired outcome should be. Implement measures to rectify the outcome. Measure the result. If there's still disparity, increase or modify the measures taken. Rinse, lather, repeat.

It's also remarkably race/gender/religion/sexual-orientation/etc neutral. Just slice and dice the population and start measuring outcomes. We have the tools to do this. We have the ability. Make a list of outcomes we want to measure. Divide the population up in as many ways as we can. See what divisions match which outcomes best.

While your philosophy seems based on the idea of a strict patriarchy that only benefits all men and only penalizes all women. Any evidence to the contrary is ridiculed, minimized, or dismissed. Metrics seem only to be used when they support the idea that women are disadvantaged.

I prefer my philosophy to yours. It seems less prone to cognitive biases.

 

[Clueless Git]

To answer this requires several references to the theory of organic evolution, and I don't want to make anyone too uncomfortable.

Aye, facts can be uncomfortable things.

 

[Clueless Git]

Life expectancy: Are you seriously arguing that biology plays no role in the difference between male and female life expectancies?

Are you seriously arguing that biology plays no role in the difference between male and female strengths and weaknesses. I.e. that biology plays no role in the difference between male and female success?

 

[beancounter]

I think the notion that women earn less in the same job as men (assuming they are the same level/same years of experience) is false.

In reality, women as a group make less than men, because they (again, taken as a whole) choose professions that pay less. And here are other factors:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

"The wage gap statistic, however, doesn't compare two similarly situated co-workers of different sexes, working in the same industry, performing the same work, for the same number of hours a day. It merely reflects the median earnings of all men and women classified as full-time workers."

Another one:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/11/11/the_77_of_income_fallacy_98754.html

 

[mlp]

I didn't realize that so many people were so uninformed about female/male biological differences as they relate to longevity.

The biological advantage that women have is taken as a certainty, because the mortality of males is higher than that of females from the very outset of life: during the first year of life, in the absence of any outside influence which could differentiate mortality between the sexes, male mortality is 25 to 30 percent greater than is female mortality. The genetic advantage of females is evident. When a mutation of one of the genes of the X chromosome occurs, females have a second X to compensate, whereas all genes of the unique X chromosome of males express themselves, even if they are deleterious. More generally, the genetic difference between the sexes is associated with a better resistance to biological aging. Furthermore, female hormones and the role of women in reproduction have been linked to greater longevity. Estrogen, for example, facilitates the elimination of bad cholesterol and thus may offer some protection against heart disease; testosterone, on the other hand, has been linked to violence and risk taking. Finally, the female body has to make reserves to accommodate the needs of pregnancy and breast feeding; this ability has been associated with a greater ability to cope with overeating and eliminating excess food.

Men dying sooner than women makes sense biologically: because 105 males are born for every 100 females, it would assure that there are about the same number of men and women at reproductive ages. But even though women showed a longer life expectancy in almost every human society in the last decade of the 20th century, the size of the advantage varied greatly. For example, in the U.S. male life expectancy was 73.4 years for males and 80.1 years for females, a difference of 6.7 years, whereas in France it was 7.8 years and in the U.K., 5.3 years. The discrepancy was much greater in some countries, with the difference in Russia reaching more than 12 years, but in others, such as India (0.6 year) or Bangladesh (0.1 year), it was much less.

The diversity in worldwide longevity alone indicates that the difference in mortality between the sexes is not purely biological and that there are intervening social factors. The current range of situations actually reflects different stages of a three-part historical evolution. Women most probably have a biological advantage that allows them to live longer, but in the past--and in several places, still today--the status and life conditions of women nullified this benefit. Today, given the general progress in female life conditions, women have not only regained their biological advantage, but have gone much beyond it, both because they tend to engage in fewer behaviors that are bad for health than men do and because they better profit from current advances in health care and living conditions.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-life-expectancy-lo

You should read the article in its entirety.

 

[mlp]

Pay differential:

Even though women are outpacing men in getting college degrees that’s not enough to close the gender pay gap. The American Association of University Women tackled the pay gap question by looking at workers of the same educational attainment—same kind of college, same grades—holding the same kinds of jobs, and having made the same choices about marriage and number of kids. They found that college-educated women earn 5 percent less the first year out of school than their male peers. Ten years later, even if they keep working on par with those men, the women earn 12 percent less.

The wage gap accumulates over time. Over a 40-year working career, the average woman loses $431,000 as the result of the wage gap. The pay gap accumulates in no small part because initial pay matters: If a woman earns less in her first job, when she takes a new job and her new employer sets her pay scale, they will often base it on her pay history. The lifetime wage gap for a woman who did not finish high school is $300,000, while the lifetime wage gap for a woman with at least a bachelor’s degree is $723,000. Making sure that young women understand the importance of negotiating for good pay from day one should be a pressing policy concern and is included in the Paycheck Fairness Act.

As women age the wage gap continues to grow. For working women between the ages of 25 to 29, the annual wage gap is $1,702. In the last five years before retirement, however, the annual wage gap jumps to $14,352.

Single women are even more adversely affected by the wage gap than married women. Single women earn only 78.8 percent of what married women earn, and only 57 cents for every dollar that married males earn.

More than 40 percent of the wage gap cannot be explained by occupation, work experience, race, or union membership. More than one-quarter of the wage gap is due to the different jobs that men and women hold, and about 10 percent is due to the fact that women are more likely to leave the workforce to provide unpaid care to family members. But even when controlling for gender and racial differences, 41 percent is “unexplainable by measureable factors.” Even if women and men have the same background, the wage gap still exists, highlighting the fact that part of the discrepancy can be attributed to gender-based pay discrimination.

http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/

Having worked both as an employee and as a capital partner in a professional field, I can attest from firsthand experience that women with the same qualifications and the same billable hours consistently earn less than their male counterparts. My sister, who has spent her working life in IT, can personally attest to the same in that industry.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I'm afraid that's just not good enough mlp. Do you know any men who can validate your observations, and those of your sister?

 

[mlp]

Well, young women are outearning young men. It's only later, as women are considered better parents, that they lose ground in their careers due to trading family time for career time.

Untrue.

What biological differences do you consider would explain the life expectancy difference? The main one I can think of is childbirth (and the risks thereof), but that should shorten women's lives, not men.

I addressed that in my other post. See the Scientific American article I cited for a brief synopsis.

The "are men more prone to using what few resources they have to buy alcohol and drugs?" question seem close to blaming the victim. Unless you are going to argue that there's a biological reason for that.

So, if Person A chooses to buy alcohol and or drugs, and Person B chooses to pay the rent, that's "blaming the victim"?! You're too funny!

Women somehow (perhaps through stronger social bonds, or being taught that it's more acceptable to seek help) are more competent at keeping shelter, even if they are in poverty. I'd argue that society would be better off if we could reduce homeless rates among the highest-risk groups to that of the lowest-risk groups.

Well, since more women are in poverty than men, and more women are in extreme poverty than men, I would say that women are actually more "at risk" for homelessness. Unless, of course, you're saying that the issue isn't actually having money to pay rent - that men choose, for some reason, not to pay rent.

I'm arguing that it's more acceptable for men to be the victims of violence, one way or another.

Only in your head.

And, same as above, we'd be better off if we brought men's risk of violence death down to a woman's risk of violence death.

I think that will be most easily be accomplished by neutering men. In the alternative, you're going to have to teach them to control their testosterone driven impulses.

Once again, you brush aside concerns. Why is it that I doubt you'd do the same if women were the ones at higher risk? It seems like there's some confirmation bias going on here in the rejection of the idea that society's traditional roles and stereotypes can lead to unfavorable outcomes for men.

I don't think that men committing crimes at much higher rates than women has much, if anything, to do with society's traditional roles and stereotypes. It has an awful lot to do with testosterone and the unwillingness of some men to control their testosterone driven impulses. That's why there's such a big difference between the sexes when it comes down to violent crime, drug related crime, etc., and a much smaller difference when it comes to nonviolent crime.

And, frankly, there's not a whole lot women can do about that. There's not a whole lot that women can even do about what society perceives as "masculine", because frankly, men pretty well set the standard for other men in that respect.

I'd say "not dying" is a pretty big perk, even if there are other drawbacks.

Well, you only have to avoid six professions if you want to have that "perk." (Although I would venture to guess that, even in all of the other professions, women get killed at lower rates than men, for the same reasons that women die at lower rates in motor vehicle accidents. Women tend to be less impulsive, and again, that's largely explained by testosterone, combined with the fact that our brains work differently.)

---

Here's what gets me about the whole thing. My philosophy is pretty simple to sum up: Our culture (more accurately, collection of interrelated cultures) ends up being a net positive or a net negative when it comes to a specific outcome for a specific group. I'd argue that, socially, we're better off when we remove the barriers and implement solutions to bring all groups that underperform in a specific task to parity with others.

It's a pretty easy philosophy to measure. Take an outcome. Decide what the desired outcome should be. Implement measures to rectify the outcome. Measure the result. If there's still disparity, increase or modify the measures taken. Rinse, lather, repeat.

It's also remarkably race/gender/religion/sexual-orientation/etc neutral. Just slice and dice the population and start measuring outcomes. We have the tools to do this. We have the ability. Make a list of outcomes we want to measure. Divide the population up in as many ways as we can. See what divisions match which outcomes best.

While your philosophy seems based on the idea of a strict patriarchy that only benefits all men and only penalizes all women. Any evidence to the contrary is ridiculed, minimized, or dismissed. Metrics seem only to be used when they support the idea that women are disadvantaged.

I prefer my philosophy to yours. It seems less prone to cognitive biases.

I'm quite, quite sure you don't recognize the humor in this. Fortunately, almost everyone else who reads this will.

 

[Clueless Git]

It has an awful lot to do with testoserone and the unwillingness of some men to control their testosterone driven impulses.

It is entirely true that uncontrolled testoserone driven impulses may be responsible for all the disasters that men bring upon others and upon themselves.

It seems empiricaly true that controlled testorone driven impulses may be exactly what is responsible for male dominance in certain spheres of life though.

 

[Clueless Git]

I'm afraid that's just not good enough mlp. Do you know any men who can validate your observations, and those of your sister?

Are we going to be following the path that only female observations are valid?

 

[beancounter]

I'm afraid that's just not good enough mlp. Do you know any men who can validate your observations, and those of your sister?

There were many occasions at VB where I would make a statement based on personal experience (or the experience of those I'm close to), and would be told that my personal experience wasn't valid because it couldn't be extrapolated to the population.

 

[ledboots]

This isn't aimed at anyone specifically, but just about all the WHINING in the world.

 

[beancounter]

This isn't aimed at anyone specifically, but just about all the WHINING in the world.

Oh, c'mon. Someone's post must have prompted you to post that.