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.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dadude, if others are being smug, you are being at least equally so, and saying things like 'If I were smug I would say this but I am not' is not only exceptionally smug but also getting into trolling territory as such a comment has no value to the thread other than to wind others up.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The median/average income of individuals (individuals that are in the workforce)? Probably not. Might decrease even (though it doesn't have to in the long run, somewhat independent actually imo).The median/average income of households? Almost definitely. The median/average income of all people, regardless of whether they are counted as in the workforce or not, also pretty much definitely.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel that is the crux of your issue, btw, dadudemon. You seem to operate under the assumption that unemployment rates are absolute representations of all of society, when really it is only a representation of who can't find jobs and are searching for them. (home makers do not show up, for example) [b]So one of the questions to consider before taking your stats is "what percentage of women vs. what percentage of men decide to rather drop out of seeking employment altogether in an economic downturn", I would assume due to patriarchal expectations of men...a lot more women would chose to do so.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In regard to other topicsI also feel like I have given SWLegend more time than I would usually (not due to him, but rather an interest in the topic, but still) and with very little smugness.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
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.
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.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
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.
Originally posted by dadudemonIt 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.
*The censored word is mormon.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
I find that graph very hard to read but it looks like its showing women over 16 as the majority (greater than 59%) of the workforce.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I find that graph very hard to read but it looks like its showing women over 16 as the majority (greater than 59%) of the workforce.
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.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I find that graph very hard to read but it looks like its showing women over 16 as the majority (greater than 59%) of the workforce.
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.
Any takers?
Originally posted by Oliver North
i totally misread that then...
This is why we label our axes!
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
So its the rate of employment among women?
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
Any takers?
They've got the data in much nicer tables from 2003 through 2012 on their main page here:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#annual
I believe U3 is "unemployed" plus "persons not in the labor force".
I might take a look at it later tonight (sounds like a fun project) but I have to leave pretty soon.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is why we label our axes!
You should go teach math to the DoL peeps: they obviously need help.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So its the rate of employment among women?
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).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They've got the data in much nicer tables from 2003 through 2012 on their main page here:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#annualI believe U3 is "unemployed" plus "persons not in the labor force".
I might take a look at it later tonight (sounds like a fun project) but I have to leave pretty soon.
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!!! 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
I must have missed where you were advocating absolute numbers for unemployment, however the post that triggered my reply -
Originally posted by dadudemon"Today", it shows the unemployment rate is 7.7 for men and 7.3 for women.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06072013.pdf
But 2006 shows adult women had a higher unemployment rate than men: 4.2 vs 4.0
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01052007.pdf
So, obviously, something changed and from the projections, this gap is going to continue to widen.
So this recession really did hit the genders significantly differently in the US.
- 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
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I find that graph very hard to read but it looks like its showing women over 16 as the majority (greater than 59%) of the workforce.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
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.
How are you getting these data outputs? I can't figure out how the webpage works.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How are you getting these data outputs? I can't figure out how the webpage works.
There's a huge amount of data in the ones dadudemon posted, take this one for example:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06072013.pdf
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)
Also sorry for the late reply, I was cooking.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I must have missed where you were advocating absolute numbers for unemployment, however the post that triggered my reply -
In another thread. I went into a virtual rant about it, to be honest.
I just expect people to remember every last thing I post on specific subjects...and I shouldn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
- 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.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
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.
You can adjust the chart to go to 2013 (the most recent one we are discussing).
Originally posted by Bardock42
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)
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).
Originally posted by Bardock42
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
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.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How are you getting these data outputs? I can't figure out how the webpage works.
At the top of this page:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
You can change the year on the place where it says "change output options". That's how I was able to get it to 2013.
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.