You know, I'd agree with a lot of what you guys say about actually looking toward equality and the sort of problems patriarchy has already caused. The only problem is that feminists have actively worked against the interests of men, especially in relation to reproductive control.
I'm not trying to be in a "Us vs Them" mentality when it comes to women, but when it comes to feminism, they've forced that sort of thinking because they are very engaged in that sort of dialogue.
The point was, "glass house, as any of us can do that smug bullshit" with, as you say, quote wars. It doesn't add anything to the discussion besides make us all look like assholes. You at least agree there, right? Besides, we dropped it, already, and moved on. I'm done with it and I'm pretty sure ON is done with it.
I'm not the same poster I once was: I drop arguments. I'm not even going to respond to SDJ's last post to me.
Most of us agree on the overall point: genuine gender equality in education and the workplace is a good thing. Too far in either direction is not a good thing. If America becomes misandrous, that's jut as bad as misogynous.
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Miami Metropolitan Area
My main thing is that I have trouble imagining America becoming misandrous anytime in the next hundred years, so talking about it is like talking about integrating immigrants from other planets. Interesting but not really relevant to our current world.
I mean, at the current rate it will take decades for women to gain proportional representation in Congress, never mind how long it would take for women to take over the government and start passing anti-male legislation.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
I disagree this statement: "The median/average income of all people, regardless of whether they are counted as in the workforce or not, also pretty much definitely." I would state that it would be the same, if all other relevant factors remained the same (no depressions, recessions, etc.)
Other than that, we agree on everything else.
I disagree with what you're doing to my point, here. If you remember, I was the one that argued against the statistics of unemployment and argued for "absolute unemployment" rather than the "just those seeking jobs." They call that the U-6 measure. The one commonly understood and used is the U-3 measure. And I disagree with your implication that there are less women looking but more women unemployed. The data are just out of date as the most recent I can find is 2006.
It still shows that women participate less than men, however. But women were rising when men were falling before the recession hit. Men were declining at a faster rate than women as of 2010. The participation rate is supposed to intersect in the next 10 years. If I could find a more recent chart, something in 2013, I think the rates are very close. I am not going to say that they have intersected, yet, but they should be very close based off of other measures I have seen.
And from what the research indicated (in the other links I've discussed), women have benefited from this recession as they picked up jobs that men did not and more women are entering the work force as a result of their male counterparts being out of work.
No, no...I agree, fully, here. You've been very cordial and respectful to everyone no matter how much you agreed or disagreed. We should drop that topic, however: Ushgarak's patience for this particular tangent has run thin.
It may take decades, but it won't take 100 years. With women getting much more educated than men, we should see a massive shift in professionals in the work force which does trickle "down" into politics. One gent predicted the misandry bubble will pop some time shortly after 2020. I think it was that site with a poll. He could be right. The "real" feminists may have actually achieved their goals and we will really have gender equality in the work place and education institutions.
Hint to those that wonder why I said "real": real feminists want real equality.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jun 15th, 2013 at 07:26 PM
I'm only jumping on this as a tangent because it is the most appropriate place to bring this up:
when you look at the numbers alone of just aggregate "how many women vs how many men" in any field (I'm referring more to the pie charts that were posted in the thread earlier), sure, the share of women is growing and may eventually equalize.
The thing is, when you break it down by job type, pay, advancement, etc, things aren't nearly as "rose coloured".
young, college educated women can expect to have equal opportunity when it comes to entry level positions in most fields, but for every year of experience and every year at a company, the discrepancy between genders grows. Women are not promoted, given raises, or really any kind of advancement at the same rate as men, and these numbers have been much more difficult to change. So, while there are more CEOs who are women today vs 30 years ago, it is not changing nearly at the pace it should given how many women are now in the work force.
Further, as recent as the 2008, courts were deciding cases against women who were suing their employer for docking their pay on gender grounds. It is not that the women didn't have ample evidence of discrimination, its that the courts found they waited to long to report it (even though they were never informed and didn't learn of the discrepancy for iirc years).
like I said, not a direct point against what you were saying, but something I wanted to throw out there. Its just the raw "this many women" numbers don't really have enough nuance. They really only show that women are equal in the eyes of employers when considering entry level positions, positions employers hardly take seriously anyways.
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Miami Metropolitan Area
It's impossible to say how long it may take, but I don't think it's a simple matter of more women becoming educated. That's important for sure, but I think there's an unwritten rule in our society that is impressed onto women as much as onto men that politics is a man's business. Not enough women may become politicians, or not enough people will vote for female politicians, some conservative areas may remain prejudiced while the rest of the country progresses. Unless this is dispelled that education won't mean much because there will still be a segment of the population prejudiced against women as leaders. There are also other barriers. The world of American politics is more or less controlled by old white men. Asian Americans are the best educated group in the country yet they still haven't attained proportional representation. I believe according to Sym's chart they were halfway there. So who knows how long it may take. I agree with you that it will happen eventually barring democratic backsliding/horrible corruption/a takeover by the religious right (you know what I'm talking about, you son of a [censored]*)
*The censored word is mormon.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
that may be a reflection of the loss of the manufacturing and other typically "male" industries that no longer can be relied on to provide the employment opportunities they did in previous decades.
interesting though
EDIT: if you maximize the date range (1948-2013) it looks like what I hypothesized is supported.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Jun 15th, 2013 at 08:24 PM
I blame it on the pencil pushers at the Department of Labor.
What is is actually showing is the percentage of women working. I believe there is a stipulation on that; it may be a U-6 type of measure and not just include the working age of women as their measure.
As the data shows, now, men still are a majority of the workforce but it is far less than it used to be.
If I had the time, I could measure the percentages at different decades, find a per capita number, and show the per capita representation to see how much the "gender gap" has changed. We have almost all the relevant data up through 2006...it would just take about an hour to do all of that.
You should go teach math to the DoL peeps: they obviously need help.
Not quite. It is a narrower definition than that because it has an age restriction on it. Also, it could be even more narrow as I think it excludes women not wanting to work (back to the U-3 and U-6 discussion).
Yeah, do it. That would be an awesome read. It is also not something put out there. The work could be useful to many news sites, imo, that are discussing this. You could be famous for doing the work!!!
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I must have missed where you were advocating absolute numbers for unemployment, however the post that triggered my reply -
- relied completely on U3 (I wasn't aware of these classifications, thanks for bringing that up) numbers. U6 (but even U4 would already take care of my issue) would be better, but I don't have any such numbers and we can't just treat U3 as if it were U6.
That the numbers stop at 2006 is an immense issue, as the projections are virtually meaningless due to the hitting recession. My hypothesis of women being more likely to become discouraged workers is at least not disproven by the data you showed.
Additionally the statistics in your recent post suggest something else I was wondering about. Somewhat of a seasonality in the percentage of women in the workforce, starting at around May (and the summer months), which could mean that this currently favors women. For example your stats show that in March 2013 (before the summer spike) women had an unemployment rate of 7.0 higher than that of men at 6.9 (only 2 months before the numbers you quoted, imo that alone throws a wrench in your theory) (in some parts of "The Employment Situation" they do even adjust for seasonality)
So in conclusion, I don't think any of the research you showed proves either of your claims in the last statement of the recently quoted post. As it doesn't account for U6 employment, relies on conjecture from 2006 projections
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Dadudemon is correct, it shows the participation of women,16 and up, in the labor force as a percentage of all women of that age. The comparative number for men is in the 70%. The current number for women is actually 57.3, so quite down from 2006. However the one for men is also down considerably, I'd have to look much more into it to get a good grasp of it. It's possible my hypothesis is incorrect of women dropping out of the workforce at a higher rate.
The assertion that men have been hit harder by the recession I have heard before however, as well as them recovering faster from it. It's hard for me to divide between the natural progression towards more equal employment from the recession benefitting women. I'd have to look at it more and I have looked at the sea of numbers too much already.
If you control-f to the first result for "Women, 16 and over" you'll get most of what I talked about. A little above it is "Men, over the age of 16". Both split up by:
Civilian noninstitutional population
Civilian labor force
Participation rate
Employed
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force
It's actually a really great find by dadudemon (if you are into losing hours of your life looking at very similar, and spatially close, numbers (which seems to apply to us 4 to some degree anyways (though I personally prefer closely printed consumer electronics numbers)
I just expect people to remember every last thing I post on specific subjects...and I shouldn't.
I agree but it does show something else...
Of the U3 measure, men are now more unemployed than women. I am not sure if this is a first for America, but it seems like it is. That was the significance of that point: shit is gettin' real.
You can adjust the chart to go to 2013 (the most recent one we are discussing).
You could be on to something. Are you saying that women work more summer jobs (or the opposite)? That would make sense if you consider that more women are in college than men: more of them would be working during the summer but during the school year, they would technically be considered unemployed by the U3 measure (depending on the person gathering the data).
I am not sure what you're talking about, now. There were tons of links I have used, thus far. All (edit - most?)of them can go to 2013.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jun 15th, 2013 at 10:50 PM
Here's an interesting pair of graphs from 1948 through 2012. The X axis is the average proportion of employed women each year (based on quarterly numbers). The Y axis is the year.
Employment of women climbed steadily into the 90s then leveled off. Employment of men has been declining continuously since the 50s, though at a much slower rate than employment of women has been increasing.
Jun 15th, 2013 05:39 PM
Attachment: 
