women overpowering men in achievement, especially in the younger age groups

[Drifterwood]

Could that be why they get more degrees and get better grades?

This isn't true in the UK. Whilst women are outperforming men at High School level, men are attaining a higher percentage of top degrees at University.

On a personal note, I find women who work far more interesting in general than stay at home women. Of course how they/you live their lives is up to them, my point is purely personal.

I am also not aware of any earnings discrimination anymore (there may well be some) in the UK, as your ass would be hauled across an employment tribunal faster than you could say male chauvinist pig.

Wldhoney's points are spot on imo - lots of my friends are deciding that they don't want it "all" even if they could technically achieve it. Working 12 hours a day six days a week isn't everything it's cracked up to be.

Happiness is a personal thing, not someone else's agenda.

 

[Shelby]

In a primarily market driven economy such as ours, if you could get away with paying a given group less than average for the same output, you would have every incentive to hire only from that group. By doing so you could underprice your competition while at the same time retaining your profit margins and thus corner the market.
​

 

[B_New End]

The only males in the loop were a handyman to do some repairs, a landscaper, and 2 concrete workers. All the really skiiled high income people were female.

They are only "high skilled" as long as the real estate bubble is propped up by the Federal reserve.

When it pops, repariman and concrete contractors will be the "skilled".

It's a huge shift. It seems like to me, all my female friends are more successful, but at jobs that really are not essential.... whilst the men are doing all the crap-work., the dirty jobs that have to be done.

But women are more than likely not going to go for men who make less than them....

*sigh*

I dunno, things seem pretty messed up to me right now... I really think the woman's movement has swung too far in favor of the female, and the pendulum will swing back around.

I also think alot of it has to do with men are more content with less... so they don't strive as hard to succeed, but women, in general, are more materialistic... like to shop more and such

Also, not only adult entertainment, but women get paid much more in tip bearing jobs, and jobs like baristas are much mor elikely to be a woman than a man.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

>>>so they don't strive as hard to succeed, but women, in general, are more materialistic... like to shop more and such<<<

There are a lot of thought processes going on in all these posts, all well thought out and the inherent dissonance of trying to find a common ground will be fun to watch from afar.

Lets see: women are more motivated to succeed than men and yet feel a need to be less career oriented and more nurturing. They want to find a man that is at least their equal but where since men aren't as driven to succeed. Can you imagine how frustrated a woman would be if she KNEW she was more academically accomplished than her mate, had decided to adopt a more nurturing, less career bound lifestyle and then watched as her less motivated man does not aspire to the same things as her. That woman is going be very angry at her life I think.

IMO women are nesters and men are not, thats the materialistic side you articulated.

 

[B_New End]

IMO women are nesters and men are not, thats the materialistic side you articulated.

Yeah... men's materialism, hmmm... maybe they are materialistic, actually, I know alot of gadget-happy guys.

There was a convoluded mixture of thoughts there in my post, and the one about women being more materialistic was hypothesizing outloud. I don't think they are in general, the more I think about it.

I still, however, think, they get the arm chair jobs more often, because they cannot, or choose not to, do the real labor jobs. This puts them more in manager/white collar class, and men in more laborer/blue collar class.

 

[Drifterwood]

That woman is going be very angry at her life I think.

Why should women suddenly become angry when men who are or were in the same situation do not?

Are you angry at your life WGC?

 

[B_New End]

Why should women suddenly become angry when men who are or were in the same situation do not?

I don't think you got his thought process...

men do not "decide to adopt a more nurturing, less career bound lifestyle"

it's simply not an option for us, because it is socially unacceptable, unless the man happens to be with a strong and open minded woman.

 

[Mem]

If it's anything to note, in the Adult Entertainment Buissness, women get paid more then men.

Yes, I thought about that for a minute too, but like in Sports, there is a very short shelf life in that industry.

 

[Mem]

I 've mentioned this b/4 inside of other threads but i think this is one the most paradigm shifts occuring anywhere. Forget global warming, Iraq, China.
In about 15 years women should have most of the power and control in America, because they are excelling across the board far beyond men. Women now make up more than half the applicants to law, medical and professional graduate degrees. They start more enterprises as Act 2 has written. This is monumental stuff and it will beintersting to see the future and how women lead.

When I first read your thread I thought it was anti-women. The word "overpowering" made me think it was negative.

there are counties, especially in the middle east where men have no respect for women.

I hope women do get in power, I hope they can fix what men f'cked up.

 

[wldhoney]

I am torn about this one. I wonder if women do need to stay home. Wait, wait, wait do not call for the henchmen. Let me ponder this one aloud. Where and at what point did women staying at home become 'less than'. Was it because our society craves more and more and higher and higher that money and things became more important than nuturing tomorrow?

No henchmen called... :tongue: I agree with you in many ways here. Yes, equality is a good thing and I believe in it, but we have such a regimented definition of what equality is that it actually hurts us.

Our social standard insists that equality means being treated the same on the job, and then going home and having responsiblities divided clean down the middle in equal parts. Yet we already know it doesn't work this way.

Obviously, everyone is different and this does not mean every household is this way, but in general it seems that responsibilities are divided differently. Men fix things. They change the oil in the car, and mow the lawn and make sure everything is working right. Women nurture things. They make sure their family is fed, the kids are bathed, the husband has clean clothes. And, women are actually quite territorial about their homes.

Look how many of us would rather clean up the kitchen ourselves so that it is done to our specifications. The type of "chores" we instinctively choose and divide are never going to be equal every night.

It's never going to be the kind of equal that political correctness has held up as an ideal, where all responsibility is divided right down the middle. How many of us have looked at our mates, who have worked just as hard as we have, and cuddled and sent them to bed while staying up to finish the laundry? Something needs to give, or our personal lives and those in it suffer.

I'm not saying that women I believe women should stay home. There are some women who would be unhappy and unsatisfied, and it would affect the homelife. No one should have to go thru life that way. What's right for one is not necissarily right for another. The problem, to me, is that we are also expected to be successful in our careers, moving up and proving we CAN do it all, rather than being able to enjoy it.

Unfortunately, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation we have created for ourselves.

 

[wldhoney]

But women are more than likely not going to go for men who make less than them....

I also think alot of it has to do with men are more content with less... so they don't strive as hard to succeed, but women, in general, are more materialistic... like to shop more and such

I disagree here, New End. This is one of those traps where for every statement like this, one can be made against the man.

Women won't go out with men who make less than them. Men won't go out with women who make more because they are intimidated and feel it makes them less than a man.

Women are materialistic and shop all the time. Men have to buy tools, big screen plasma televisions, and expensive cars so they can pick up big breasted blondes for a one-night stand.

Both men and women desire the comforts of money and material things. Men don&#8217;t understand a woman&#8217;s desire to shop and why she loves shoes and pretty sparkly things. A woman doesn&#8217;t understand why a man would go crazy over an expensive tool or sound system. Men complain women want money, then they use money to try and woo them. It all depends on where you are coming from.

And if men are content with less, then why do they fight so hard to be successful, powerful, and wealthy? Thru out history it is predominantly men who start wars for material gain. Today your CEO's, Presidents, moguls are mostly men, with other men right behind them back fighting for the same thing.

Don't get me wrong. This instinct is also what drives men to possess, protect and care for their women, family, and possession. Without a certain amount of aggressiveness and ruthlessness, man would not be where he is today.

I dunno, things seem pretty messed up to me right now... I really think the woman's movement has swung too far in favor of the female, and the pendulum will swing back around.

We have forced women and men into believing they must live a certain way. Just as women are taught that not working to have it "all", that desiring to simply nurture home and hearth equates to failure, men have been taught to feel guilty for desiring this.

Men and women are consistently giving and receiving mixed signals, from each other, thru what we are taught. We try and deny the way men and women have been since the beginning of mankind.

Also, not only adult entertainment, but women get paid much more in tip bearing jobs, and jobs like baristas are much mor elikely to be a woman than a man.

I agree, but why is that? As a woman, I tip based on service, not the bulge in my server's pants or his looks. Why do women get better tips from men? All you have to do is look at a restaurant called "Hooters". Men complain that women are into money, but then they use money to place value on a woman, based on her looks and body. It's a two way street.

Lets see: women are more motivated to succeed than men and yet feel a need to be less career oriented and more nurturing. They want to find a man that is at least their equal but where since men aren't as driven to succeed. Can you imagine how frustrated a woman would be if she KNEW she was more academically accomplished than her mate, had decided to adopt a more nurturing, less career bound lifestyle and then watched as her less motivated man does not aspire to the same things as her. That woman is going be very angry at her life I think.

Wyld, I agree with you here yet am not sure how to approach it as it is a little outside of my ken and I am unable to relate. It has been my experience that the men in my life, and around my age group and older have been motivated to succeed.

At one point I went to part-time at my husbands request so that I could be home with him in the evenings and weekend. I already had a degree, and was going back to school to become a paramedic while working as a flight attendant. However, my husband's needs were always placed above all else. I did it for him, and if he had dropped the ball on his side when it came to his career motivations, I would have been upset. However, that is where he placed ME above all else. He worked harder because he wanted me with him. I was fulfilled in taking care of him, he was fulfilled in protecting and providing for me.

IMO women are nesters and men are not, thats the materialistic side you articulated.

I agree that women are nesters. Men are possessors. Men have, women make it comfortable.

there are counties, especially in the middle east where men have no respect for women.

Very true. I believe the trick is finding a balance where we respect each other as men and women, while behaving like men and women, rather than how one sex feels the other should behave and using force to bring it about.

 

[Ethyl]

I don't think you got his thought process...

men do not "decide to adopt a more nurturing, less career bound lifestyle"

it's simply not an option for us, because it is socially unacceptable, unless the man happens to be with a strong and open minded woman.

This is the crux of the matter. There's a lot of talk about the nature of man and woman on this thread. Men being the protectors and women the nurturers. This is still the socially accepted view of the sexes in the US. I would never insist on ignoring our primitive and humble beginnings on this earth, but there is room to evolve, no? It doesn't require we muddy the differences between men and women. The problem is that's all we focus on when it comes to the workplace. In the days of yore, men insisted women weren't smart enough, didn't have the skills, fortitude, ability, whatever to do their jobs. That was socially acceptable then, it's not now. Look at the timeline. It hasn't been that long since women weren't solely relegated to kitchen duty only.

BTW, driving to work the other day through construction, I noticed 3 females in gear digging in the road or directing traffic. I don't know that I buy men are doing all the grunt work now.

EDIT: Thinking about the "protective" instinct in men, we often forget women possess this instinct as well. Try harming or taking a child away from the mother and watch what happens. It's never a pretty sight.

 

[No_Strings]

Recognising differences isn't the same as being discriminative or prejudiced.
It's pointless to try and strive for equality; the focus needs to be put on releasing these social restrictions and allowing other paths to be taken - more equality will be a by-product of this.

Male protector, female nurturer, was the way of nature many, many moons ago, but it's not necessary for humans at all anymore - our needs, requirements and structure have evolved, now people need to aswell. This is all down to environmental causes - I haven't seen a man need to go throw spears at a wooly mammoth to feed his family for a long, long time. Breadwinner, schmeadwinner.

How many of you would still dress a baby boy in blue and a baby girl in pink? If you do/would, ask yourself why.

 

[HazelGod]

Actually it is so. Arguing against statistics and numerical trends is bound to be frustrating although it is something a lot of LPSGers like to do. Its beyond me why you would want to though. Facts are facts. Anyone can find isolated instances to prove a point but my OP is more geared to what the future will hold. Its an absolute undeniable fact that the more educated you are the more money you will earn, as a statistical fact over 100s of thousands of college graduates. 35 years ago a women would have been a nurse, now more than 50&#37; of med students are women. Docs earn more than nurses.

Actually, it isn't.

There are two distinct points here that I'd like to address, although there is a bit of overlap in the fallacies.

First, in the OP, you make the sweeping implication that a greater percentage of category X persons entering into training or business ventures will directly correlate to a shift in the established power structure in society. The flaws in this line of thought are that its specious, completely lacking any correlative basis, and makes no provisions for realistic factors such as failure rates, career path influence, or career ceilings. It also hinges on the incorrect assumption that persons in professional practices (myself included) are of any significance in the overall power hierarchy of our society. In short, they don't. Power resides in the upper executive ranks of larger corporate entities, and to a lesser degree in the political figures in the upper echelons of our government organizations. Like most self-serving organisms, these tend to hire from within, not without. A causual observer might almost get the impression that there is something of a revolving door between those two groups. The fact that there are more women entering professional degree programs or launching independent business ventures down on the ground has no bearing on what happens up on Mount Olympus. The rationale in your OP is akin to someone saying that the sun must be visible overhead at noon because of celestial positioning...sure, it sounds reasonable enough on the surface, but it fails to account for the gigantic hurricane that's in the way.


Second, you've reiterated that it's an absolute undeniable fact that the more educated you are the more money you will earn...as much as I hate to sound pedantic, your use of absolutes doesn't leave much alternative. Again, the fallacy here is gross oversimplification...something statistics are good at masking from the unintiated. The "fact" you presented is only true in the rather narrow circumstance where you're comparing people in the same field of practice who are already employed. As my earlier response alluded, you aren't accounting for the significant number of graduates and post-graduates who cannot even find work in their field of study. The statement also doesn't hold true for comparisons across fields...sure, docs earn more than nurses, but in my line of work with my piddling BS, I earn more than many people who have MD (or MS or JD) on their diplomas. And it's not just me...this is not uncommon in the IT industry.

And while the idea of power flowing toward money is largely true, the implied correlation that [more education -> more money -> more power -> change in conrol] is also fallacious. Even if one holds the highest degree and rises to the absolute pinnacle of their profession, their income is still but a rounding error compared to the amassed wealth of the established oligarchy. Even if we estimate on the excessively generous side and say that 10% of women starting today go on to become $500k per annum success stories, they're still facing a traditional, closed-circle establishment whose salaries wash out to $100k per diem or more.

It's not a case of arguing against statistical trends...it's a matter of understanding of what the numbers actually represent. Yes, facts are facts...but don't be deceived into believing that statistics are necessarily representative of facts.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

From MBLiss: Look at the timeline. It hasn't been that long since women weren't solely relegated to kitchen duty only.

Thats the really fun part of this. The rate at which this is occuring. Amazingingly quick. Offers little time for social adjustment.

Quote Hazelgod: Actually, it isn't.

There are two distinct points here that I'd like to address, although there is a bit of overlap in the fallacies.

First, in the OP, you make the sweeping implication that a greater percentage of category X persons entering into training or business ventures will directly correlate to a shift in the established power structure in society. The flaws in this line of thought are that its specious, completely lacking any correlative basis, and makes no provisions for realistic factors such as failure rates, career path influence, or career ceilings. It also hinges on the incorrect assumption that persons in professional practices (myself included) are of any significance in the overall power hierarchy of our society. In short, they don't. Power resides in the upper executive ranks of larger corporate entities, and to a lesser degree in the political figures in the upper echelons of our government organizations. Like most self-serving organisms, these tend to hire from within, not without. A causual observer might almost get the impression that there is something of a revolving door between those two groups. The fact that there are more women entering professional degree programs or launching independent business ventures down on the ground has no bearing on what happens up on Mount Olympus. The rationale in your OP is akin to someone saying that the sun must be visible overhead at noon because of celestial positioning...sure, it sounds reasonable enough on the surface, but it fails to account for the gigantic hurricane that's in the way.


Second, you've reiterated that it's an absolute undeniable fact that the more educated you are the more money you will earn...as much as I hate to sound pedantic, your use of absolutes doesn't leave much alternative. Again, the fallacy here is gross oversimplification...something statistics are good at masking from the unintiated. The "fact" you presented is only true in the rather narrow circumstance where you're comparing people in the same field of practice who are already employed. As my earlier response alluded, you aren't accounting for the significant number of graduates and post-graduates who cannot even find work in their field of study. The statement also doesn't hold true for comparisons across fields...sure, docs earn more than nurses, but in my line of work with my piddling BS, I earn more than many people who have MD (or MS or JD) on their diplomas. And it's not just me...this is not uncommon in the IT industry.

And while the idea of power flowing toward money is largely true, the implied correlation that [more education -> more money -> more power -> change in conrol] is also fallacious. Even if one holds the highest degree and rises to the absolute pinnacle of their profession, their income is still but a rounding error compared to the amassed wealth of the established oligarchy. Even if we estimate on the excessively generous side and say that 10&#37; of women starting today go on to become $500k per annum success stories, they're still facing a traditional, closed-circle establishment whose salaries wash out to $100k per diem or more.

It's not a case of arguing against statistical trends...it's a matter of understanding of what the numbers actually represent. Yes, facts are facts...but don't be deceived into believing that statistics are necessarily representative of facts.

We will have to choose to disagree.

 

[Shelby]

Since nobody took the bait I'll make it more clear. If women in fact are paid less than men for the same work output all I'd need to do is hire all women and I could crush my competition.

I realize this is a politically incorrect assertion but I don't see how you can deny the logic.

Also, it does not mean women are better or worse than men. Only that the popular misconception is untrue. It's often stated slightly differently. It's usually women are paid x percent less for the same job title. That may well be true.

I'm sure there are individual cases where a woman produces more than her higher paid male counterpart. That doesn't negate my argument in any way. A free market is self correcting. That's the whole beauty of it. If women were paid less for the same output men would eventually be driven from the workforce.

I know I probably just pissed a lot of people off. I'm sorry if that's the case. I do believe that women contribute more to our overall quality of life than do men. But much of what they bring to the table doesn't easily translate into dollars and cents.
​

 

[B_New End]

I disagree here, New End. This is one of those traps where for every statement like this, one can be made against the man.

Yeah... men's materialism, hmmm... maybe they are materialistic, actually, I know alot of gadget-happy guys.

There was a convoluded mixture of thoughts there in my post, and the one about women being more materialistic was hypothesizing outloud. I don't think they are in general, the more I think about it.

I totaly already beat you to the punch on that one...

Women won't go out with men who make less than them. Men won't go out with women who make more because they are intimidated and feel it makes them less than a man.

Most men only care about looks, not money. Women are much more likely, IMHO, to not want to go in a class "beneath them" than men.

The "less than a man" sentiment is a fear of loss of the woman, whilst the "don't date beneath my class" sentiment is caste conditioning.

Why do women get better tips from men? All you have to do is look at a restaurant called "Hooters". Men complain that women are into money, but then they use money to place value on a woman, based on her looks and body. It's a two way street.

It's a two way street yes... but doesn't make my point any less true. In tip bearing jobs, women make more... and while I am at it, get hired more often for the positions.

BTW, driving to work the other day through construction, I noticed 3 females in gear digging in the road or directing traffic. I don't know that I buy men are doing all the grunt work now.

Let's not kid ourselves. The vast majority of septic pumpers, carpet cleaners, landscapers, roofers, painters, carpenters, plumbers, and any job on that show "Dirty Jobs" are done by men.

 

[HazelGod]

Men have to buy tools, big screen plasma televisions, and expensive cars so they can pick up big breasted blondes for a one-night stand.

Blondes? One-night stands? See, women don't understand shit.

The toys and cars are for picking up redheads for weekend flings. :biggrin1:

We will have to choose to disagree.

Agreed. :biggrin1:

 

[Mem]

None of it matters until we are all paid equally for doing the same job.

Are you saying this as a man or a woman? I'm just curious. You know what I mean with the switching of personalities.
I agree with the statement either way.

 

[Ethyl]

Let's not kid ourselves. The vast majority of septic pumpers, carpet cleaners, landscapers, roofers, painters, carpenters, plumbers, and any job on that show "Dirty Jobs" are done by men.

Of course they are. Every position you've listed is typically male-dominated. Currently I work in the stone industry. Women are an anomaly in this field. I encounter resentment from other men for knowing as much as I do about natural and engineered stone almost daily. Men who feel emasculated by my knowledge and expertise should rethink what it means to be a man. It's not my fault if they feel intimidated. All I want to do is my job and more often than not, I run into road blocks because some insecure male feels threatened by my presence in a normally male dominated field.

If a man feels that his masculinity is dependent upon whether or not he excels in an area than a woman "can't", then he has problems. Unfortunately, society had been contributing to this for eons.

Shel, your point is duly noted.