Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles

[jka468]

It's funny.  You say all this but, having a career and something other than just my daughter in my life makes me a waaaaaaaaay better parent.  When I get to spend time with her, I really want to spend that time with her, rather than spending it on my phone or Facebook or even the MMM forum.  I'd argue that she gets a lot more of my focused attention because it's much easier to tell myself, "No, I won't do X right now, that can wait until she's in bed."
Also, are you seriously arguing all of this from the idea that men are smarter?  Seriously?  That's just...so much part of the problem, that you would even think that.  Women are told from birth that we are not good at certain things, like science and math.  Then, we're taught in such a way that shows only men in those fields (yay Watson and Crick! ...who the hell is Rosalind Franklin?), and people are surprised that more men than women go into STEM fields?  You might not be able to understand all of this, because after all you're just a man (see?  we can talk down to you as well), but this sort of stuff is rampant.  This is why we need girl-friendly engineering toys and sites like A Mighty Girl, and yes, why we still need feminism.  Because people like you think that it's a women vs. men thing, rather than seeing people as people and trying to bring out all children's talents.  I won't push my daughter into a STEM field anymore than I would push a son.  At the very least, pushing STEM fields makes them seem like they're inherently "better".  I would disagree.  They might seem more employable because that's what we've been told, but English majors (like me!) are actually highly in demand and it's a very versatile field.  But, then again, liberal arts are usually viewed as women's majors, so of course they aren't prized as highly as STEM subjects, which are more manly and, thus, better.
There's been a lot of research recently into the whole idea of pink.  Little girls love pink but by elementary school they start to reject it.  Why?  Because it's girly, and even girls don't want to be associated with girly things because they have been told for their whole lives that girl things are bad and should be hated.  So little girls reject girly culture, thus continuing the myth that all which is male is better.  I see a lot of that in your arguments.  You prize women and say that we have more drive for homemaking than men, but at the same time are saying that women are inherently stupider and less ambitious.  Since you're so fond of dichotomies, here's your choice: you can either put women on a pedestal OR you can claim that we're somehow less than men.  You don't get it both ways.
For what it's worth, women tend to actually be much better multi-taskers simply because we've been conditioned to need to do multiple things at once constantly.  It takes a toll, however.

Yea, okay, IQ tests are just a scam of the patriachy to oppress women and "prove" that they should be homemakers.

Have you ever taken a stats course, honestly? Go wikipedia the terms "variance", read all about it and them come back and discuss with me, or else stop posting because you sound silly. On average, women and men are just as intelligent as one another, but men have a much higher variance when it comes to intelligence, meaning there are many more 75IQ men (special ed and verging on mentally handicapped) and 125+IQ men than the number of 75IQ women and 125+IQ women. Hell, my gf is a middle school special ed teacher who has now taught for 6 years, and all of her kids basically have IQs <100, with most in the 75-90 range. I asked her what her ratio of boys to girls was throughout the years, and she guessed about 4-5:1. It's not simply a coincidence, the rest of the school has a fairly even male:female distribution. When we take it further up the IQ chain, to superior intelligence (145+IQ) and genius (160+), men start outnumbering women something like 4-6:1.

Hopefully with this info you can then extrapolate the consequences of having many more men than women with low and high IQs. If you can't figure it out, then let me explain it to you...in fields where a high IQ is basically a prereq (engineering, comp sci, physics, stats) more men than women will populate these fields. It isn't a conspiracy, I never once got together with my AP calc bros in high school or engineering bros in college to figure out how we could further oppress women and keep them out of "our" field of study; it's just biology. In situations like violent crime and theft, where low IQ is a strong correlating factor (not necessarily a predicting factor) we then find more men than women who commit these crimes, and hence more men than women in jail. I don't see anyone arguing that we should put more women in jail. Hopefully this doesn't make too much sense and blow your mind.

And this isn't even taking into account my belief that many women, even the intelligent ones, tend to have less of an innate interest in these types of subjects than their equal counterpart men (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!). I mean fine, you can debate this topic and say it's social conditioning, and I'll basically scoff, but at least you can debate it. You can't debate my former point unless you really want to start grasping at straws.

My undergrad required a lot of statistics and also how to build these tests.  IQ tests are tests of the dominant culture, and depending on how you structure the test you can get very different results.  The IQ test is considered an approximation, not an end point.  You can manipulate it with ease, with the proper training.  Therefore your point therefore is based on a flawed design and is not debatable because the base is not accurate.

Lol, cool conspiracy theory. For the last 100 years, including today, IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females, even accounting for the Flynn effect, but yea, it's all been a massive scheme by the patriarchy to keep women down and not let them realize their "true" intelligence. Are we really getting this absurd now? There is literally no point in debate if you're just oging to gloss over this data and basically say "nahhh, this doesn't fit my narrative so I'm just gonna claim a mass, unconscious conspiracy and negate all the data so that my world view remains intact".

This is crazy.

It is crazy and I did not say that, have fun making up strawmen to argue with.  It is much easier for you to make up a crazy idea to argue with then actually look at the data.  So first you state "the larger variance" then you say "IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females", which is it?  And, would you like to show some peer review studies for this?  Yes, IQ is a concept to help identify people but again, it is an approximation and has little to do with gender effects on which higher education opportunities people go for.  If you look at the research into this field, done by men and women, your ideas don't match with any studied hypothesis that are actually considered possible in this day and age.

My sentence structure was misleading. I meant to say IQ tests have shown consistent disparity between the sexes at the upper and lower ends of the bellcurve over a long period of time. And obv, as for what I am debating, the disparity shows higher number of males at both ends.

And I have looked into IQ research and I have never seen anything that doesn't jive with men being more represented at the tail ends of the bellcurve. Also, just look into the recent data which correlated high school seniors' IQ scores against their declared major in college. It wasn't a shock to see the many the many STEM fields chosen correlated with higher IQs, and had lower female participation.

See the chart link below...

http://tinyurl.com/mro89ss

This type of data almost perfectly correlates with IQ data and male/female participation in certain fields. It's still a coincidence?

[galliver]

just look at the viral campaign of "I don't need feminism"

Oh I just love that you brought this up. Because the "campaign" is against such a MASSIVE straw man and reveals a complete ignorance of what feminism actually means.

Found someone who said it better:

Unabashed feminist author Catlin Moran lampooned women who did not identify as feminists in her book, How To Be a Woman. But in her criticism, she stressed that women who don’t identify as feminists don’t realize what feminism implies, nor all that feminism has secured for them:

What do you think feminism IS, ladies? What part of ‘liberation for women’ is not for you? Is it freedom to vote? The right not to be owned by the man you marry? The campaign for equal pay? Did all that good shit GET ON YOUR NERVES? Or were you just DRUNK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY?

From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/24/you-don-t-hate-feminism-you-just-don-t-understand-it.html

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what feminism is or isn't about in theory, all that matters is the message that vocal feminists shreak, which is what is heard by the masses, and lately much of that message has been about how oppressed women still are, how men are constantly sexaully assaulting everything that moves and are basically all neanderthals if they show any bit of traditional masculinity, how women (falsely) make 70 cents to every dollar a man makes (I've already debunked this myth on these boards, but when you hold constant family situation, i.e. kids vs. no kids, job level and career length, this imaginary paygap vanishes to nothing), how men constantly need to check their privilege, ad nauseum. A certain percentage of young women are waking up to this shitty, adversarial narrative and they're realizing that their "sisters" are spouting so much bullshit that the good parts of the message don't even matter any more. And there still are certain good points, I'll agree with that, but they are laughably drowned out now by babble and nonsense.

I also like how the article you posted purports to TELL other women that they are wrong, because what they are actually seeing and feeling in their daily lives, i.e. misandry disguised as "feminism", is NOT REALLY what is happening and they are just interpreting everything the wrong way because they just can't truly understand, unlike their enlightened REAL feminist counterparts. C'mon, people are only going to be lemmings so long until it the message gets absurd, which has happened.

Seriously, more gen X and Boomer women are in therapy, taking meds, single moms, divorced, workaholics, etc. than ever before in history, and I don't blame certain younger women for looking around now, realizing that all this so-called sexism and oppression is bullshit and that it's really not that bad if they find a good man to fall in love with, pop out a couple of kids and head back to more traditional gender roles. This isn't happening everywhere, certainly, but this idea has certainly been growing and women have started to be more vocal about it and the false bill of good that their older "sisters" sold them.

Let's back up for a second. No one is saying all women who are currently pursuing whatever feminine pursuits need to get off their butts, take off their heels, go back to school and come out engineers. Seriously. That's not the argument. Nor is the argument that we MUST have 50-50% representation in all career fields...at least, that's not my argument.

The argument is that when you raise a little girl with the expectation that women become primarily wives, mothers, and caretakers..docile, neat, and obedient, while boys become the adventurers, innovators, fighters, then you are writing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Kids pick up on gender roles ridiculously early...before age 5 for sure. They know that boys don't wear skirts, that they aren't princesses. They know that boys play with trucks and guns, not dolls. Some people are turning this around; but that takes conscious effort. When you consciously reinforce the gender roles already endemic in our society, you are encouraging a slip back to the past...where women had no representation, or choice, or agency. The status quo is a state of change and I don't see how you can say "it's fine how it is now" because now is a state of change where every action has an effect. We're either moving one way (toward freedom, equality, agency) or the other (toward gender roles).

Your perspective would make sense in a society that had eliminated old prejudices and predispositions. But we aren't there yet. I, personally, don't believe 10% is the best we can do. I don't see anything inherently more feminine or attractive to women (traditional or not) in biology or architecture over computer science or mechanical engineering. And yet the former have 40% women and the latter have 10%. Biologists and biological engineers memorize complex chemical names and formulas and the mechanics of their interactions, including complicated statistical formulas. I doubt that takes significantly less IQ than coding, running tests on materials or in wind tunnels, selecting, developing, and implementing control algorithms, and the myriad of other tasks in these fields. (Personally I think understanding biology is MUCH harder than any physical science...). So, I think that the reason women tend toward some fields over others is...marketing. It's how the field is presented and advertised, in conjunction with what girls have been brought up to pursue ("helping people" or "making pretty things"). So I reject your notion that IQ variance explains the discrepancies.

[Gin1984]

It's funny.  You say all this but, having a career and something other than just my daughter in my life makes me a waaaaaaaaay better parent.  When I get to spend time with her, I really want to spend that time with her, rather than spending it on my phone or Facebook or even the MMM forum.  I'd argue that she gets a lot more of my focused attention because it's much easier to tell myself, "No, I won't do X right now, that can wait until she's in bed."
Also, are you seriously arguing all of this from the idea that men are smarter?  Seriously?  That's just...so much part of the problem, that you would even think that.  Women are told from birth that we are not good at certain things, like science and math.  Then, we're taught in such a way that shows only men in those fields (yay Watson and Crick! ...who the hell is Rosalind Franklin?), and people are surprised that more men than women go into STEM fields?  You might not be able to understand all of this, because after all you're just a man (see?  we can talk down to you as well), but this sort of stuff is rampant.  This is why we need girl-friendly engineering toys and sites like A Mighty Girl, and yes, why we still need feminism.  Because people like you think that it's a women vs. men thing, rather than seeing people as people and trying to bring out all children's talents.  I won't push my daughter into a STEM field anymore than I would push a son.  At the very least, pushing STEM fields makes them seem like they're inherently "better".  I would disagree.  They might seem more employable because that's what we've been told, but English majors (like me!) are actually highly in demand and it's a very versatile field.  But, then again, liberal arts are usually viewed as women's majors, so of course they aren't prized as highly as STEM subjects, which are more manly and, thus, better.
There's been a lot of research recently into the whole idea of pink.  Little girls love pink but by elementary school they start to reject it.  Why?  Because it's girly, and even girls don't want to be associated with girly things because they have been told for their whole lives that girl things are bad and should be hated.  So little girls reject girly culture, thus continuing the myth that all which is male is better.  I see a lot of that in your arguments.  You prize women and say that we have more drive for homemaking than men, but at the same time are saying that women are inherently stupider and less ambitious.  Since you're so fond of dichotomies, here's your choice: you can either put women on a pedestal OR you can claim that we're somehow less than men.  You don't get it both ways.
For what it's worth, women tend to actually be much better multi-taskers simply because we've been conditioned to need to do multiple things at once constantly.  It takes a toll, however.

Yea, okay, IQ tests are just a scam of the patriachy to oppress women and "prove" that they should be homemakers.

Have you ever taken a stats course, honestly? Go wikipedia the terms "variance", read all about it and them come back and discuss with me, or else stop posting because you sound silly. On average, women and men are just as intelligent as one another, but men have a much higher variance when it comes to intelligence, meaning there are many more 75IQ men (special ed and verging on mentally handicapped) and 125+IQ men than the number of 75IQ women and 125+IQ women. Hell, my gf is a middle school special ed teacher who has now taught for 6 years, and all of her kids basically have IQs <100, with most in the 75-90 range. I asked her what her ratio of boys to girls was throughout the years, and she guessed about 4-5:1. It's not simply a coincidence, the rest of the school has a fairly even male:female distribution. When we take it further up the IQ chain, to superior intelligence (145+IQ) and genius (160+), men start outnumbering women something like 4-6:1.

Hopefully with this info you can then extrapolate the consequences of having many more men than women with low and high IQs. If you can't figure it out, then let me explain it to you...in fields where a high IQ is basically a prereq (engineering, comp sci, physics, stats) more men than women will populate these fields. It isn't a conspiracy, I never once got together with my AP calc bros in high school or engineering bros in college to figure out how we could further oppress women and keep them out of "our" field of study; it's just biology. In situations like violent crime and theft, where low IQ is a strong correlating factor (not necessarily a predicting factor) we then find more men than women who commit these crimes, and hence more men than women in jail. I don't see anyone arguing that we should put more women in jail. Hopefully this doesn't make too much sense and blow your mind.

And this isn't even taking into account my belief that many women, even the intelligent ones, tend to have less of an innate interest in these types of subjects than their equal counterpart men (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!). I mean fine, you can debate this topic and say it's social conditioning, and I'll basically scoff, but at least you can debate it. You can't debate my former point unless you really want to start grasping at straws.

My undergrad required a lot of statistics and also how to build these tests.  IQ tests are tests of the dominant culture, and depending on how you structure the test you can get very different results.  The IQ test is considered an approximation, not an end point.  You can manipulate it with ease, with the proper training.  Therefore your point therefore is based on a flawed design and is not debatable because the base is not accurate.

Lol, cool conspiracy theory. For the last 100 years, including today, IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females, even accounting for the Flynn effect, but yea, it's all been a massive scheme by the patriarchy to keep women down and not let them realize their "true" intelligence. Are we really getting this absurd now? There is literally no point in debate if you're just oging to gloss over this data and basically say "nahhh, this doesn't fit my narrative so I'm just gonna claim a mass, unconscious conspiracy and negate all the data so that my world view remains intact".

This is crazy.

It is crazy and I did not say that, have fun making up strawmen to argue with.  It is much easier for you to make up a crazy idea to argue with then actually look at the data.  So first you state "the larger variance" then you say "IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females", which is it?  And, would you like to show some peer review studies for this?  Yes, IQ is a concept to help identify people but again, it is an approximation and has little to do with gender effects on which higher education opportunities people go for.  If you look at the research into this field, done by men and women, your ideas don't match with any studied hypothesis that are actually considered possible in this day and age.

My sentence structure was misleading. I meant to say IQ tests have shown consistent disparity between the sexes at the upper and lower ends of the bellcurve over a long period of time. And obv, as for what I am debating, the disparity shows higher number of males at both ends.

First, I'd like a recent peer reviewed study that agrees you, because not once have I heard that.  They agree that there was one, and it is narrowing and is dependent on culture which indicates that IQ is not a stable or reliable measure.  You seem to be missing the major point.  An IQ test can be manipulated.  It can be manipulated by SES, by studying, by single gender schools.  There is not a reliable measurement.  It is a nice approximation but given how easily it is manipulated by things that have nothing to do with intelligence, you have to understand that your base is not reality.  Women and men, when taught equally are not different in intelligence.  Nothing is statistics or in research into gender differences agrees with you, that I could find.  This comes from someone who base was statistics and psychology tests for undergrad. 

[jka468]

It's funny.  You say all this but, having a career and something other than just my daughter in my life makes me a waaaaaaaaay better parent.  When I get to spend time with her, I really want to spend that time with her, rather than spending it on my phone or Facebook or even the MMM forum.  I'd argue that she gets a lot more of my focused attention because it's much easier to tell myself, "No, I won't do X right now, that can wait until she's in bed."
Also, are you seriously arguing all of this from the idea that men are smarter?  Seriously?  That's just...so much part of the problem, that you would even think that.  Women are told from birth that we are not good at certain things, like science and math.  Then, we're taught in such a way that shows only men in those fields (yay Watson and Crick! ...who the hell is Rosalind Franklin?), and people are surprised that more men than women go into STEM fields?  You might not be able to understand all of this, because after all you're just a man (see?  we can talk down to you as well), but this sort of stuff is rampant.  This is why we need girl-friendly engineering toys and sites like A Mighty Girl, and yes, why we still need feminism.  Because people like you think that it's a women vs. men thing, rather than seeing people as people and trying to bring out all children's talents.  I won't push my daughter into a STEM field anymore than I would push a son.  At the very least, pushing STEM fields makes them seem like they're inherently "better".  I would disagree.  They might seem more employable because that's what we've been told, but English majors (like me!) are actually highly in demand and it's a very versatile field.  But, then again, liberal arts are usually viewed as women's majors, so of course they aren't prized as highly as STEM subjects, which are more manly and, thus, better.
There's been a lot of research recently into the whole idea of pink.  Little girls love pink but by elementary school they start to reject it.  Why?  Because it's girly, and even girls don't want to be associated with girly things because they have been told for their whole lives that girl things are bad and should be hated.  So little girls reject girly culture, thus continuing the myth that all which is male is better.  I see a lot of that in your arguments.  You prize women and say that we have more drive for homemaking than men, but at the same time are saying that women are inherently stupider and less ambitious.  Since you're so fond of dichotomies, here's your choice: you can either put women on a pedestal OR you can claim that we're somehow less than men.  You don't get it both ways.
For what it's worth, women tend to actually be much better multi-taskers simply because we've been conditioned to need to do multiple things at once constantly.  It takes a toll, however.

Yea, okay, IQ tests are just a scam of the patriachy to oppress women and "prove" that they should be homemakers.

Have you ever taken a stats course, honestly? Go wikipedia the terms "variance", read all about it and them come back and discuss with me, or else stop posting because you sound silly. On average, women and men are just as intelligent as one another, but men have a much higher variance when it comes to intelligence, meaning there are many more 75IQ men (special ed and verging on mentally handicapped) and 125+IQ men than the number of 75IQ women and 125+IQ women. Hell, my gf is a middle school special ed teacher who has now taught for 6 years, and all of her kids basically have IQs <100, with most in the 75-90 range. I asked her what her ratio of boys to girls was throughout the years, and she guessed about 4-5:1. It's not simply a coincidence, the rest of the school has a fairly even male:female distribution. When we take it further up the IQ chain, to superior intelligence (145+IQ) and genius (160+), men start outnumbering women something like 4-6:1.

Hopefully with this info you can then extrapolate the consequences of having many more men than women with low and high IQs. If you can't figure it out, then let me explain it to you...in fields where a high IQ is basically a prereq (engineering, comp sci, physics, stats) more men than women will populate these fields. It isn't a conspiracy, I never once got together with my AP calc bros in high school or engineering bros in college to figure out how we could further oppress women and keep them out of "our" field of study; it's just biology. In situations like violent crime and theft, where low IQ is a strong correlating factor (not necessarily a predicting factor) we then find more men than women who commit these crimes, and hence more men than women in jail. I don't see anyone arguing that we should put more women in jail. Hopefully this doesn't make too much sense and blow your mind.

And this isn't even taking into account my belief that many women, even the intelligent ones, tend to have less of an innate interest in these types of subjects than their equal counterpart men (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!). I mean fine, you can debate this topic and say it's social conditioning, and I'll basically scoff, but at least you can debate it. You can't debate my former point unless you really want to start grasping at straws.

My undergrad required a lot of statistics and also how to build these tests.  IQ tests are tests of the dominant culture, and depending on how you structure the test you can get very different results.  The IQ test is considered an approximation, not an end point.  You can manipulate it with ease, with the proper training.  Therefore your point therefore is based on a flawed design and is not debatable because the base is not accurate.

Lol, cool conspiracy theory. For the last 100 years, including today, IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females, even accounting for the Flynn effect, but yea, it's all been a massive scheme by the patriarchy to keep women down and not let them realize their "true" intelligence. Are we really getting this absurd now? There is literally no point in debate if you're just oging to gloss over this data and basically say "nahhh, this doesn't fit my narrative so I'm just gonna claim a mass, unconscious conspiracy and negate all the data so that my world view remains intact".

This is crazy.

It is crazy and I did not say that, have fun making up strawmen to argue with.  It is much easier for you to make up a crazy idea to argue with then actually look at the data.  So first you state "the larger variance" then you say "IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females", which is it?  And, would you like to show some peer review studies for this?  Yes, IQ is a concept to help identify people but again, it is an approximation and has little to do with gender effects on which higher education opportunities people go for.  If you look at the research into this field, done by men and women, your ideas don't match with any studied hypothesis that are actually considered possible in this day and age.

My sentence structure was misleading. I meant to say IQ tests have shown consistent disparity between the sexes at the upper and lower ends of the bellcurve over a long period of time. And obv, as for what I am debating, the disparity shows higher number of males at both ends.

First, I'd like a recent peer reviewed study that agrees you, because not once have I heard that.  However, you seem to be missing the major point.  An IQ test can be manipulated.  It can be manipulated by SES, by studying, by single gender schools.  There is not a reliable measurement.  It is a nice approximation but given how easily it is manipulated by things that have nothing to do with intelligence, you have to understand that your base is not reality.  Women and men, when taught equally are not different intelligence.  Nothing is statistics or in research into gender differences agrees with you, that I could find.  This comes from someone who base was statistics and psychology tests for undergrad.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5220/41
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115

There are two right there. Both are peer reviewed and reach the conclusion that the gender means are generally equal, but the tails show men with higher proportions. The first is from 1995, the second from 2005. As well, in the first study, a meta analysis was used on six different studies in order to help aggregate data and negate various "manipulations" as you call them, such as SES, studying, geographic locations, etc. Have fun.

[galliver]

It's time to close this thread.  Therefore, I suggest that all those who believe in the Mustachian principles of FI and self-empowerment abandon this Ship of Stupidity.  Don't post here anymore.

It is absurd to come to a forum dedicated to the principles of financial independence and self-empowerment and advocate for the idea that a particular class of adults are, by nature, happiest when dependent on other adults.   Take your last-century ideology to some other forum.

I agree with you. We've said all we can say and have started repeating ourselves. That said I can't promise not to get enraged by something I read down the line and come back.

[Gin1984]

It's funny.  You say all this but, having a career and something other than just my daughter in my life makes me a waaaaaaaaay better parent.  When I get to spend time with her, I really want to spend that time with her, rather than spending it on my phone or Facebook or even the MMM forum.  I'd argue that she gets a lot more of my focused attention because it's much easier to tell myself, "No, I won't do X right now, that can wait until she's in bed."
Also, are you seriously arguing all of this from the idea that men are smarter?  Seriously?  That's just...so much part of the problem, that you would even think that.  Women are told from birth that we are not good at certain things, like science and math.  Then, we're taught in such a way that shows only men in those fields (yay Watson and Crick! ...who the hell is Rosalind Franklin?), and people are surprised that more men than women go into STEM fields?  You might not be able to understand all of this, because after all you're just a man (see?  we can talk down to you as well), but this sort of stuff is rampant.  This is why we need girl-friendly engineering toys and sites like A Mighty Girl, and yes, why we still need feminism.  Because people like you think that it's a women vs. men thing, rather than seeing people as people and trying to bring out all children's talents.  I won't push my daughter into a STEM field anymore than I would push a son.  At the very least, pushing STEM fields makes them seem like they're inherently "better".  I would disagree.  They might seem more employable because that's what we've been told, but English majors (like me!) are actually highly in demand and it's a very versatile field.  But, then again, liberal arts are usually viewed as women's majors, so of course they aren't prized as highly as STEM subjects, which are more manly and, thus, better.
There's been a lot of research recently into the whole idea of pink.  Little girls love pink but by elementary school they start to reject it.  Why?  Because it's girly, and even girls don't want to be associated with girly things because they have been told for their whole lives that girl things are bad and should be hated.  So little girls reject girly culture, thus continuing the myth that all which is male is better.  I see a lot of that in your arguments.  You prize women and say that we have more drive for homemaking than men, but at the same time are saying that women are inherently stupider and less ambitious.  Since you're so fond of dichotomies, here's your choice: you can either put women on a pedestal OR you can claim that we're somehow less than men.  You don't get it both ways.
For what it's worth, women tend to actually be much better multi-taskers simply because we've been conditioned to need to do multiple things at once constantly.  It takes a toll, however.

Yea, okay, IQ tests are just a scam of the patriachy to oppress women and "prove" that they should be homemakers.

Have you ever taken a stats course, honestly? Go wikipedia the terms "variance", read all about it and them come back and discuss with me, or else stop posting because you sound silly. On average, women and men are just as intelligent as one another, but men have a much higher variance when it comes to intelligence, meaning there are many more 75IQ men (special ed and verging on mentally handicapped) and 125+IQ men than the number of 75IQ women and 125+IQ women. Hell, my gf is a middle school special ed teacher who has now taught for 6 years, and all of her kids basically have IQs <100, with most in the 75-90 range. I asked her what her ratio of boys to girls was throughout the years, and she guessed about 4-5:1. It's not simply a coincidence, the rest of the school has a fairly even male:female distribution. When we take it further up the IQ chain, to superior intelligence (145+IQ) and genius (160+), men start outnumbering women something like 4-6:1.

Hopefully with this info you can then extrapolate the consequences of having many more men than women with low and high IQs. If you can't figure it out, then let me explain it to you...in fields where a high IQ is basically a prereq (engineering, comp sci, physics, stats) more men than women will populate these fields. It isn't a conspiracy, I never once got together with my AP calc bros in high school or engineering bros in college to figure out how we could further oppress women and keep them out of "our" field of study; it's just biology. In situations like violent crime and theft, where low IQ is a strong correlating factor (not necessarily a predicting factor) we then find more men than women who commit these crimes, and hence more men than women in jail. I don't see anyone arguing that we should put more women in jail. Hopefully this doesn't make too much sense and blow your mind.

And this isn't even taking into account my belief that many women, even the intelligent ones, tend to have less of an innate interest in these types of subjects than their equal counterpart men (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!). I mean fine, you can debate this topic and say it's social conditioning, and I'll basically scoff, but at least you can debate it. You can't debate my former point unless you really want to start grasping at straws.

My undergrad required a lot of statistics and also how to build these tests.  IQ tests are tests of the dominant culture, and depending on how you structure the test you can get very different results.  The IQ test is considered an approximation, not an end point.  You can manipulate it with ease, with the proper training.  Therefore your point therefore is based on a flawed design and is not debatable because the base is not accurate.

Lol, cool conspiracy theory. For the last 100 years, including today, IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females, even accounting for the Flynn effect, but yea, it's all been a massive scheme by the patriarchy to keep women down and not let them realize their "true" intelligence. Are we really getting this absurd now? There is literally no point in debate if you're just oging to gloss over this data and basically say "nahhh, this doesn't fit my narrative so I'm just gonna claim a mass, unconscious conspiracy and negate all the data so that my world view remains intact".

This is crazy.

It is crazy and I did not say that, have fun making up strawmen to argue with.  It is much easier for you to make up a crazy idea to argue with then actually look at the data.  So first you state "the larger variance" then you say "IQs tests have shown very similar comparisons between males and females", which is it?  And, would you like to show some peer review studies for this?  Yes, IQ is a concept to help identify people but again, it is an approximation and has little to do with gender effects on which higher education opportunities people go for.  If you look at the research into this field, done by men and women, your ideas don't match with any studied hypothesis that are actually considered possible in this day and age.

My sentence structure was misleading. I meant to say IQ tests have shown consistent disparity between the sexes at the upper and lower ends of the bellcurve over a long period of time. And obv, as for what I am debating, the disparity shows higher number of males at both ends.

First, I'd like a recent peer reviewed study that agrees you, because not once have I heard that.  However, you seem to be missing the major point.  An IQ test can be manipulated.  It can be manipulated by SES, by studying, by single gender schools.  There is not a reliable measurement.  It is a nice approximation but given how easily it is manipulated by things that have nothing to do with intelligence, you have to understand that your base is not reality.  Women and men, when taught equally are not different intelligence.  Nothing is statistics or in research into gender differences agrees with you, that I could find.  This comes from someone who base was statistics and psychology tests for undergrad.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5220/41
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115

There are two right there. Both are peer reviewed and reach the conclusion that the gender means are generally equal, but the tails show men with higher proportions. The first is from 1995, the second from 2005. As well, in the first study, a meta analysis was used on six different studies in order to help aggregate data and negate various "manipulations" as you call them, such as SES, studying, geographic locations, etc. Have fun.

I've read both articles, and you seem to be missing the point.  Yes, they have tests which have issues.  In fact your two articles use two entirely different measurements, the second being the military's entrance exam.  For god's sake.  This has become ridiculous.   Even in your articles they discuss the debates.  Given that depending on where you give the test and how the person has been raised, there are variability which shows how unreliable the tests are. 
Yes, I agree the military's test has a high correlation with the test for g (which is used for general intelligence).  One should then wonder, why is "auto and shop information" on there.  What does that have to do with general intelligence.  Nothing.  That is the point.  Yes, within the USA you can find this.  That is because the test is flawed and how we teach our children is flawed.  Look at studies that look outside the US, or hell look at the changes in over time in the US. 

"Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations."
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8801.abstract

[SisterX]

jka, I'm the one who sounds silly?  You're arguing in favor of the subordination of half of the species, using the same language which has been used to support slavery, and I'm the one who sounds silly?  All right.  Tell yourself that.

[pbkmaine]

Not every woman is suited to staying at home. Not every man is suited to being a breadwinner. In fact, I would have been much happier if my businesslike mom had gone out into the workforce while my tender and loving dad had stayed home to take care of me. But it just did not work like that when I was a kid. I think a happy marriage is where the two people in it have a long and deep conversation before they get married and figure out what each one's strengths and weaknesses are and  set up their lives accordingly.

[RetiredAt63]

I came late to this - I read the whole thread and won't go into all the old arguments.  I'll just toss in a few comments.

Stats and math - in my stats course (1974, for Honours Biology) the best two students were female.  Whoosh forward to 2012 - the two TAs for a biostats course - one male one female, equally competent (and amazingly competent, I hate R with a passion, they loved it).
More than 50% of present veterinary medicine grads in Canada are women. Standard veterinarian joke - what is the difference between a doctor and a veterinarian?  A doctor only knows one species (that is a major putdown, by the way).  These women are not dumb.
Difficulty - Physics and chemistry are easy compared to biology - they are non-living systems.  Biology spans the range from biochemistry to planetary biomes.

Traditional roles - traditional saying - a woman is only one man away from poverty.

Why did the second wave of feminism start?  Read The Female Eunuch.  In the US (this is second hand since I was in Canada) the young white women working in the civil rights campaigns realized the young white men were treating them with the same condescension that society in general treated black people.  Personal experience - in University (1968-72) too many young men were surprised at how many smart young women were in the sciences - we were interested in the general scientific ferment of the time (for me it was Tectonic Plate Theory, wonderful concept for an ecologist).  And we had hopes that men would be liberated from the old ways too, and our children could be themselves instead of shoved into stereotypes.  Fail.

I think it is time for me to go join The Raging Grannies, even though I'm not a grandmother (and DD gets to decide on her own how many to have, and 0 is a perfectly acceptable number).

Debates like this make me feel old, and that our generation somehow failed in realizing our ideals, although some of the comments on here were definitely inspiring.

[galliver]

I came late to this - I read the whole thread and won't go into all the old arguments.  I'll just toss in a few comments.

Stats and math - in my stats course (1974, for Honours Biology) the best two students were female.  Whoosh forward to 2012 - the two TAs for a biostats course - one male one female, equally competent (and amazingly competent, I hate R with a passion, they loved it).
More than 50% of present veterinary medicine grads in Canada are women. Standard veterinarian joke - what is the difference between a doctor and a veterinarian?  A doctor only knows one species (that is a major putdown, by the way).  These women are not dumb.
Difficulty - Physics and chemistry are easy compared to biology - they are non-living systems.  Biology spans the range from biochemistry to planetary biomes.

Traditional roles - traditional saying - a woman is only one man away from poverty.

Why did the second wave of feminism start?  Read The Female Eunuch.  In the US (this is second hand since I was in Canada) the young white women working in the civil rights campaigns realized the young white men were treating them with the same condescension that society in general treated black people.  Personal experience - in University (1968-72) too many young men were surprised at how many smart young women were in the sciences - we were interested in the general scientific ferment of the time (for me it was Tectonic Plate Theory, wonderful concept for an ecologist).  And we had hopes that men would be liberated from the old ways too, and our children could be themselves instead of shoved into stereotypes.  Fail.

I think it is time for me to go join The Raging Grannies, even though I'm not a grandmother (and DD gets to decide on her own how many to have, and 0 is a perfectly acceptable number).

Debates like this make me feel old, and that our generation somehow failed in realizing our ideals, although some of the comments on here were definitely inspiring.

May I just say that you sound awesome!? I don't know if you read the story from the Patrick Rothfuss blog (you should, it chokes me up each time) and I think he has a point: progress is not always linear and takes multiple generations. It's possible each generation has fewer [racists, chauvinists, homophobes, etc] and raises their kids to be less tolerant of [insert issue here]. My mom posited (as a laywoman) that it takes about 3 generations to notice a significant change in attitude. And I think there's evidence there has been change. My (few) female professors speak of being the only woman in their program. That's rare in the US these days, even in male-dominated majors (only woman in class...that's different). My older professors tend to be single and childless...but the younger ones are not. Tenure clocks are rolled back for the birth or adoption of a child in many institutions.  So, I think your generation made strides and we're picking it up. There are just stragglers and naysayers. There always are.

[rosaz]

Hey, I'll give you my situation. I've lived with male roomates and now live with my gf. When I lived with male roommates the place was never spotless, but it was still always presentable. I would clean certain areas (my bathroom, kitchen) and dust about once every 2 months, and I was perfectly happy with this. Now, living with my gf, who likes the place much neater, she likes to dust, clean (full scrubdowns), vaccum, do laundry, etc. about once a week. Of course, if we look at the numbers she is doing waaayyyyy more household chores than me, though I do cook and do dishes at times, but would those numbers really be fair just because she feels the need to live much neater than me? And for the record, my gf doesn't mind one bit, as she completely understood what she was getting into, and she gets that "I like the place much neater than he would generally have it, so I'll keep it that way".

And I'll give you my situation... my ex has much higher tidiness standards than I do, but still expected me to do the majority of the housework. Would leave bleach in the tub to sit and it would just sit unless/until I washed it myself. Would ask me where his clean underwear was. Would complain if I didn't clean the dishes up quickly enough after I cooked dinner.

Now, granted, he just wasn't a great person, lesson learned. But I'd argue that when women have higher standards than men, they do most of the housework, and when they have lower standards they do most of the housework anyways. The obvious answer is for women just not to date men like that, but if we haven't raised our daughters to be self-sufficient, they're kind of stuck with however men feel like treating them, aren't they?

[jka468]

Hey, I'll give you my situation. I've lived with male roomates and now live with my gf. When I lived with male roommates the place was never spotless, but it was still always presentable. I would clean certain areas (my bathroom, kitchen) and dust about once every 2 months, and I was perfectly happy with this. Now, living with my gf, who likes the place much neater, she likes to dust, clean (full scrubdowns), vaccum, do laundry, etc. about once a week. Of course, if we look at the numbers she is doing waaayyyyy more household chores than me, though I do cook and do dishes at times, but would those numbers really be fair just because she feels the need to live much neater than me? And for the record, my gf doesn't mind one bit, as she completely understood what she was getting into, and she gets that "I like the place much neater than he would generally have it, so I'll keep it that way".

And I'll give you my situation... my ex has much higher tidiness standards than I do, but still expected me to do the majority of the housework. Would leave bleach in the tub to sit and it would just sit unless/until I washed it myself. Would ask me where his clean underwear was. Would complain if I didn't clean the dishes up quickly enough after I cooked dinner.

Now, granted, he just wasn't a great person, lesson learned. But I'd argue that when women have higher standards than men, they do most of the housework, and when they have lower standards they do most of the housework anyways. The obvious answer is for women just not to date men like that, but if we haven't raised our daughters to be self-sufficient, they're kind of stuck with however men feel like treating them, aren't they?

While I would guess that it's much more likely for a woman to have higher standards than a man when it comes to housework, I will say that when it comes to your situation, your husband was completely 100% wrong. If he had the higher standards then he should have done the extra work, or there should be some type of arrangement where you do the work and he does something else that you desire. No argument from me there.

[RetiredAt63]

Thank you for the awesome  ;-)  One always hopes that with age comes some wisdom.

I am not sure I read the Patrick Rothfuss blog, could you post the link again?

I agree some progress has settled in, no-one is suggesting that women should not vote.  And in academics, yes, my professors were almost all male, whereas now in the life and earth sciences I see lots of women, and lots of women having children, who are tenure track.  And what is equally good, the students do not blink, they have no issues or expressions of surprise that many of their professors are women.  So we are making progress there.  And definitely less racism - Canada was not as bad as the US at any one time period, but it was here - our record on Chinese workers on the trans-continental railway was horrible, for example, and also with interning  Japanese immigrants and their Canadian-born children (i.e. David Suzuki) during WWII.  It is clear our society has come a long way when the biggest reservation about Michaëlle Jean's appointment as Governor General (representative of the Queen in Canada, big big deal, for those not familiar with our political system) was that she was another journalist after Adrienne Clarkson - not that she was female or black or an immigrant (from Haiti).  And for those who like to see what a person can achieve with a rough start, read her story: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/michaelle-jean/

It is always hard to change, even when a change is seen as positive.  My DD knows lots of guys in their 20's who would love to have a "traditional" wife to come home to, but they also like the income of the working wife - and like everything else in life, we can't have it both ways.  Actually, when I was working, with a long commute, I would have loved a SAHS too!  And when we see men (as we saw on one of the other threads) complaining about divorce hitting their 'stache, well if your have a SAHS the SAHS has contributed to the accumulation of the 'stashe in non-monetary ways, so why the complaints?

Really I think Heinlein was right that humans should be able to do all sorts of things, and it works both ways - girls should be competent running a home, but so should boys, and boys should be competent at home maintenance, but so should girls.  Actually, Heinlein was a bad influence on me when I was young, his heroines and many peripheral female characters were just so smart and competent, of course in the future we could maximize our potential. 

May I just say that you sound awesome!? I don't know if you read the story from the Patrick Rothfuss blog (you should, it chokes me up each time) and I think he has a point: progress is not always linear and takes multiple generations. It's possible each generation has fewer [racists, chauvinists, homophobes, etc] and raises their kids to be less tolerant of [insert issue here]. My mom posited (as a laywoman) that it takes about 3 generations to notice a significant change in attitude. And I think there's evidence there has been change. My (few) female professors speak of being the only woman in their program. That's rare in the US these days, even in male-dominated majors (only woman in class...that's different). My older professors tend to be single and childless...but the younger ones are not. Tenure clocks are rolled back for the birth or adoption of a child in many institutions.  So, I think your generation made strides and we're picking it up. There are just stragglers and naysayers. There always are.

[galliver]

I am not sure I read the Patrick Rothfuss blog, could you post the link again?

Certainly! http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2014/09/a-guy-game/

[Miamoo]

It's time to close this thread.  Therefore, I suggest that all those who believe in the Mustachian principles of FI and self-empowerment abandon this Ship of Stupidity.  Don't post here anymore.

It is absurd to come to a forum dedicated to the principles of financial independence and self-empowerment and advocate for the idea that a particular class of adults are, by nature, happiest when dependent on other adults.   Take your last-century ideology to some other forum.

I agree with you. We've said all we can say and have started repeating ourselves. That said I can't promise not to get enraged by something I read down the line and come back.

I agree as well.  This has really gotten stupid and now I have a headache from all the repetition.  Read page 1 and skipped to page 3.  Too much repetition and - arguing?  Ridiculous.

[SisterX]

This article is slightly off topic (it's about abortion protesters) but I think that some of the attitudes displayed by the people they talked to are relevant.

'"[Women] had equality," Delouis says about the 1950s, before Supreme Court cases legalized contraception and abortion. "But they had to be obedient to their husbands. That's where equality comes: where the mother stayed home and raised the children in God's light, and the husband worked, and everything was great. When I grew up, there were no problems."'

The idea that someone can be equal AND subordinate is mental gymnastics that is staggeringly incomprehensible to me.  I don't think that person truly understands what equality is/means, just as I don't think that PloddingInsight or jka truly understand the issue we have with their POV.  Of course, from things they've mentioned I'm sure they'll agree heartily with the protesters, while the rest of us will be face-palming away.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/advertorial/a32624/boston-abortion-planned-parenthood-protests/

[galliver]

This article is slightly off topic (it's about abortion protesters) but I think that some of the attitudes displayed by the people they talked to are relevant.

'"[Women] had equality," Delouis says about the 1950s, before Supreme Court cases legalized contraception and abortion. "But they had to be obedient to their husbands. That's where equality comes: where the mother stayed home and raised the children in God's light, and the husband worked, and everything was great. When I grew up, there were no problems."'

The idea that someone can be equal AND subordinate is mental gymnastics that is staggeringly incomprehensible to me.  I don't think that person truly understands what equality is/means, just as I don't think that PloddingInsight or jka truly understand the issue we have with their POV.  Of course, from things they've mentioned I'm sure they'll agree heartily with the protesters, while the rest of us will be face-palming away.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/advertorial/a32624/boston-abortion-planned-parenthood-protests/

1) Fascinating that cosmo actually has worthwhile articles!
2) ""I consider my profession having been a mother and a grandmother," Ruth says, adding that her children agree with her values: two of her daughters got pregnant out of wedlock, one in high school, and both placed their children for adoption." Clearly she did a *great* job passing on her values. I'm guessing these girls got abstinence-only education. Which clearly worked *so* well.
2a) Oooh, there's another one! ""Abstinence," Clark says. "It's possible. I taught my daughters abstinence. It doesn't mean I've been successful with my first two, but I have three more to go. You hold your breath."" Emphasis added.
3) ""Society was great before they had abortions," he says. "Because there wasn't as much evil in the world. They weren't murdering God's babies, which is the most important thing."" I'm not even sure where to go with this one, it's just so misguided. I believe this is the fascinating article I read about the history of abortion in the US. I'm sure worldwide it goes back MUCH farther. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/08/08/71893/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/. And I'm sure if you go back to *before* abortions, you'd also be going back to before any effective medicine. Which, by my measure, would not be "great."

[SisterX]

1) Fascinating that cosmo actually has worthwhile articles!
2) ""I consider my profession having been a mother and a grandmother," Ruth says, adding that her children agree with her values: two of her daughters got pregnant out of wedlock, one in high school, and both placed their children for adoption." Clearly she did a *great* job passing on her values. I'm guessing these girls got abstinence-only education. Which clearly worked *so* well.
2a) Oooh, there's another one! ""Abstinence," Clark says. "It's possible. I taught my daughters abstinence. It doesn't mean I've been successful with my first two, but I have three more to go. You hold your breath."" Emphasis added.
3) ""Society was great before they had abortions," he says. "Because there wasn't as much evil in the world. They weren't murdering God's babies, which is the most important thing."" I'm not even sure where to go with this one, it's just so misguided. I believe this is the fascinating article I read about the history of abortion in the US. I'm sure worldwide it goes back MUCH farther. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/08/08/71893/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/. And I'm sure if you go back to *before* abortions, you'd also be going back to before any effective medicine. Which, by my measure, would not be "great."

Yeah, I'm not actually a Cosmo reader, but this one popped up on my FB feed and it was surprisingly great!  Also saw a fabulous article on feminism a long time ago, and why it's a fantastic thing, from one of the most unlikely sources ever: Playboy!  Since then, I've tried not to judge magazines based on their usual content.  :)
And yes, the quotes from people were so...I don't even know how you can be so self-deceptive.  To think that abstinence education works when it so clearly doesn't?  But that sort of mental disconnect is why many of us have bonded through MMM, just on the topic of money rather than feminism/reproductive rights.  It's all connected.

[Beric01]

The idea that someone can be equal AND subordinate is mental gymnastics that is staggeringly incomprehensible to me.  I don't think that person truly understands what equality is/means, just as I don't think that PloddingInsight or jka truly understand the issue we have with their POV.

I just read the entire thread, and I cannot see anywhere where PloddingInsight or jka said that women should be subordinate to men, or vice versa. This sounds like a straw man.

[TrulyStashin]

The idea that someone can be equal AND subordinate is mental gymnastics that is staggeringly incomprehensible to me.  I don't think that person truly understands what equality is/means, just as I don't think that PloddingInsight or jka truly understand the issue we have with their POV.

I just read the entire thread, and I cannot see anywhere where PloddingInsight or jka said that women should be subordinate to men, or vice versa. This sounds like a straw man.

No, PloddingInsight and jka didn't say women should be subordinate.  However, they articulated a philosophy that gender -- rather than individual potential and interests -- should be a parents' North star in guiding children.  They support a cultural norm that prioritizes domestic roles for women which usually results in some degree of financial dependence on a man (a strange argument to make on a blog about FI).  Note that this philosophy also limits a man to traditional gender roles too.

If I may be so bold as to speak for SisterX, galliver, Gin1984 et al, we prefer a philosophy where children are encouraged to explore and fulfill their potential, whatever that might be, regardless of gender.   Ideally, adults will build relationships that are interdependent and respectful of both partners' needs and abilities regardless of who "should" be doing X, Y, or Z based on traditional norms.

Does that sum it up well enough that I can now really ignore this thread and focus on building a kick ass legal practice tomorrow, after scratching my son's back tonight?

[Beric01]

The idea that someone can be equal AND subordinate is mental gymnastics that is staggeringly incomprehensible to me.  I don't think that person truly understands what equality is/means, just as I don't think that PloddingInsight or jka truly understand the issue we have with their POV.

I just read the entire thread, and I cannot see anywhere where PloddingInsight or jka said that women should be subordinate to men, or vice versa. This sounds like a straw man.

No, PloddingInsight and jka didn't say women should be subordinate.  However, they articulated a philosophy that gender -- rather than individual potential and interests -- should be a parents' North star in guiding children.  They support a cultural norm that prioritizes domestic roles for women which usually results in some degree of financial dependence on a man (a strange argument to make on a blog about FI).  Note that this philosophy also limits a man to traditional gender roles too.

If I may be so bold as to speak for SisterX, galliver, Gin1984 et al, we prefer a philosophy where children are encouraged to explore and fulfill their potential, whatever that might be, regardless of gender.   Ideally, adults will build relationships that are interdependent and respectful of both partners' needs and abilities regardless of who "should" be doing X, Y, or Z based on traditional norms.

Does that sum it up well enough that I can now really ignore this thread and focus on building a kick ass legal practice tomorrow, after scratching my son's back tonight?

Are we reading the same thread? In the thread I read these two stated that both genders should be free to choose roles as they wish. They simply noted that men and women tended to prefer certain roles and saw no reason to actively work against freely-made choices. There's no reason to aim for exactly 50% gender representation in every work profession, or 50% stay-at-home moms and 50% dads. As long as neither gender is being actively prevented from pursuing whatever they wish to pursue, we should be happy.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

[TrulyStashin]

But I see a difference between discrimination, and simply preparing you daughter to be a good stay-at-home mom, with the expectation that she will probably choose that.

This one sentence embodies the entire problem everyone else is having with your arguments.  YOU are making an assumption about what your daughters SHOULD do and what they WILL choose.  YOU are biasing them toward one decision, whether you want to admit it or not.

Beric01, perhaps you missed this.   This is it, in a nutshell, and both PI and jka articulated the principle behind this idea in multiple ways over many posts.  You might think it's not a big deal but it is because a parent's expectation for a child's future can be either a heavy weight or a powerful catalyst (or a mixed bag of confusing messages like what I got).  Boys tend to receive a clear signal about what's expected of them.  Girls do not get that same support.  Warren Buffet put it well in this story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/9769733/Forget-the-fiscal-cliff-women-will-save-the-US-economy-says-Warren-Buffett.html:

But he today expressed disappointment at the lack of opportunity extended to his sisters.

He said: "Woman have been subjugated for time immemorial. In this country in 1776 we said all men are born equal – and then ignored that fact for 150 years until the 19th amendment. I saw it in my own family. I was born in 1930 with an older sister and a younger sister, and the hope was that they would marry well and the hope for me was that I would fulfil my potential, whatever that would be.

"It was two human beings with enormous potential and it was assumed they could be a nurse or a secretary or a flight attendant. Or they could be a teacher – but not in upper education. What a waste of human talent – 50pc of the population was pushed off into the corner for 200 years."

But he said he was now upbeat. "I see how far we've come using only half the talent in the country and now we're getting to the point that we are using 100pc. It makes me optimistic but we still have a way to go".

[Beric01]

But I see a difference between discrimination, and simply preparing you daughter to be a good stay-at-home mom, with the expectation that she will probably choose that.

This one sentence embodies the entire problem everyone else is having with your arguments.  YOU are making an assumption about what your daughters SHOULD do and what they WILL choose.  YOU are biasing them toward one decision, whether you want to admit it or not.

Beric01, perhaps you missed this.   This is it, in a nutshell, and both PI and jka articulated the principle behind this idea in multiple ways over many posts.  You might think it's not a big deal but it is because a parent's expectation for a child's future can be either a heavy weight or a powerful catalyst (or a mixed bag of confusing messages like what I got).  Boys tend to receive a clear signal about what's expected of them.  Girls do not get that same support.  Warren Buffet put it well in this story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/9769733/Forget-the-fiscal-cliff-women-will-save-the-US-economy-says-Warren-Buffett.html:

But he today expressed disappointment at the lack of opportunity extended to his sisters.

He said: "Woman have been subjugated for time immemorial. In this country in 1776 we said all men are born equal – and then ignored that fact for 150 years until the 19th amendment. I saw it in my own family. I was born in 1930 with an older sister and a younger sister, and the hope was that they would marry well and the hope for me was that I would fulfil my potential, whatever that would be.

"It was two human beings with enormous potential and it was assumed they could be a nurse or a secretary or a flight attendant. Or they could be a teacher – but not in upper education. What a waste of human talent – 50pc of the population was pushed off into the corner for 200 years."

But he said he was now upbeat. "I see how far we've come using only half the talent in the country and now we're getting to the point that we are using 100pc. It makes me optimistic but we still have a way to go".

Ok, I agree that children should not have artificial expectations set for them, regardless of gender. I think we're in sync here.

I strongly disagree with being a stay-at-home parent, or a secretary is not "fulfilling one's potential" or "wasting human talent". If I decide I want to be a secretary, or a stay-at-home parent, what's wrong with that? Choices are freely made. Just because I could have become a scientist inventing the cure to cancer or a surgeon saving lives doesn't mean I wasted my potential if I decided I wanted to be a flight attendant. Your life is what you make of it.

[Kyle Schuant]

There is a lot of old bollocks posted in this thread, and even some of the stuff which may be true is completely irrelevant.

My feeling has always been that whoever does more paid hours of work in the couple will logically do less unpaid hours. If one of you is doing 40hr pw and the other 10hr pw, guess who's doing the dishes tonight?

Of course it's always hard to add up exactly. If I'm on this forum for 30 minutes while my son watches tv, does that count as "childcare"? A babysitter would count it in their hours, so why not? But it's not very hard work. What about cooking dinner and doing the dishes, don't single people living alone have to do that, too? So do we count the 30 minutes you would have spent doing that anyway, or only count the extra 10 minutes? Etc. But anyway, broadly speaking, however the paid work is spread out, the unpaid work should be spread proportionately to balance things out. With the caveat that sometimes we need a break - kids are tiring.

My wife works full-time in an office, I work part-time from home, about 15hr of training people then another few hours of admin and marketing stuff. Our 3yo son goes to childcare tue/wed/thu, I'm alone with him mon/fri, we're all together sat/sun. She does 2/3 of the paid work hours between us, so I do 2/3 of the housework, or maybe a bit more.

If anyone feels this impacts my masculinity, they can go fuck themselves. I hunted deer as a kid, was in the Army a decade, I lift weights (as does my wife), I can do well in whatever "masculine" pissing contest you want to come up with. That is all crap, the most manly thing a man can do is be a good husband and father. Each couple has to work it out between them with no assumptions exactly how the domestic work is shared out. But I will note: no man has ever been murdered by his wife while he was doing the vacuuming.

My son will grow up seeing his mother lift weights, fix things around the house and hold down an intellectually challenging job - he'll respect women. And he'll learn to clean and cook, as well as lift weights himself. So as a young man he'll be strong, fit, respect women and be able to clean and cook. Girls will be falling at his feet!

[Lyssa]

If anyone feels this impacts my masculinity, they can go fuck themselves. I hunted deer as a kid, was in the Army a decade, I lift weights (as does my wife), I can do well in whatever "masculine" pissing contest you want to come up with.

My SO is exactly like that! He's been in the military for years, including jumping out of planes and kicking doors in not knowing what's behind. And... he couldn't care less that I'm making more than twice as much as him. In fact, he is happy about it because it puts us both in a much better position. He's thinking about reducing his work hours so he can do more at home and I can do less.

It would be really hilarious if e.g. some insurance salesman would challenge his masculinity because of it... :-)

[goodlife]

But I see a difference between discrimination, and simply preparing you daughter to be a good stay-at-home mom, with the expectation that she will probably choose that.

This one sentence embodies the entire problem everyone else is having with your arguments.  YOU are making an assumption about what your daughters SHOULD do and what they WILL choose.  YOU are biasing them toward one decision, whether you want to admit it or not.

Beric01, perhaps you missed this.   This is it, in a nutshell, and both PI and jka articulated the principle behind this idea in multiple ways over many posts.  You might think it's not a big deal but it is because a parent's expectation for a child's future can be either a heavy weight or a powerful catalyst (or a mixed bag of confusing messages like what I got).  Boys tend to receive a clear signal about what's expected of them.  Girls do not get that same support.  Warren Buffet put it well in this story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/9769733/Forget-the-fiscal-cliff-women-will-save-the-US-economy-says-Warren-Buffett.html:

But he today expressed disappointment at the lack of opportunity extended to his sisters.

He said: "Woman have been subjugated for time immemorial. In this country in 1776 we said all men are born equal – and then ignored that fact for 150 years until the 19th amendment. I saw it in my own family. I was born in 1930 with an older sister and a younger sister, and the hope was that they would marry well and the hope for me was that I would fulfil my potential, whatever that would be.

"It was two human beings with enormous potential and it was assumed they could be a nurse or a secretary or a flight attendant. Or they could be a teacher – but not in upper education. What a waste of human talent – 50pc of the population was pushed off into the corner for 200 years."

But he said he was now upbeat. "I see how far we've come using only half the talent in the country and now we're getting to the point that we are using 100pc. It makes me optimistic but we still have a way to go".

Ok, I agree that children should not have artificial expectations set for them, regardless of gender. I think we're in sync here.

I strongly disagree with being a stay-at-home parent, or a secretary is not "fulfilling one's potential" or "wasting human talent". If I decide I want to be a secretary, or a stay-at-home parent, what's wrong with that? Choices are freely made. Just because I could have become a scientist inventing the cure to cancer or a surgeon saving lives doesn't mean I wasted my potential if I decided I wanted to be a flight attendant. Your life is what you make of it.

That is true and I agree with you, but only under this premise: all options (housewife, secretary, doctor, astronaut etc.) were real options that you could choose from and that seemed like careers that you could realistically achieve if only you wanted to. If out of all these options you then chose "secretary" or whatever, that's totally cool and I applaud you! But the problem which even today persists is that a lot of girls never think that being a doctor or an astronaut is a real option for them. Society conditions them from an early age to only consider a small subset of options. I am only 30 years old and I have seen that growing up very much. It's not openly so, but that's even the worst part! If someone openly said to young girls and women that all they should focus on is to "marry well", then that's at least something you can rebel against! But what is happening very often in today's society is that it is extremely subtle and therefore all the more powerful. You can't fight against something that you don't even know is silently shaping you into a certain way. I am not saying that it is always done intentionally (yet sometime it is), but it is nevertheless there. I agree, life is what you make it, but free will can also be an illusion.

[TrulyStashin]

But I see a difference between discrimination, and simply preparing you daughter to be a good stay-at-home mom, with the expectation that she will probably choose that.

This one sentence embodies the entire problem everyone else is having with your arguments.  YOU are making an assumption about what your daughters SHOULD do and what they WILL choose.  YOU are biasing them toward one decision, whether you want to admit it or not.

Beric01, perhaps you missed this.   This is it, in a nutshell, and both PI and jka articulated the principle behind this idea in multiple ways over many posts.  You might think it's not a big deal but it is because a parent's expectation for a child's future can be either a heavy weight or a powerful catalyst (or a mixed bag of confusing messages like what I got).  Boys tend to receive a clear signal about what's expected of them.  Girls do not get that same support.  Warren Buffet put it well in this story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/9769733/Forget-the-fiscal-cliff-women-will-save-the-US-economy-says-Warren-Buffett.html:

But he today expressed disappointment at the lack of opportunity extended to his sisters.

He said: "Woman have been subjugated for time immemorial. In this country in 1776 we said all men are born equal – and then ignored that fact for 150 years until the 19th amendment. I saw it in my own family. I was born in 1930 with an older sister and a younger sister, and the hope was that they would marry well and the hope for me was that I would fulfil my potential, whatever that would be.

"It was two human beings with enormous potential and it was assumed they could be a nurse or a secretary or a flight attendant. Or they could be a teacher – but not in upper education. What a waste of human talent – 50pc of the population was pushed off into the corner for 200 years."

But he said he was now upbeat. "I see how far we've come using only half the talent in the country and now we're getting to the point that we are using 100pc. It makes me optimistic but we still have a way to go".

Ok, I agree that children should not have artificial expectations set for them, regardless of gender. I think we're in sync here.

I strongly disagree with being a stay-at-home parent, or a secretary is not "fulfilling one's potential" or "wasting human talent". If I decide I want to be a secretary, or a stay-at-home parent, what's wrong with that? Choices are freely made. Just because I could have become a scientist inventing the cure to cancer or a surgeon saving lives doesn't mean I wasted my potential if I decided I wanted to be a flight attendant. Your life is what you make of it.

That is true and I agree with you, but only under this premise: all options (housewife, secretary, doctor, astronaut etc.) were real options that you could choose from and that seemed like careers that you could realistically achieve if only you wanted to. If out of all these options you then chose "secretary" or whatever, that's totally cool and I applaud you! But the problem which even today persists is that a lot of girls never think that being a doctor or an astronaut is a real option for them. Society conditions them from an early age to only consider a small subset of options. I am only 30 years old and I have seen that growing up very much. It's not openly so, but that's even the worst part! If someone openly said to young girls and women that all they should focus on is to "marry well", then that's at least something you can rebel against! But what is happening very often in today's society is that it is extremely subtle and therefore all the more powerful. You can't fight against something that you don't even know is silently shaping you into a certain way. I am not saying that it is always done intentionally (yet sometime it is), but it is nevertheless there. I agree, life is what you make it, but free will can also be an illusion.

+1

It's hard enough to fight against society's conditioning.  A girl shouldn't have to swim against a current generated by her own father.

[SisterX]

The idea that someone can be equal AND subordinate is mental gymnastics that is staggeringly incomprehensible to me.  I don't think that person truly understands what equality is/means, just as I don't think that PloddingInsight or jka truly understand the issue we have with their POV.

I just read the entire thread, and I cannot see anywhere where PloddingInsight or jka said that women should be subordinate to men, or vice versa. This sounds like a straw man.

I never said that's what PI and jka said.  You seem to have missed the quote above it?  I was directly referencing a quote from the article I linked to, in which a woman was saying the 50s were perfect because there was equality, even though women were subordinate to husbands.  This seemed like the same type of argument which PI and jka were using, but not something they've come right out and said.

If anyone feels this impacts my masculinity, they can go fuck themselves. I hunted deer as a kid, was in the Army a decade, I lift weights (as does my wife), I can do well in whatever "masculine" pissing contest you want to come up with. That is all crap, the most manly thing a man can do is be a good husband and father. Each couple has to work it out between them with no assumptions exactly how the domestic work is shared out. But I will note: no man has ever been murdered by his wife while he was doing the vacuuming.

I've never understood the mindset which seems to think men doing housework = men losing their testicles.  If you want to talk about a straw man argument....  Just the fact that Kyle feels the need to defend himself is a little sad to me.  Kyle, you sound like an awesome dad and spouse!  And, you're just like my husband.  Unabashed in being an equal part of taking care of the house and raising our daughter. 

[jka468]

But I see a difference between discrimination, and simply preparing you daughter to be a good stay-at-home mom, with the expectation that she will probably choose that.

This one sentence embodies the entire problem everyone else is having with your arguments.  YOU are making an assumption about what your daughters SHOULD do and what they WILL choose.  YOU are biasing them toward one decision, whether you want to admit it or not.

Beric01, perhaps you missed this.   This is it, in a nutshell, and both PI and jka articulated the principle behind this idea in multiple ways over many posts.  You might think it's not a big deal but it is because a parent's expectation for a child's future can be either a heavy weight or a powerful catalyst (or a mixed bag of confusing messages like what I got).  Boys tend to receive a clear signal about what's expected of them.  Girls do not get that same support.  Warren Buffet put it well in this story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/9769733/Forget-the-fiscal-cliff-women-will-save-the-US-economy-says-Warren-Buffett.html:

But he today expressed disappointment at the lack of opportunity extended to his sisters.

He said: "Woman have been subjugated for time immemorial. In this country in 1776 we said all men are born equal – and then ignored that fact for 150 years until the 19th amendment. I saw it in my own family. I was born in 1930 with an older sister and a younger sister, and the hope was that they would marry well and the hope for me was that I would fulfil my potential, whatever that would be.

"It was two human beings with enormous potential and it was assumed they could be a nurse or a secretary or a flight attendant. Or they could be a teacher – but not in upper education. What a waste of human talent – 50pc of the population was pushed off into the corner for 200 years."

But he said he was now upbeat. "I see how far we've come using only half the talent in the country and now we're getting to the point that we are using 100pc. It makes me optimistic but we still have a way to go".

Ok, I agree that children should not have artificial expectations set for them, regardless of gender. I think we're in sync here.

I strongly disagree with being a stay-at-home parent, or a secretary is not "fulfilling one's potential" or "wasting human talent". If I decide I want to be a secretary, or a stay-at-home parent, what's wrong with that? Choices are freely made. Just because I could have become a scientist inventing the cure to cancer or a surgeon saving lives doesn't mean I wasted my potential if I decided I wanted to be a flight attendant. Your life is what you make of it.

That is true and I agree with you, but only under this premise: all options (housewife, secretary, doctor, astronaut etc.) were real options that you could choose from and that seemed like careers that you could realistically achieve if only you wanted to. If out of all these options you then chose "secretary" or whatever, that's totally cool and I applaud you! But the problem which even today persists is that a lot of girls never think that being a doctor or an astronaut is a real option for them. Society conditions them from an early age to only consider a small subset of options. I am only 30 years old and I have seen that growing up very much. It's not openly so, but that's even the worst part! If someone openly said to young girls and women that all they should focus on is to "marry well", then that's at least something you can rebel against! But what is happening very often in today's society is that it is extremely subtle and therefore all the more powerful. You can't fight against something that you don't even know is silently shaping you into a certain way. I am not saying that it is always done intentionally (yet sometime it is), but it is nevertheless there. I agree, life is what you make it, but free will can also be an illusion.

+1

It's hard enough to fight against society's conditioning.  A girl shouldn't have to swim against a current generated by her own father.

The old boogeyman argument I see. This just isn't so anymore, and hasn't been for a while, but feminists and equalists LOVE LOVE LOVE to perceice such injustices because it always allows them to play the victim card.

As I stated earlier in the thread, I went to one of the top public high schools in the entire United States, and one of the top private universities in the United States and the world. These schools were filled with high IQ women who has a realistic chance of becoming anything they wanted (sorry, but blowing smoke up a kid's ass doesn't help. Not everyone is smart enough to become a doctor or engineer, just like I'll never dunk a basketball, and the sooner people realize this the better off they are) and who were actively encouraged to pursue any and every path they saw fit, and they still overwhelming chose non-STEM career fields. I am thoroughly convinced that a majority of men like X, and a majority of women like Y, and it's complete nonsense to say "more men must participate in Y, and more women have to participate in X". Is there overlap? Of course there is, and people should be free to choose what they want, which is what has happened now, but wipe the fog off your glasses and try to see the deeper agenda that is being pushed on the proles. Hint: It's ALL about excessive consumerism, which is why I'm surprised so many women on this forum have fallen for the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

The injustice isn't there, there is no phantom conditioning anymore, especially among the middle-class+ clusters of society where a childs' ability has a higher chance of shining through. I suppose people just love to chase ghosts.

As well, encouraging a girl to learn some domestic skills, along with anything else she is doing, won't kill her. This all goes back to why the marriage rate in the country has been declining steadily for a while (which some may applaud, I don't).

[jka468]

That is all crap, the most manly thing a man can do is be a good husband and father.

This is hilarious, you've been indoctrinated quite well, haven't you?

The most "manly" thing any person can do is to choose whatever the hell they truly desire to do, and then take accountability and responsiblity for the outcomes of their actions.

[jka468]

 
 

 Not everyone is smart enough to become a doctor or engineer, 

 encouraging a girl to learn some domestic skills, along with anything else she is doing, won't kill her
 

True but many girls may be interested in the trades - mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers, etc... - but you often see a parent who will actively guide a girl who shows an interest in such things away from a wrench and towards a spatula instead because of a perceived gender bias. Same for boys.  And encouraging them to learn domestic skills too won't kill them either.

Let's deal in reality for a moment, shall we? While I completely agree that a girl should be able to choose whatever path she wants, and I truly believe that's the case now, in terms of the trades you mentioned the number of girls interested in these trades are VASTLY outnumbered by men. Those jobs are oftentimes dirty, manual labor intensive, unthankful and subject to outdoor conditions which may not always be favorable. The amount of girls interested in these occupations would be even far less than girls interested in things like physics and engineering. I would absolutely encourage my daughter to pursue something else, especially if she is pretty (let's not kid ourselves here about the value of a young females's looks), but if she is deadset on it then go right ahead. I don't blame a parent for understanding that, most likely, a son will be better suited for these jobs than a daughter, simply due to the dirty/physical nature, all other things being equal.

And as far as domestic skills go, I would argue that most men my age and younger are outshining women on this front these days. I can't even count the number of relationships I've seen where the girl barely knows how to make anything if it doesn't come out of a microwave. Older generations you have a point, but now, not so much.

[GuitarStv]

Huh.  So ugly girls get encouragement from you to do boy things, but not pretty ones?

[Gin1984]

 
 

 Not everyone is smart enough to become a doctor or engineer, 

 encouraging a girl to learn some domestic skills, along with anything else she is doing, won't kill her
 

True but many girls may be interested in the trades - mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers, etc... - but you often see a parent who will actively guide a girl who shows an interest in such things away from a wrench and towards a spatula instead because of a perceived gender bias. Same for boys.  And encouraging them to learn domestic skills too won't kill them either.

Let's deal in reality for a moment, shall we? While I completely agree that a girl should be able to choose whatever path she wants, and I truly believe that's the case now, in terms of the trades you mentioned the number of girls interested in these trades are VASTLY outnumbered by men. Those jobs are oftentimes dirty, manual labor intensive, unthankful and subject to outdoor conditions which may not always be favorable. The amount of girls interested in these occupations would be even far less than girls interested in things like physics and engineering. I would absolutely encourage my daughter to pursue something else, especially if she is pretty (let's not kid ourselves here about the value of a young females's looks), but if she is deadset on it then go right ahead. I don't blame a parent for understanding that, most likely, a son will be better suited for these jobs than a daughter, simply due to the dirty/physical nature, all other things being equal.

And as far as domestic skills go, I would argue that most men my age and younger are outshining women on this front these days. I can't even count the number of relationships I've seen where the girl barely knows how to make anything if it doesn't come out of a microwave. Older generations you have a point, but now, not so much.

You keep making statements with no actual facts to back you up.  Then when people shows those facts which disagree with your conclusions, you ignore them and bring up another factless statement. 

[GuitarStv]

Huh.  So ugly girls get encouragement from you to do boy things, but not pretty ones?

I'm a "pretty" girl (now a woman) who was interested in the trades - as well as all sorts of fun dirty things like mountain biking, trail running, dirt bikes, motorcycles, and oh so many others. Glad my Dad encouraged me to do whatever "I" wanted regardless of my being pretty. Life would have been boring as hell if all I did was spend my time primping to be beautiful so I can "nab" me one of those men-folks.

I'm just wondering at the reasoning.  How does 'ugly' vs 'pretty' matter at all in what anyone does?

[jka468]

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

And Gin1984, I don't need facts to study that, I've lived life. Where the hell have you been? How many women do you know who want to do manual, physical labor day in and day out to make a buck? Are there some, yes, of course, but most wouldn't. It's just obvious, stop playing team GOGRLLLLL and denying reality. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

Huh.  So ugly girls get encouragement from you to do boy things, but not pretty ones?

I'm a "pretty" girl (now a woman) who was interested in the trades - as well as all sorts of fun dirty things like mountain biking, trail running, dirt bikes, motorcycles, and oh so many others. Glad my Dad encouraged me to do whatever "I" wanted regardless of my being pretty. Life would have been boring as hell if all I did was spend my time primping to be beautiful so I can "nab" me one of those men-folks.

Seriously, no one cares about YOU. Everytime a general statement is made on here some women responds with "well, I, I'm, me, I, me, I" like it proves their point. I'm talking in general, I've already stated plenty of times that there are exceptions to every single rule that everyone can make.  That doesn't mean that your exception should be a general rule. 

As well, your representing a false dichotomy. Being pretty is just one advantage, it doesn't mean that that's the only thing a person has to have going for them.

[Gin1984]

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

And Gin1984, I don't need facts to study that, I've lived life. Where the hell have you been? How many women do you know who want to do manual, physical labor day in and day out to make a buck? Are there some, yes, of course, but most wouldn't. It's just obvious, stop playing team GOGRLLLLL and denying reality. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

Basically you want to ignore facts, and research and decide things based on your biases.  I am not playing anything.  I am expecting that people look at reality, not their biases.  Very few people want to manual labor their entire lives, but men have been told it is an option, women have not.  If you look at the research, you statements are completely false.  You are stating reasons for actions that has been shown not to be accurate.  I don't know how to simplify this any further for you.

[jka468]

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

And Gin1984, I don't need facts to study that, I've lived life. Where the hell have you been? How many women do you know who want to do manual, physical labor day in and day out to make a buck? Are there some, yes, of course, but most wouldn't. It's just obvious, stop playing team GOGRLLLLL and denying reality. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

Basically you want to ignore facts, and research and decide things based on your biases.  I am not playing anything.  I am expecting that people look at reality, not their biases.  Very few people want to manual labor their entire lives, but men have been told it is an option, women have not.  If you look at the research, you statements are completely false.  You are stating reasons for actions that has been shown not to be accurate.  I don't know how to simplify this any further for you.

What research on this? Stop making things up.

And look, EVEN IF the same number of girls as boys wanted to do physical occupation type jobs, it would be stupid to push girls into those fields because of efficiency. Your average woman won't phsyically hold up as well as your average man on a day to day, month to month and year to year basis. Are you seriously going to deny a strength difference between the sexes? If so then I've really heard it all.

[GuitarStv]

I'm just wondering at the reasoning.  How does 'ugly' vs 'pretty' matter at all in what anyone does?

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

You didn't answer my question at all.

You've explained that you would treat an ugly girl differently than a pretty one, but haven't mentioned why.  Why are pretty girls less suited to work as mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers in your eyes?  Why are ugly girls fine for those jobs?

[rocksinmyhead]

Seriously, no one cares about YOU. Everytime a general statement is made on here some women responds with "well, I, I'm, me, I, me, I" like it proves their point. I'm talking in general, I've already stated plenty of times that there are exceptions to every single rule that everyone can make.  That doesn't mean that your exception should be a general rule. 

we respond like that because it's so freaking annoying to hear you constantly blather on about what you think the "general rule" is, which is obviously based on YOUR perceptions and your social circle since you haven't offered up statistics to back it up (and when someone questions it, your response is, "you can't POSSIBLY think that it's more likely that <blah blah blah>..." get out of your bubble, man! I CAN possibly think that!). it's clear that you don't know too many women like us in real life, so we're just offering another perspective.

seriously, when you threw out this: "but actually, these days I know of more couples where the woman is actually HOPELESS at cooking and the man is much better," I almost responded with yet another anecdote about how I'm actually a badass home cook (oh, and a professional scientist with a research degree too! but I guess that makes me a total weirdo, right?!), but I realized that is not any more helpful than your opposing anecdotes. it's just obnoxious to be told over and over again that your experiences don't matter, what matters instead are the generalizations of some guy on the internet based on HIS friends. basically, our anecdotes are no more or less valid than yours, so I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.

and for the record, at least among MY anecdotal group of acquaintances, I'm not anomalous.

[jka468]

I'm just wondering at the reasoning.  How does 'ugly' vs 'pretty' matter at all in what anyone does?

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

You didn't answer my question at all.

You've explained that you would treat an ugly girl differently than a pretty one, but haven't mentioned why.  Why are pretty girls less suited to work as mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers in your eyes?  Why are ugly girls fine for those jobs?

I'm not a parent, but as a parent I would think that it's one's job to assess their child's situation and offer the most beneficial path forwards based on that situation; so yes, 'ugly' vs 'pretty' does factor into that in some manner. Pretty young girls, and to a lesser extent good looking boys, don't even live in the same reality as plain janes and ugly/fat young girls. It doesn't matter if thats right or wrong, it's just a fact of society.

If you don't think this fact will affect every single facet of that child's life, and hence have at least some effect on the way you should raise that young person, then you are doing are doing a disservice to that young person.

[jka468]

Seriously, no one cares about YOU. Everytime a general statement is made on here some women responds with "well, I, I'm, me, I, me, I" like it proves their point. I'm talking in general, I've already stated plenty of times that there are exceptions to every single rule that everyone can make.  That doesn't mean that your exception should be a general rule. 

we respond like that because it's so freaking annoying to hear you constantly blather on about what you think the "general rule" is, which is obviously based on YOUR perceptions and your social circle since you haven't offered up statistics to back it up (and when someone questions it, your response is, "you can't POSSIBLY think that it's more likely that <blah blah blah>..." get out of your bubble, man! I CAN possibly think that!). it's clear that you don't know too many women like us in real life, so we're just offering another perspective.

seriously, when you threw out this: "but actually, these days I know of more couples where the woman is actually HOPELESS at cooking and the man is much better," I almost responded with yet another anecdote about how I'm actually a badass home cook (oh, and a professional scientist with a research degree too! but I guess that makes me a total weirdo, right?!), but I realized that is not any more helpful than your opposing anecdotes. it's just obnoxious to be told over and over again that your experiences don't matter, what matters instead are the generalizations of some guy on the internet based on HIS friends. basically, our anecdotes are no more or less valid than yours, so I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.

and for the record, at least among MY anecdotal group of acquaintances, I'm not anomalous.

What statistics would I have? Who is studying basic empirical evidence?

And c'mon, this site has extreme selection bias, especially when it comes to the women, since most people are just YOLOing anyways.

I think it just has to do with communication style between men and women. In my biased observations men are able to look at things in a more general, holistic view, whereas women relate most ideas back to their personal situation. I think this is a cause of a lot of tension and miscommunication between the sexes in a broad scope of subjects.

[rocksinmyhead]

I think it just has to do with communication style between men and women. In my biased observations men are able to look at things in a more general, holistic view, whereas women relate most ideas back to their personal situation. I think this is a cause of a lot of tension and miscommunication between the sexes in a broad scope of subjects.

oh jesus. well, thanks for at least adding the word "biased" this time.

[GuitarStv]

I'm just wondering at the reasoning.  How does 'ugly' vs 'pretty' matter at all in what anyone does?

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

You didn't answer my question at all.

You've explained that you would treat an ugly girl differently than a pretty one, but haven't mentioned why.  Why are pretty girls less suited to work as mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers in your eyes?  Why are ugly girls fine for those jobs?

I'm not a parent, but as a parent I would think that it's one's job to assess their child's situation and offer the most beneficial path forwards based on that situation; so yes, 'ugly' vs 'pretty' does factor into that in some manner. Pretty young girls, and to a lesser extent good looking boys, don't even live in the same reality as plain janes and ugly/fat young girls. It doesn't matter if thats right or wrong, it's just a fact of society.

If you don't think this fact will affect every single facet of that child's life, and hence have at least some effect on the way you should raise that young person, then you are doing are doing a disservice to that young person.

So, how exactly does being pretty more favourably affect a girl's chance at a white collar job rather than work as mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers?  Being good looking does tend to make people treat you better, and increases your chances of getting a job, etc.  Surely this effect would be still be in place regardless of whether you're working in trades or not though right?

EDIT - also not sure why you think that beauty is more important for women to have than men.  Can you elaborate?

[jka468]

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

And Gin1984, I don't need facts to study that, I've lived life. Where the hell have you been? How many women do you know who want to do manual, physical labor day in and day out to make a buck? Are there some, yes, of course, but most wouldn't. It's just obvious, stop playing team GOGRLLLLL and denying reality. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

Huh.  So ugly girls get encouragement from you to do boy things, but not pretty ones?

I'm a "pretty" girl (now a woman) who was interested in the trades - as well as all sorts of fun dirty things like mountain biking, trail running, dirt bikes, motorcycles, and oh so many others. Glad my Dad encouraged me to do whatever "I" wanted regardless of my being pretty. Life would have been boring as hell if all I did was spend my time primping to be beautiful so I can "nab" me one of those men-folks.

Seriously, no one cares about YOU. Everytime a general statement is made on here some women responds with "well, I, I'm, me, I, me, I" like it proves their point. I'm talking in general, I've already stated plenty of times that there are exceptions to every single rule that everyone can make.  That doesn't mean that your exception should be a general rule. 

As well, your representing a false dichotomy. Being pretty is just one advantage, it doesn't mean that that's the only thing a person has to have going for them.

I wasn't talking about "me" I was trying to make a point - that looks have nothing to do with what interests you in life or in what direction a person wants to take with regard to those interests (career-wise or personal-wise). Nor do looks matter when it comes to what direction a person should take or be encouraged to take.  I feel the same about gender - it doesn't matter at all in regards to your interests. Not one iota. If you like cooking and cleaning then good. If you like working on cars and mowing the lawn that's good too. Maybe you like doing them all - equally good. Doesn't matter what you look like, doesn't matter what your gender is. You keep saying there are advantages but you don't say what they are or if they even matter to a person's interests and the direction in life. Unless you want to be a model or in some kind of field that DOES require a certain look (and beauty is in the eye of the beholder) then it just doesn't matter at all.

You can do the research yourself, as it should be easy to find and I don't have time now, but it has been studied immensely and good looking people receive all kinds of advantages. Good looking people are more likely to be perceived as...

-Smarter
-Wealthier
-Trustworthy
-Competent
-Persuasive
-Likeable

All of these things can be leveraged into success.

[jka468]

I think it just has to do with communication style between men and women. In my biased observations men are able to look at things in a more general, holistic view, whereas women relate most ideas back to their personal situation. I think this is a cause of a lot of tension and miscommunication between the sexes in a broad scope of subjects.

oh jesus. well, thanks for at least adding the word "biased" this time.

I put that in just for you ;)

I'm just wondering at the reasoning.  How does 'ugly' vs 'pretty' matter at all in what anyone does?

Ugh, I knew that comment would lead to this. Are we really trying to deny now that being good looking isn't an advantage to young men and women alike? And it is easily evident that it's a bigger advantage to young women. What world do you people live in where you can deny that? I don't care what "should and shouldn't" be, I care about what "is".

And no, looks shouldn't matter in what anyone does, but they do, I'm a realist. If I had a daughter who could utilize her brains and looks to not have to do physical, tough on the body type work, well I would encourage that. If she still wanted to be a roofer or something then fine, I'll support it, but don't complain if you end up unsatisfied.

You didn't answer my question at all.

You've explained that you would treat an ugly girl differently than a pretty one, but haven't mentioned why.  Why are pretty girls less suited to work as mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers in your eyes?  Why are ugly girls fine for those jobs?

I'm not a parent, but as a parent I would think that it's one's job to assess their child's situation and offer the most beneficial path forwards based on that situation; so yes, 'ugly' vs 'pretty' does factor into that in some manner. Pretty young girls, and to a lesser extent good looking boys, don't even live in the same reality as plain janes and ugly/fat young girls. It doesn't matter if thats right or wrong, it's just a fact of society.

If you don't think this fact will affect every single facet of that child's life, and hence have at least some effect on the way you should raise that young person, then you are doing are doing a disservice to that young person.

So, how exactly does being pretty more favourably affect a girl's chance at a white collar job rather than work as mechanics, carpenters, roofers, plumbers?  Being good looking does tend to make people treat you better, and increases your chances of getting a job, etc.  Surely this effect would be still be in place regardless of whether you're working in trades or not though right?

EDIT - also not sure why you think that beauty is more important for women to have than men.  Can you elaborate?

I'm a little unsure of what you are asking in your first question.

As for your second question, it's has been widely studied and shown that BOTH men and women tend to initially and importantly assess female friends, counterparts, coworkers, romantic interests (for men) on looks. While looks play in the equation when assessing men, other attributes tend to be looked at more importantly, and looks are much lower on the list.

[galliver]

What statistics would I have? Who is studying basic empirical evidence?

And c'mon, this site has extreme selection bias, especially when it comes to the women, since most people are just YOLOing anyways.

I think it just has to do with communication style between men and women. In my biased observations men are able to look at things in a more general, holistic view, whereas women relate most ideas back to their personal situation. I think this is a cause of a lot of tension and miscommunication between the sexes in a broad scope of subjects.

1) My favorite is resume studies. Take the same exact resume, put a feminine name on one and a masculine name on another (same has been done with racially-associated names vs "neutral" names). Hand out to employers in desired field. It has been repeatedly shown that the male candidate will be pursued over the female one significantly more often. With the same resume. The same skills. The same accomplishments. http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

2) You could look at achievement gaps between boys and girls by grade. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057988 "There was considerable variation in the extent of the sex differences between nations. There are countries without a sex difference in mathematics performance, and in some countries girls scored higher than boys." <-- highly unlikely outcome if boys are biologically better at math!

3) Gin1984 has listed a number of studies in this thread regarding inequality. People DO study this, in very creative ways, to figure out scientifically the answer to the question we are discussing: are the statistical differences between men and women a matter of biological predisposition or cultural programming?

Please remember what we are talking about: no one is saying we live in a 100% traditional-gender-role society! No one is saying girls SHOULDN'T know how to cook! I think we all do here and we're glad for it! We're saying the primary role of a woman is not to pop out babies, or to take care of "her man" by washing his socks and making him dinner. It is to do whatever the hell she wants to do!

So raise your girls and boys right, prepare them for anything life brings to them. Teach both to cook their own damn dinner. Tell them both that they aren't "good" or "bad" at math, they just need to practice. Make sure they both graduate knowing how to read a book and write an essay and hem their pants. Prepare them to support themselves but show them that relying on *each other* is ok, too. Once they're old enough, and have all the tools in their belt then they'll be able to choose their own path.

And maybe one day, our objective measures will show that people aren't implicitly biased about women's competence, and that women are perfectly well prepared and well-informed about what mechanical engineering and physics work entails. And they still won't be represented 50-50. And that will be ok, because at that point we'll know it's a matter of free choice and not conditioning. But we're simply Not. There. Yet. And there's science out there to prove it. If you choose to ignore that, you may have your opinion and be ignorant. But you may not have your own facts.

[Side note: we do need approx 50-50 in government, though, for a representative government.]

[NumberCruncher]

+1 

Women are often also judged more harshly in appearance in the workplace (sentence bolded in second quote as it's very relevant to some previous discussions): http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2013/03/20/you-are-judged-by-your-appearance/

Obese workers (those who have a Body Mass Index of more than 30) are paid less than normal-weight coworkers at a rate of $8,666 a year for obese women, and $4,772 a year for obese men, according to a George Washington University study that cited data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in 2004. And other studies indicate obese women are even more likely to be discriminated against when it comes to pay, hiring and raises.

Generally speaking, attractive people make out when it comes to salary and hiring. But what about the exceedingly attractive among us? If you’re an attractive man, don’t sweat it because you always enjoy an advantage, according to a 2010 study that appeared in the Journal of Social Psychology. However, women rated as very attractive face discrimination when applying to “masculine” jobs.

[galliver]

Humor break many of you will enjoy http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3548#comic

[SisterX]

Humor break many of you will enjoy http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3548#comic

That is amazing.  Thank you for sharing.

1) My favorite is resume studies. Take the same exact resume, put a feminine name on one and a masculine name on another (same has been done with racially-associated names vs "neutral" names). Hand out to employers in desired field. It has been repeatedly shown that the male candidate will be pursued over the female one significantly more often. With the same resume. The same skills. The same accomplishments. http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

May orchestras and symphonies started doing blind auditions and - surprise! - the number of female musicians in their orchestras/symphonies went up astronomically.  I'm certain that if you'd asked the people on the hiring panels before the blind auditions started if they had a gender bias they would have said no.  However, the facts indicate otherwise.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

To quote from the abstract: "Using data from actual auditions in an individual fixed-effects framework, we find that the screen increases by 50% the probability a woman will be advanced out of certain preliminary rounds. The screen also enhances, by severalfold, the likelihood a female contestant will be the winner in the final round."  [The screen referenced being an actual screen behind which the performer stands to play.]

The stats: before these screens were in place women represented only 5% of professional musicians in symphonies and orchestras.  After, the number shot up to 25%.

Jka, I'm interested to know whether you consider music to be a masculine or feminine pursuit?  Do you think that female musicians weren't being hired because of their looks?  And if so why should that matter in a symphony where traditionally the individual performer is downplayed (unless the person is a soloist) so that the music takes precedence?  I really want to understand what studies like this, if you've even bothered to look at it, would show you?

[galliver]

Sorry for link spam, but another gem crossed my path today. Maybe if we can't explain it, The Onion can. http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-going-to-trust-societys-determination-that-he,37486/