Demographics decline - sustainability or catastrophe?

[afox]

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

I know I will regret wading into this debate. But. At the bottom of the scale, far away from CEOs, an example from somewhere I previous worked that had a facilities department. All the cleaners were women. All the janitors were men. The cleaners got paid less.

There is evidence that when women enter a field, the pay drops: https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/when-an-occupation-becomes-female-dominated-pay-declines/

That's why women get more college degrees. We are more motivated because the "good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only. Women with no college usually get stuck as a waitress or a cleaner.

He did make a good point about care work needing to be more valued though.

Curious what you had in mind in terms of ""good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only". Do you have any examples of these kinds of jobs? I couldnt think of any.

[vand]

Well I think then descent into tit for tat battle and pointscoring between the sexes perfectly encapsulates why I don't see the demographic situation improving.  Everyone, armed with knowledge and exposed to opinions that previous generations were not, are now so polarised and entrenched in their own views that there is no room for cooperation, no room for harmony.  Humanity historically doesn't do well when we can't cooperate with one another.. no wonder no one is having babies any more.

[RetiredAt63]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

[jeninco]

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

I know I will regret wading into this debate. But. At the bottom of the scale, far away from CEOs, an example from somewhere I previous worked that had a facilities department. All the cleaners were women. All the janitors were men. The cleaners got paid less.

There is evidence that when women enter a field, the pay drops: https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/when-an-occupation-becomes-female-dominated-pay-declines/

That's why women get more college degrees. We are more motivated because the "good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only. Women with no college usually get stuck as a waitress or a cleaner.

He did make a good point about care work needing to be more valued though.

Curious what you had in mind in terms of ""good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only". Do you have any examples of these kinds of jobs? I couldnt think of any.

There are a number of good-paying jobs that, while women CAN do them, are typically pretty hostile to the few women who venture in.I realize that #notalltrades are systematically unfriendly, but working in the trades in general -- around here, there's a pretty good hourly rate for being a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. I think being a mechanic pays OK. Trucking isn't bad (and boy howdy have there been discrimination issues here: here's the first one I found https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/26/texas-women-gender-discrimination-truck-driving/#:~:text=A%20male%2Ddominated%20field,complaint%20will%20be%20taken%20seriously.)

That's just off the top of my head: I'm sure other folks here can find more.

[Metalcat]

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

I know I will regret wading into this debate. But. At the bottom of the scale, far away from CEOs, an example from somewhere I previous worked that had a facilities department. All the cleaners were women. All the janitors were men. The cleaners got paid less.

There is evidence that when women enter a field, the pay drops: https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/when-an-occupation-becomes-female-dominated-pay-declines/

That's why women get more college degrees. We are more motivated because the "good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only. Women with no college usually get stuck as a waitress or a cleaner.

He did make a good point about care work needing to be more valued though.

Curious what you had in mind in terms of ""good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only". Do you have any examples of these kinds of jobs? I couldnt think of any.

There are a number of good-paying jobs that, while women CAN do them, are typically pretty hostile to the few women who venture in.I realize that #notalltrades are systematically unfriendly, but working in the trades in general -- around here, there's a pretty good hourly rate for being a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. I think being a mechanic pays OK. Trucking isn't bad (and boy howdy have there been discrimination issues here: here's the first one I found https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/26/texas-women-gender-discrimination-truck-driving/#:~:text=A%20male%2Ddominated%20field,complaint%20will%20be%20taken%20seriously.)

That's just off the top of my head: I'm sure other folks here can find more.

As a women who has worked in several male-dominated industries and experienced an enormous amount of discrimination, sexual harassment/assault, and accusations of sleeping my way into roles that I worked insanely hard for, no environment was more dangerous to me than trying to be a female chef.

It was so pervasive that even the other women in the industry would just roll their eyes and tell me to get a thicker skin or leave the industry. This was after a coked-up restaurant owner shoved his hand down my shirt after trapping me in a walk-in fridge where no one could hear me. This was just considered part of the job that I had to learn how to handle.

https://worth.com/fed-up-with-discrimination-female-chefs-and-restaurateurs-take-on-inequality/

Other examples are tremendously easy to find on Google for anyone who isn't aware of workplace harassment and discrimination problems. It's really not hard to find enormous amounts of data on this.

If you google "gender discrimination in manufacturing" you can easily find endless research examining how TF to get more women into manufacturing.

My DH formerly worked specifically on trying to figure out how to recruit more women into traditionally male industries because those industries are *desperate* for workers. There is SO MUCH data on the barriers to getting women into these roles.

https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/factory-flaw/

There's the issue with women on police forces

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8304614/#:~:text=Women%20police%20officers%20report%20experiencing,their%20men%20colleagues%20%5B20%5D.

Let's not even get into the epic cluster fuck of what happened to women in the military. Jesus fucking Christ that nightmare here in Canada is still playing out in absolute chaos.

Then there's probably the biggest non-degree money making career and that's sales. Which even though women tend to out-perform men in terms of sales, recruiters still prefer men and organizations still maintain cultures that are hostile to women.

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/closing-gender-gap-in-sales-leadership

This is not considered a minor issue for many industries. Many academics and policy experts are working very hard on trying to figure out ways past these systemic barriers that keep women out of so many industries, and keep the the industries they are in lower-pay.

Just because some individuals aren't aware of these barriers doesn't mean that major organizations aren't very aware and taking it very seriously.

Getting women and other minorities into these industries isn't just tokenism, or "woke" warm and fuzzy policy. This is basic economic policy trying to maximize the efficiency of our systems.

People tend to conceptualize it as trying to do something "nice" for women because the women are "upset," but really, an economic structure that is systemically under-utilizing half of its economic force is really, really fucking stupid.

[afox]

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

I know I will regret wading into this debate. But. At the bottom of the scale, far away from CEOs, an example from somewhere I previous worked that had a facilities department. All the cleaners were women. All the janitors were men. The cleaners got paid less.

There is evidence that when women enter a field, the pay drops: https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/when-an-occupation-becomes-female-dominated-pay-declines/

That's why women get more college degrees. We are more motivated because the "good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only. Women with no college usually get stuck as a waitress or a cleaner.

He did make a good point about care work needing to be more valued though.

Curious what you had in mind in terms of ""good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only". Do you have any examples of these kinds of jobs? I couldnt think of any.

There are a number of good-paying jobs that, while women CAN do them, are typically pretty hostile to the few women who venture in.I realize that #notalltrades are systematically unfriendly, but working in the trades in general -- around here, there's a pretty good hourly rate for being a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. I think being a mechanic pays OK. Trucking isn't bad (and boy howdy have there been discrimination issues here: here's the first one I found https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/26/texas-women-gender-discrimination-truck-driving/#:~:text=A%20male%2Ddominated%20field,complaint%20will%20be%20taken%20seriously.)

That's just off the top of my head: I'm sure other folks here can find more.

while those careers dont require a degree they require years of training, way more training and experience than it takes to get most bachelors degrees. they're all really hard physically and extremely technical jobs that require years of experience and often performed independently and thats why they pay so much (few ppl have the gumption to go thru the process to become a licensed plumber, electrician, mechanic, good carptenter, etc). And they carry a ton of responsibility, an electrciian or plumber could kill people and destroy property if they do things wrong.

But Im sure there is sex discrimination in these fields, since the companies are often really small its much easier for discrimination to exist since a tiny company isnt going to have controls in place to make sure hiring proceses are fair.

Its easy to make the case that these jobs are underpaid compared to white collar post college jobs that require much less training and experience and responsibility.

[FrugalToque]

It looks like the controlled gender pay gap is currently $.99, thus women earn 99 cents for every dollar men make in the same job. That's too bad and its a problem that needs to be addressed but I wouldnt go so far as to say that "men have their boots on women's necks" as one person wrote in this thread.

I know something like the average wage for all workers is more commonly reported in news stories and its around 83 cents per dollar but that is somewhat meaningless to me since it doesnt even control for hours worked. I get why news stories report this number, its more shocking and it attracts eyeballs.

Okay, there's an issue there and it's this:

Bob and Carol get married and have the same job titles, same salary.
They have two kids.
When the kids were born, Carol took time off work to care for them and recover from pregnancy.
Bob took off no time.
Bob gets his promotions and raises before Carol does.
Every time one of the kids get sick, Carol takes time off work because she's the default parent.
After all, Bob is already earning more money, so his job is the important one.
Bob is considered reliable.Carol is considered a working mom with "other" responsibilities.

Now Carol is earning 83 cents to Bob's dollar and we're not going to do anything about it because it was her choices that made it like that.

Well, actually... it's the way our society is constructed.
We call this "the patriarchy".
In some countries, the government has created "paternal leave" (sometimes "other parent leave" or whatever) which can *only* be used by the other parent.
Toque.

[spartana]

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

I know I will regret wading into this debate. But. At the bottom of the scale, far away from CEOs, an example from somewhere I previous worked that had a facilities department. All the cleaners were women. All the janitors were men. The cleaners got paid less.

There is evidence that when women enter a field, the pay drops: https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/when-an-occupation-becomes-female-dominated-pay-declines/

That's why women get more college degrees. We are more motivated because the "good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only. Women with no college usually get stuck as a waitress or a cleaner.

He did make a good point about care work needing to be more valued though.

Curious what you had in mind in terms of ""good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only". Do you have any examples of these kinds of jobs? I couldnt think of any.

There are a number of good-paying jobs that, while women CAN do them, are typically pretty hostile to the few women who venture in.I realize that #notalltrades are systematically unfriendly, but working in the trades in general -- around here, there's a pretty good hourly rate for being a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. I think being a mechanic pays OK. Trucking isn't bad (and boy howdy have there been discrimination issues here: here's the first one I found https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/26/texas-women-gender-discrimination-truck-driving/#:~:text=A%20male%2Ddominated%20field,complaint%20will%20be%20taken%20seriously.)

That's just off the top of my head: I'm sure other folks here can find more.

while those careers dont require a degree they require years of training, way more training and experience than it takes to get most bachelors degrees. they're all really hard physically and extremely technical jobs that require years of experience and often performed independently and thats why they pay so much (few ppl have the gumption to go thru the process to become a licensed plumber, electrician, mechanic, good carptenter, etc). And they carry a ton of responsibility, an electrciian or plumber could kill people and destroy property if they do things wrong.

But Im sure there is sex discrimination in these fields, since the companies are often really small its much easier for discrimination to exist since a tiny company isnt going to have controls in place to make sure hiring proceses are fair.

Its easy to make the case that these jobs are underpaid compared to white collar post college jobs that require much less training and experience and responsibility.

But there are tons of apprenticeships for most blue collar and trade jobs (even white collar jobs) that are paid. Trade schools or community colleges offer certificate programs for many trade and tech jobs that can be done rapidly and then will set you up with a job at an entry level pay that can morph into.a higher paid position while learning on the job. There's the military route where you're trained in a specific occupation with pay and benefits on hundreds of different occupation specialties. Etc. Lots of routes to earn and learn that can start on even before finishing high school and eventually lead to a high wage job.

I went this route my self and enlisted at 18. I was sent to a school to learn a trade - well a bunch of trades myself - did a ton of schooling and training (all paid for on top of my regular salary) and gained a journey level of proficiency at an early age in a variety of fields. All which could earn me decent pay in the civilian world. But...yes hard dirty dangerous work and isn't for many people - male or female. I'm sure there are other non- blue collar jobs that you can get that have no experience requirements that pay well. Lots in the construction field I assume. But again the environment is both physically tough as well pretty rough emotionally - especially if you are the only woman as I was. After I got out (12 years in) I had earned a BS degree and got a decent Gov job but it was still a blue collar role in a male dominated field. I never had issues with men but I can see how the work environment could be harsh.

[spartana]

It looks like the controlled gender pay gap is currently $.99, thus women earn 99 cents for every dollar men make in the same job. That's too bad and its a problem that needs to be addressed but I wouldnt go so far as to say that "men have their boots on women's necks" as one person wrote in this thread.

I know something like the average wage for all workers is more commonly reported in news stories and its around 83 cents per dollar but that is somewhat meaningless to me since it doesnt even control for hours worked. I get why news stories report this number, its more shocking and it attracts eyeballs.

Okay, there's an issue there and it's this:Bob and Carol get married and have the same job titles, same salary.They have two kids.When the kids were born, Carol took time off work to care for them and recover from pregnancy. Bob took off no time.Bob gets his promotions and raises before Carol does.
Every time one of the kids get sick, Carol takes time off work because she's the default parent.After all, Bob is already earning more money, so his job is the important one.Bob is considered reliable.Carol is considered a working mom with "other" responsibilities.
Now Carol is earning 83 cents to Bob's dollar and we're not going to do anything about it because it was her choices that made it like that.
Well, actually... it's the way our society is constructed.We call this "the patriarchy".
In some countries, the government has created "paternal leave" (sometimes "other parent leave" or whatever) which can *only* be used by the other parent.

Toque.

. But all that is voluntarily choice. First you have the choice to have kids or not. Then you have the choice to choose a partner who will share the childcare duties (or be the SAHP) in a way that no one has to quit their jobs. Then you have the choice to even do the household chores like cooking cleaning etc. No one is putting a gun to a woman's head saying she has to do the household chores after she worked all day. She can say no. Just say no. I do and it's glorious.

DH and I chose not to have kids so neither of us had set backs to our individual careers (We had the same careers, level of experience, and the same pay). We chose to do whatever chores needed to be done together rather than separately. I didn't come home after a hard day's work to be the sole homemaker, yard mower, or home or car maintenance person. Doing that stuff solo to be a care taker for a grown up person is a choice.

So I don't see that making those choices voluntarily as the woman job nor discriminatory. What I do find discriminatory would be where DH and I had worked the dame job, had the same training, education and job experience but one of us is more likely to be turned down from a job simply because of our different genders is seen as less optimal for that job. Say the grade school teacher if a male or a ships engineer/mechanic if a woman.

[GuitarStv]

My wife and I worked exactly the same software engineering jobs at exactly the same two companies (when the first one went belly up we both moved to the same new company) for the first 10 years out of university.  Objectively, my wife always did a better job (based on performance review comments). However, I received higher salary increases and bonuses.  At the end of ten years I was making 10% more than my wife.  While doing (from every available metric) a shittier job.

This wasn't for sexist companies.  Both had women in positions of power, and HR policies intended to minimize sex and race related hiring deficiencies.  But it still happened.  Maybe I was more aggressive about asking for more money.  Maybe our managers subconsciously thought I was a greater risk for leaving.  I dunno.  But it happened.  So that's what I think about every time someone mentions structural inequality in the workplace.  This pay gap only increased after my wife took time off when we had our son ( Ontario did not have paternity leave at the time ).

[FrugalToque]

It looks like the controlled gender pay gap is currently $.99, thus women earn 99 cents for every dollar men make in the same job. That's too bad and its a problem that needs to be addressed but I wouldnt go so far as to say that "men have their boots on women's necks" as one person wrote in this thread.

I know something like the average wage for all workers is more commonly reported in news stories and its around 83 cents per dollar but that is somewhat meaningless to me since it doesnt even control for hours worked. I get why news stories report this number, its more shocking and it attracts eyeballs.

Okay, there's an issue there and it's this:Bob and Carol get married and have the same job titles, same salary.They have two kids.When the kids were born, Carol took time off work to care for them and recover from pregnancy. Bob took off no time.Bob gets his promotions and raises before Carol does.
Every time one of the kids get sick, Carol takes time off work because she's the default parent.After all, Bob is already earning more money, so his job is the important one.Bob is considered reliable.Carol is considered a working mom with "other" responsibilities.
Now Carol is earning 83 cents to Bob's dollar and we're not going to do anything about it because it was her choices that made it like that.
Well, actually... it's the way our society is constructed.We call this "the patriarchy".
In some countries, the government has created "paternal leave" (sometimes "other parent leave" or whatever) which can *only* be used by the other parent.

Toque.

. But all that is voluntarily choice. First you have the choice to have kids or not. Then you have the choice to choose a partner who will share the childcare duties (or be the SAHP) in a way that no one has to quit their jobs. Then you have the choice to even do the household chores like cooking cleaning etc. No one is putting a gun to a woman's head saying she has to do the household chores after she worked all day. She can say no. Just say no. I do and it's glorious.

DH and I chose not to have kids so neither of us had set backs to our individual careers (We had the same careers, level of experience, and the same pay). We chose to do whatever chores needed to be done together rather than separately. I didn't come home after a hard day's work to be the sole homemaker, yard mower, or home or car maintenance person. Doing that stuff solo to be a care taker for a grown up person is a choice.

So I don't see that making those choices voluntarily as the woman job nor discriminatory. What I do find discriminatory would be where DH and I had worked the dame job, had the same training, education and job experience but one of us is more likely to be turned down from a job simply because of our different genders is seen as less optimal for that job. Say the grade school teacher if a male or a ships engineer/mechanic if a woman.

But we're discussing demographics here, and not having enough babies to sustain the economy.

In that situation, it warrants discussing: should we create a system that doesn't discriminate against women when men and women decide to make babies?  Should there be a system where the father just naturally is expected to take the same time off, in turn, as the mother?

Reading the much older feminist literature, that's what they were talking about: changing the discourse to get rid of those old assumptions.

No one talks about men "choosing between careers and children", but every woman is expected to choose.

Toque.

[spartana]

^^^I agree. It's  still the same double standard that exists as always and if people choose to have kids (or even the perception an employer will have that a person will leave the work force to raise kids) and choose to leave the work force then its usually the woman Doing it. But again unless the powers that be (gov or employer)  make the changes you're suggesting so it's more children oriented fork of equality for men and women then we all still have to make the trade offs of career vs. children.

[uniwelder]

I'm listening to this right now and thought it would be useful to mention here---  (30 minutes long)
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/01/1197958408/maternity-paternity-benefits-sweden-singapore-south-korea-estonia-canada

It's exactly about the demographics issue that many countries are facing right now, their incentive programs, division of labor, work culture, and pay gaps.  I really enjoy listening the "Planet Money" series as I wash dishes, etc, around the house.  Always educational, well put together, and fun.

[RetiredAt63]

^^^I agree. It's  still the same double standard that exists as always and if people choose to have kids (or even the perception an employer will have that a person will leave the work force to raise kids) and choose to leave the work force then its usually the woman Doing it. But again unless the powers that be (gov or employer)  make the changes you're suggesting so it's more children oriented fork of equality for men and women then we all still have to make the trade offs of career vs. children.

And a lot of women will make the choice to have fewer (or no) children.  Which is why the declining birthrate.

So policy makers have to choose between making things better for parents, or forcing women to be mothers (no abortions, really difficult to get birth control, horrible daycare so they are financially staying home, so why not have another kid?).

[spartana]

^^^I agree. It's  still the same double standard that exists as always and if people choose to have kids (or even the perception an employer will have that a person will leave the work force to raise kids) and choose to leave the work force then its usually the woman Doing it. But again unless the powers that be (gov or employer)  make the changes you're suggesting so it's more children oriented fork of equality for men and women then we all still have to make the trade offs of career vs. children.

And a lot of women will make the choice to have fewer (or no) children.  Which is why the declining birthrate.

So policy makers have to choose between making things better for parents, or forcing women to be mothers (no abortions, really difficult to get birth control, horrible daycare so they are financially staying home, so why not have another kid?).

It's hard to make policy changes here in the US that are more supportive of family or support population growth. The increased taxation to fund things like free higher education and childcare, long term maternal and paternal leave, guareented return to work with no wage gaps,  healthcare,  etc irk a lot of people here who think those things should be covered by the individuals having kids rather then the public as a whole via increased taxation.

Or they are anti-population growth and actively want to de-incentizize people from having kids by reducing our current child/family taxation and policies. Most seem to be pretty neutral from a population grow side they just don't want to fund incentives to have more kids. At least we haven't gone into some kind of draconian level of childbirth policies like China's one child only thing (and better make damn sure it's a boy) or forced child bearing like many conservatives here are heading. I'm pretty neutral on the population growth thing and lean anti-growth myself but am more liberal leaning so support some but not all policy changes to support families and children.

[vand]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

[Psychstache]

You're both right, apologies.  In my defense . . . there appear to be multiple meanings of the term Patriarchy, so it's kind of a confusing word - but the one I've been running with seems to be less in favor than the one that you're both describing.

Generally if it's used in the context of talking about systemic power, the person is using the definition that relates to systems of power. Not something like smaller cult groups where men have all of the literal power over all women.

Additionally, there is a desire by some to shape the discourse in exactly these kinds of ways to make it feel like a more interpersonal conflict rather than a structural one. A great example, as a kind of parallel with the discussion of Racism, is discussed in Charles Payne's "The Whole United States is Southern!!"

https://www.memphis.edu/benhooks/creative-works/pdfs/payne.pdf

One of Payne's arguments is that there was effort put in place to frame the discussion of racism as an interpersonal issue ("how White and Black people feel about each other.") as opposed to a systemic issue (legal and societal systems designed to reinforce prejudices and discrimination).

I think you could same the same thing about discussions of the patriarchy in which some try to frame the discussion as an interpersonal problem (boys are raised to think girls are inferior and girls are being taught to fear/hate boys, so we need to change how they think about one another) as opposed to a more structural problem (institutional and legal systems are put in place to reinforce strict gendered expectations that are harmful to society at large).

[Metalcat]

For anyone interested, there is an ENORMOUS amount of easily searchable data and reporting on the global gender gap in health outcomes. This is a well established fact that costs healthcare systems a stupid amount of money. A recent report put the cost of the gender gap in health outcomes to be at least 1 trillion.

"Closing the gender health gap could reduce the time women spend in poor health by almost two-thirds and add up to $1 trillion to the economy annually by 2040"

https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/closing-the-womens-health-gap-a-1-trillion-dollar-opportunity-to-improve-lives-and-economies

Relevant to the main topic though, if folks want to have an informed opinion, it would be a good idea to look into maternal health data and how unnecessarily poor a lot of maternal health outcomes are, especially in the US, which is lagging behind Russia, which has a notoriously crap healthcare system.

As the Canadian healthcare system fails as well, maternal health outcomes are one of the canaries in the mineshaft indicating a collapsing system. One of the first local cases I heard of an epic ER failure in my region since the collapse started was an avoidable maternal death.

Pregnancy leaves women's bodies so unbelievably susceptible to difficult to detect, but deadly emergencies that they are among the most vulnerable in a system with healthcare delivery issues.

[spartana]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

^^^What does competing with men on many fronts mean? That's not what's making women tired. They are tired because most work full time jobs and then choose to do the bulk of the household/family/child care chose alone. I'm of the just say "no" camp to doing that  but it's hard to get over the social training and pressure most women had their entire lives. I didn't have that and was raised differently so never felt the societal pressure or need (or desire) to be the main caregiver. That's not the case for most women.

[Sibley]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

My father was gasping for breath for 6 months before the combined efforts of myself, my sister and my mother forced him to make a doctor appointment. He has COPD, he has known that for several years, and yet still didn't go to the doctor for a new and very worrisome symptom. Then to add on top of that, he stopped taking the medication that the doctor prescribed because it made his eye twitch. He didn't communicate with the doctor, he just stopped taking it. I'm not actually sure at this point in time how compliant he is with the medication, though he says he's taking it.

Stereotypes, as much as they are derided (and for good reason), nonetheless have a basis in fact. There is a stereotype of men not going to the doctor until they're half dead, and my father falls into it to some extent. If you can confidently state that your friend was regularly going to the doctor and they just never did a blood sugar test, ok, I'll take your anecdote and state that the doctors should have done those basic tests, and it's very much a problem that those tests weren't done. However, there's a chance that your friend's decades of feeling crappy is in part his own fault for not going to the doctor ever. Which is it? If it's the latter, than your comment is irrelevant and indeed, a red herring.

[mistymoney]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

^^^What does competing with men on many fronts mean? That's not what's making women tired. They are tired because most work full time jobs and then choose to do the bulk of the household/family/child care chose alone. I'm of the just say "no" camp to doing that  but it's hard to get over the social training and pressure most women had their entire lives. I didn't have that and was raised differently so never felt the societal pressure or need (or desire) to be the main caregiver. That's not the case for most women.

I wasn't raised different, but I do live different! And my daughter was raised different! I did not read her cinderella or snow white, etc. She was not encouraged to develop that mind set. She eventually picked it up in school, but the outgrew it quickly.

In regards to "and then choose to do the bulk of the household/family/child care chose alone", I think it is more being forced to do what needs to be done without assistance. You can leave the house a mess - but for how long? You can't leave young children unattended, or a baby in a dirty diaper or unfed at night. If you have an unwilling partner your "choices" are very limited, although divorce is one of those.

[mistymoney]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

I think you're going to need to explain this. How far down this rabbit hole are you? Is it competing for jobs? the WNBA? spots at top univerisities? POTUS?

Just what is it you think women are "conditioned" to want? and should sit down and shut up about?

[RetiredAt63]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.


 

[Metalcat]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.

EASILY one of the most important data science books ever written.

I maintain that no one can perceive the world around them accurately until they read this book, it reframes SO MUCH of the data in which we base our "facts" and on which we form our structural societal decisions.

[RedmondStash]

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

Ditto Be a Revolution, by Ijeoma Oluo. Very eye-opening book. Check your library. Her other books are great too.

[spartana]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

^^^What does competing with men on many fronts mean? That's not what's making women tired. They are tired because most work full time jobs and then choose to do the bulk of the household/family/child care chose alone. I'm of the just say "no" camp to doing that  but it's hard to get over the social training and pressure most women had their entire lives. I didn't have that and was raised differently so never felt the societal pressure or need (or desire) to be the main caregiver. That's not the case for most women.

I wasn't raised different, but I do live different! And my daughter was raised different! I did not read her cinderella or snow white, etc. She was not encouraged to develop that mind set. She eventually picked it up in school, but the outgrew it quickly.

In regards to "and then choose to do the bulk of the household/family/child care chose alone", I think it is more being forced to do what needs to be done without assistance. You can leave the house a mess - but for how long? You can't leave young children unattended, or a baby in a dirty diaper or unfed at night. If you have an unwilling partner your "choices" are very limited, although divorce is one of those.

Well kids do have to be cared for of course but that doesn't mean you have to be the caretaker for your spouse if you don't want to. You don't need to cook, clean, do laundry, do dishes, shop, make appointments, buy his clothes, or be the one who buys his family gifts for the holidays, makes all the plans, or send cards/ contact, etc for your spouse. He'll eat if he gets hungary or do his own laundry if everything is dirty. Although it might not be pretty ;-).

But my point is that 2 adults should be mature enough to be able to communicate about those things long before they marry, live together or have kids. Being partners mean. sharing chores and if one isn't pulling their weight when both are working full time it's OK to say "nope not do I g that" and grab a sandwich for YOUR dinner on the way home from work. Or wash only your clothes etc.  Will his stuff get done? Probably not but really who cares?

As for raised different I mean I wasn't raised to conform to traditional gender roles and neither was my brother or sister. We all took turns cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc as well as mowing lawns, home and car maintenance, etc and had pretty free reign to do what  interested us instead of what society told us should interest us or what we should do because of our genders. My brother liked to cook and play/ make music and art,  I liked to ride motorcycles and wrench on things and try to look like pink Barbie lol. It was pretty freeing. Ex-DH had a similar upbring. It would be nice if more kids were raised to be both self reliant as well as to feel free to do what they liked.

Anyways, I think the larger reason fewer women have children is not due to men being unsupportive but rather the greater opportunities for interesting, often all-encompassing careers, that women have had since the 1970s pulls them to do that rather then raising kids.

[RetiredAt63]

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

Ditto Be a Revolution, by Ijeoma Oluo. Very eye-opening book. Check your library. Her other books are great too.

My library has it - it's on hold. 

[RetiredAt63]

We can talk all we like about men doing their share of work around the home so everyone isn't overloaded.

And then I see a nice-looking young white man on YouTube, in a street interview, say that women should not have the vote, that the 19th (did I get the right one?) amendment should be repealed.

Does anyone think someone like this is ever going to do housework and child care when he has a live-in bang-maid?  Sorry for the crude wording, but I am sure that is how he would view a girlfriend/wife.  And given he is nice-looking and articulate, I am sure he would fake being a good partner until he knew he had her trapped. 

[spartana]

We can talk all we like about men doing their share of work around the home so everyone isn't overloaded.

And then I see a nice-looking young white man on YouTube, in a street interview, say that women should not have the vote, that the 19th (did I get the right one?) amendment should be repealed.

Does anyone think someone like this is ever going to do housework and child care when he has a live-in bang-maid?  Sorry for the crude wording, but I am sure that is how he would view a girlfriend/wife.  And given he is nice-looking and articulate, I am sure he would fake being a good partner until he knew he had her trapped.

But that's just one type of person out of millions of different types. Saying that ALL men behave in a negative way is just as harmful and wrong as saying ALL Women behave the negative way -  or ALL black people or Hispanics or.....fill in the blank with negative racist, sexist, ethnic, religious, etc stereotypes.

I think women just like having options. And one option is being able to follow interesting and fulfilling career paths that have been traditional denied them. Often that means forgoing having children or even marriage. Not just because a man won't help, he may be just as embroiled in his career too, but because she finds having a career much more fulfilling then having kids.

[Log]

I forget how much this was discussed here or in another thread, but gender imbalance in a dating pool severely effects the dynamic. When there’s are more women than men, men get away with behaving more badly, and women are in turn more likely to develop negative feelings towards men. If women are more educated and more progressive than men, then this creates a terrible feedback loop where women in the “educated&progressive” dating pool (who are already likely to have picked up negative sentiments about men) are in a dating pool that fosters more negative sentiment about men, because the men have an abundance of choice and respond by being less commital.

Apparently in polls about attitudes about gender, progressive women’s sentiment towards men is more negative than any other demographic’s self-reported sentiment towards men or women. (Of course, there’s a huge gap there in conservative men saying they like women while only liking women who behave a very certain way.) The broader takeaway seems to be that the gender imbalance at the political extremes fosters especially toxic gender relations, which we been knew.

[RetiredAt63]

We can talk all we like about men doing their share of work around the home so everyone isn't overloaded.

And then I see a nice-looking young white man on YouTube, in a street interview, say that women should not have the vote, that the 19th (did I get the right one?) amendment should be repealed.

Does anyone think someone like this is ever going to do housework and child care when he has a live-in bang-maid?  Sorry for the crude wording, but I am sure that is how he would view a girlfriend/wife.  And given he is nice-looking and articulate, I am sure he would fake being a good partner until he knew he had her trapped.

But that's just one type of person out of millions of different types. Saying that ALL men behave in a negative way is just as harmful and wrong as saying ALL Women behave the negative way -  or ALL black people or Hispanics or.....fill in the blank with negative racist, sexist, ethnic, religious, etc stereotypes.

I think women just like having options. And one option is being able to follow interesting and fulfilling career paths that have been traditional denied them. Often that means forgoing having children or even marriage. Not just because a man won't help, he may be just as embroiled in his career too, but because she finds having a career much more fulfilling then having kids.

I know he is just one person,  but my point was that guys like that do exist.

And there are also guys like my son-in-law who define pulls his weight at home and does close to equal parenting, including diapers.

And yes definitely women like having options.   That was what a lot of 1970s feminism was about.

[vand]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.

First, I'm not going to read the whole book, which is asking for a big time commitment that I don't necessarily want to put in.
Second, as a "new wave" mustachian I would just buy the damn thing if I was going to read it.
But, I did read a load of cliff note on it and I get the general gist.

Look, of course the world is shaped by those who have most heavily influenced it, and throughout human history that has tended to be men.  But you have to look at it this way too: it is mostly men who have raised the world from its state of squalid poverty to one where with technological wonder and unparalleled standard of living for even working class people.  If women are complaining about that then maybe they should have had greater contribution into.. discovering electricity, developing the theory of microorganisms, or splitting the atom, or developing a machine that can fly through the air, or developing and driving the mass production of automobiles...
Yes absolutely the world is built by men. It had to be that way because men and women ARE different. Men are the creators, women are the nurturers - those are the roles that have allowed us to thrive as a species, despite what the revisionist liberated women's unions of OF are telling you. So Instead of contrasting it with a world shaped by women, the better comparison is to a world simply without it. Skyscrapers replaced by shanties (how many women work in construction?) etc.
Men, not women, built the modern world we live in today and are still thoroughly unappreciated.

[uniwelder]

Vand- I disagree with most of your ideas, but this one hit me particularly hard—-

Second, as a "new wave" mustachian I would just buy the damn thing if I was going to read it.

Please don’t use the phrase “new wave Mustachian” to describe Consuma Sucka ideology.

[Kris]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.

First, I'm not going to read the whole book, which is asking for a big time commitment that I don't necessarily want to put in.
Second, as a "new wave" mustachian I would just buy the damn thing if I was going to read it.
But, I did read a load of cliff note on it and I get the general gist.

Look, of course the world is shaped by those who have most heavily influenced it, and throughout human history that has tended to be men.  But you have to look at it this way too: it is mostly men who have raised the world from its state of squalid poverty to one where with technological wonder and unparalleled standard of living for even working class people.  If women are complaining about that then maybe they should have had greater contribution into.. discovering electricity, developing the theory of microorganisms, or splitting the atom, or developing a machine that can fly through the air, or developing and driving the mass production of automobiles...
Yes absolutely the world is built by men. It had to be that way because men and women ARE different. Men are the creators, women are the nurturers - those are the roles that have allowed us to thrive as a species, despite what the revisionist liberated women's unions of OF are telling you. So Instead of contrasting it with a world shaped by women, the better comparison is to a world simply without it. Skyscrapers replaced by shanties (how many women work in construction?) etc.
Men, not women, built the modern world we live in today and are still thoroughly unappreciated.

I absolutely require this to be satire.

[RetiredAt63]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.

First, I'm not going to read the whole book, which is asking for a big time commitment that I don't necessarily want to put in.
Second, as a "new wave" mustachian I would just buy the damn thing if I was going to read it.
But, I did read a load of cliff note on it and I get the general gist.

Look, of course the world is shaped by those who have most heavily influenced it, and throughout human history that has tended to be men.  But you have to look at it this way too: it is mostly men who have raised the world from its state of squalid poverty to one where with technological wonder and unparalleled standard of living for even working class people.  If women are complaining about that then maybe they should have had greater contribution into.. discovering electricity, developing the theory of microorganisms, or splitting the atom, or developing a machine that can fly through the air, or developing and driving the mass production of automobiles...
Yes absolutely the world is built by men. It had to be that way because men and women ARE different. Men are the creators, women are the nurturers - those are the roles that have allowed us to thrive as a species, despite what the revisionist liberated women's unions of OF are telling you. So Instead of contrasting it with a world shaped by women, the better comparison is to a world simply without it. Skyscrapers replaced by shanties (how many women work in construction?) etc.
Men, not women, built the modern world we live in today and are still thoroughly unappreciated.

I absolutely require this to be satire.

One can hope.

Or maybe we found a social Darwinist in the wild.

Marie Curie must be rolling inside her lead-lined coffin.  Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper must be looking on in horror at what their work has wrought.

[GuitarStv]

But you have to look at it this way too: it is mostly men who have raised the world from its state of squalid poverty to one where with technological wonder and unparalleled standard of living for even working class people.  If women are complaining about that then maybe they should have had greater contribution into.. discovering electricity, developing the theory of microorganisms, or splitting the atom, or developing a machine that can fly through the air, or developing and driving the mass production of automobiles...

Through most of history, women have been treated more as commodity than person and men have been in positions of power, received better education, and had much greater freedom.  I hope I'm not reading this right . . . but from the statement above it sounds like you believe that women are inherently incapable of making equal contributions as men and were oppressed due to inferiority?

I'm an engineer.  I've worked with many engineers - both men and women.  I can tell you from first hand experience that the women I've known are at least as capable, driven, creative, and hard working as the men I've worked with.  This includes teams who were developing a machine that can fly through the air, developing automobiles, working on electrical devices, etc.

Yes absolutely the world is built by men. It had to be that way because men and women ARE different.

Absolutely, men and women have differences.  Physically, hormonally, structurally this is true.  But everything I've read indicates there are pretty large areas of overlap between the sexes in most things studied.

Men are the creators, women are the nurturers - those are the roles that have allowed us to thrive as a species, despite what the revisionist liberated women's unions of OF are telling you.

I'm intrigued.  Can you share the research that drew you to make this statement?

[jeninco]

<snip, because I'm not repeating this sexist bullshit>

I absolutely require this to be satire.

One can hope.

Or maybe we found a social Darwinist in the wild.

Marie Curie must be rolling inside her lead-lined coffin.  Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper must be looking on in horror at what their work has wrought.
[/quote]

My grandmother, who fought against sexist stereotypes to become influential in her state legislature and help pass legislation establishing community colleges, promoting education, and protecting children, and the handicapped (among many, many other things) is rolling in her grave. And my mom, who fought against decades of sexism while doing ground-breaking work in fundamental physical chemistry ... well, she's not dead yet, but I'll ask her when I see her on Thursday what she has to say about this.  I'm guessing most of it won't be repeatable in a public forum.

[RetiredAt63]

Rereading the men are creators line, all very early pottery has fingerprints - women's fingerprints.  I guess inventing a process that turns soft clay into something durable and solid isn't creative.    /s

Oh and XKCD always has the appropriate cartoon.

[spartana]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.

First, I'm not going to read the whole book, which is asking for a big time commitment that I don't necessarily want to put in.
Second, as a "new wave" mustachian I would just buy the damn thing if I was going to read it.
But, I did read a load of cliff note on it and I get the general gist.

Look, of course the world is shaped by those who have most heavily influenced it, and throughout human history that has tended to be men.  But you have to look at it this way too: it is mostly men who have raised the world from its state of squalid poverty to one where with technological wonder and unparalleled standard of living for even working class people.  If women are complaining about that then maybe they should have had greater contribution into.. discovering electricity, developing the theory of microorganisms, or splitting the atom, or developing a machine that can fly through the air, or developing and driving the mass production of automobiles...
Yes absolutely the world is built by men. It had to be that way because men and women ARE different. Men are the creators, women are the nurturers - those are the roles that have allowed us to thrive as a species, despite what the revisionist liberated women's unions of OF are telling you. So Instead of contrasting it with a world shaped by women, the better comparison is to a world simply without it. Skyscrapers replaced by shanties (how many women work in construction?) etc.
Men, not women, built the modern world we live in today and are still thoroughly unappreciated.

I absolutely require this to be satire.

Holy crap!! Bogeles the mind that people don't realize women weren't even ALLOWED to do most things until the 1970s - WWII being the exception when they kept the "things that fly in the air" running. 

I was a machinery tech in the Coast Guard - wrenching big diesels, gas turbines, HVAC, hydraulics, welding (including underwater welding and from high rigging)  machine shop, electrical, maritime law enforcement, SAR, firefighting, rescue swimmer , blah blah blah mostly at sea. I sure as hell can design and build just about everything that exists today (and defend it from mauraders lol). But women weren't even ALLOWED to do that kind of stuff until the late 1970s or later.. They weren't allowed to work in most "create or run the modern world" careers in STEM jobs. Most were denied those opportunities. And pre-birth control made it even more difficult. Just think of how much more humans would have accomplished if women were allowed to work and contribute side by side with men in STEM type careers for the last couple hundred years.

ETA: I now realize that the OP had another objective then birth rate effects for this thread so Im out. I can get my "keep the women folk in the kitchen and bedroom because that's all they're good for" rants elsewhere.

[dangbe]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.

First, I'm not going to read the whole book, which is asking for a big time commitment that I don't necessarily want to put in.
Second, as a "new wave" mustachian I would just buy the damn thing if I was going to read it.
But, I did read a load of cliff note on it and I get the general gist.

Look, of course the world is shaped by those who have most heavily influenced it, and throughout human history that has tended to be men.  But you have to look at it this way too: it is mostly men who have raised the world from its state of squalid poverty to one where with technological wonder and unparalleled standard of living for even working class people.  If women are complaining about that then maybe they should have had greater contribution into.. discovering electricity, developing the theory of microorganisms, or splitting the atom, or developing a machine that can fly through the air, or developing and driving the mass production of automobiles...
Yes absolutely the world is built by men. It had to be that way because men and women ARE different. Men are the creators, women are the nurturers - those are the roles that have allowed us to thrive as a species, despite what the revisionist liberated women's unions of OF are telling you. So Instead of contrasting it with a world shaped by women, the better comparison is to a world simply without it. Skyscrapers replaced by shanties (how many women work in construction?) etc.
Men, not women, built the modern world we live in today and are still thoroughly unappreciated.

I absolutely require this to be satire.

Holy crap!! Bogeles the mind that people don't realize women weren't even ALLOWED to do most things until the 1970s - WWII being the exception when they kept the "things that fly in the air" running.  I was a machinery tech in the Coast Guard - wrenching big diesels, gas turbines, HVAC, hydraulics, welding (including underwater welding and from high rigging)  machine shop, electrical, maritime law enforcement, SAR, firefighting, rescue swimmer , blah blah blah mostly at sea. I sure as hell can design and build just about everything that exists today (and defend it from mauraders lol). But women weren't even ALLOWED to do that kind of stuff until the late 1970s or later.. They weren't allowed to work in most "create or run the modern world" careers in STEM jobs. Most were denied those opportunities. And pre-birth control made it even more difficult. Just think of how much more humans would have accomplished if women were allowed to work and contribute side by side in STEM type careers for the last couple hundred years.

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names. 

[Metalcat]

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

Women soldiers have also been categorized by archeologists as men just because they were soldiers. They have found it more likely that a male soldier has an unusually female-looking size and pelvic bones than that a soldier would clearly be a woman.

Again, Invisible Women is an absolute MUST READ for understanding how fucking warped so much of our "factual" data is.

It's truly a spectacular analysis of the world of data science and how brutally flawed so much historical, scientific, and demographic data is, with serious consequences for absolutely everyone.

When you mis-measure SO MUCH aggregate data, it has substantial consequences on everyone and creates criminally inefficient systems.

[Psychstache]

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

Women soldiers have also been categorized by archeologists as men just because they were soldiers. They have found it more likely that a male soldier has an unusually female-looking size and pelvic bones than that a soldier would clearly be a woman.

Again, Invisible Women is an absolute MUST READ for understanding how fucking warped so much of our "factual" data is.

It's truly a spectacular analysis of the world of data science and how brutally flawed so much historical, scientific, and demographic data is, with serious consequences for absolutely everyone.

When you mis-measure SO MUCH aggregate data, it has substantial consequences on everyone and creates criminally inefficient systems.

But how am I going to find time to sit down and read a book when I am busy building the modern world for the frail womenfolk?
/s

Seriously though, major +1 for this book. I consider myself to be a pretty enlightened dude, and this book was mind blowing in both it's breadth and depth of how everything needs to be rethought when it comes to what we know in our data and how we use it. Thanks to the women of this forum for bringing this book into my orbit.

[Metalcat]

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

Women soldiers have also been categorized by archeologists as men just because they were soldiers. They have found it more likely that a male soldier has an unusually female-looking size and pelvic bones than that a soldier would clearly be a woman.

Again, Invisible Women is an absolute MUST READ for understanding how fucking warped so much of our "factual" data is.

It's truly a spectacular analysis of the world of data science and how brutally flawed so much historical, scientific, and demographic data is, with serious consequences for absolutely everyone.

When you mis-measure SO MUCH aggregate data, it has substantial consequences on everyone and creates criminally inefficient systems.

But how am I going to find time to sit down and read a book when I am busy building the modern world for the frail womenfolk?
/s

Seriously though, major +1 for this book. I consider myself to be a pretty enlightened dude, and this book was mind blowing in both it's breadth and depth of how everything needs to be rethought when it comes to what we know in our data and how we use it. Thanks to the women of this forum for bringing this book into my orbit.

It really needs to be re-released under a different name and marketed to men, like "Invisible Data: How Weak Information Drives Weak Decisions"

[GuitarStv]

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

Women soldiers have also been categorized by archeologists as men just because they were soldiers. They have found it more likely that a male soldier has an unusually female-looking size and pelvic bones than that a soldier would clearly be a woman.

Again, Invisible Women is an absolute MUST READ for understanding how fucking warped so much of our "factual" data is.

It's truly a spectacular analysis of the world of data science and how brutally flawed so much historical, scientific, and demographic data is, with serious consequences for absolutely everyone.

When you mis-measure SO MUCH aggregate data, it has substantial consequences on everyone and creates criminally inefficient systems.

But how am I going to find time to sit down and read a book when I am busy building the modern world for the frail womenfolk?
/s

Seriously though, major +1 for this book. I consider myself to be a pretty enlightened dude, and this book was mind blowing in both it's breadth and depth of how everything needs to be rethought when it comes to what we know in our data and how we use it. Thanks to the women of this forum for bringing this book into my orbit.

It really needs to be re-released under a different name and marketed to men, like "Invisible Data: How Weak Information Drives Weak Decisions"

The name is great!  My 10 year old son picked up the copy of Invisible Woman that I took out from the library and actually got a solid chunk in before giving up.  I asked him what he thought of the book and if he found it interesting:

"So, like . . . I think things are unfair for women or something?  But it's a rip off.  Nobody turns invisible or has superpowers."


So at least one man was roped in because of the title.  :P

[Kris]

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

Women soldiers have also been categorized by archeologists as men just because they were soldiers. They have found it more likely that a male soldier has an unusually female-looking size and pelvic bones than that a soldier would clearly be a woman.

Again, Invisible Women is an absolute MUST READ for understanding how fucking warped so much of our "factual" data is.

It's truly a spectacular analysis of the world of data science and how brutally flawed so much historical, scientific, and demographic data is, with serious consequences for absolutely everyone.

When you mis-measure SO MUCH aggregate data, it has substantial consequences on everyone and creates criminally inefficient systems.

But how am I going to find time to sit down and read a book when I am busy building the modern world for the frail womenfolk?
/s

Seriously though, major +1 for this book. I consider myself to be a pretty enlightened dude, and this book was mind blowing in both it's breadth and depth of how everything needs to be rethought when it comes to what we know in our data and how we use it. Thanks to the women of this forum for bringing this book into my orbit.

It really needs to be re-released under a different name and marketed to men, like "Invisible Data: How Weak Information Drives Weak Decisions"

The name is great!  My 10 year old son picked up the copy of Invisible Woman that I took out from the library and actually got a solid chunk in before giving up.  I asked him what he thought of the book and if he found it interesting:

"So, like . . . I think things are unfair for women or something?  But it's a rip off.  Nobody turns invisible or has superpowers."


So at least one man was roped in because of the title.  :P

You haven't done a good enough job socializing him to believe that his dick will fall off if he reads something having to do with women.

[simonsez]

Thanks for the book rec. 

I think it's really, REALLY hard to understand how baked in sexist norms are...when you're existing in a social system that is standing on the shoulders of sexist history (especially when you're a guy - it's not an excuse, just means men have more reading and listening to do in this particular arena).  Hearing perspectives from all is somewhat new from a human history perspective, or at least for the past few thousand years (I do wonder if the rise of monotheism and its codifying of gender roles in holy texts exacerbated an existing problem or was simply par for the course).

[spartana]

Maybe women are tired?  Like, physically tired?  I hear so many stories of women having health issues and doctors ignoring them.  It's hard to do everything if you are anemic and asthmatic and untreated, like someone I know on another forum.  It only took 20 years and several doctors before she got any medical help.  All sorts of medical conditions get paid attention to if they are in a man's body and ignored if they are in a woman's body.  It's all in our silly lazy little heads, don't you know?  /s

Eh? So? Completely anecdotal. I have a male friend who has had poor health throughout his adult life. At the age of 47 took a controlled blood sugar test being offered and within an hour was identified as a severe diabetic and put into the back of an ambulance. Health services aren't perfect, but I seriously doubt there have materially different outcomes depending on your sex.

Women are tired because? Yes. Probably because they've been conditioned to endlessly and somewhat needlessly compete with men on so many fronts. You think we ain't just a little jaded too...

@vand, before you base your opinions on your own experience, which is limited, as is any one person's experience, please read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez.  It is an eye-opening book.  As a mustachian here I expect you will check your library first - most libraries have it.  If yours does not, I suggest you recommend your library buy a copy.  It is a book that should be widely accessible.

But basically, so much is just "that is how things are" that people accept inequalities.  And things are so built in to our lives that we don't even realize that there are inequalities until they hit us.  Or things change and we look back and see the inequalities in retrospect.

First, I'm not going to read the whole book, which is asking for a big time commitment that I don't necessarily want to put in.
Second, as a "new wave" mustachian I would just buy the damn thing if I was going to read it.
But, I did read a load of cliff note on it and I get the general gist.

Look, of course the world is shaped by those who have most heavily influenced it, and throughout human history that has tended to be men.  But you have to look at it this way too: it is mostly men who have raised the world from its state of squalid poverty to one where with technological wonder and unparalleled standard of living for even working class people.  If women are complaining about that then maybe they should have had greater contribution into.. discovering electricity, developing the theory of microorganisms, or splitting the atom, or developing a machine that can fly through the air, or developing and driving the mass production of automobiles...
Yes absolutely the world is built by men. It had to be that way because men and women ARE different. Men are the creators, women are the nurturers - those are the roles that have allowed us to thrive as a species, despite what the revisionist liberated women's unions of OF are telling you. So Instead of contrasting it with a world shaped by women, the better comparison is to a world simply without it. Skyscrapers replaced by shanties (how many women work in construction?) etc.
Men, not women, built the modern world we live in today and are still thoroughly unappreciated.

I absolutely require this to be satire.

Holy crap!! Bogeles the mind that people don't realize women weren't even ALLOWED to do most things until the 1970s - WWII being the exception when they kept the "things that fly in the air" running.  I was a machinery tech in the Coast Guard - wrenching big diesels, gas turbines, HVAC, hydraulics, welding (including underwater welding and from high rigging)  machine shop, electrical, maritime law enforcement, SAR, firefighting, rescue swimmer , blah blah blah mostly at sea. I sure as hell can design and build just about everything that exists today (and defend it from mauraders lol). But women weren't even ALLOWED to do that kind of stuff until the late 1970s or later.. They weren't allowed to work in most "create or run the modern world" careers in STEM jobs. Most were denied those opportunities. And pre-birth control made it even more difficult. Just think of how much more humans would have accomplished if women were allowed to work and contribute side by side in STEM type careers for the last couple hundred years.

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

That's true and sadly it still happens I'm sure. Or even if it's recognized it doesn't always register as something worthy.

It's just hard for me to grasp that an educated,  intelligent and worldly  person like @vand doesn't see the correlation to reasons women in general are further behind in some areas compared to men. Especially when historically they've been sold by their fathers to the highest bidder once they start their menses - which can be as early as 12 - only to be repeatedly raped and impregnated by by some old man until they stop "producing" and are thrown aside, assuming they didn't die in childbirth or via abuse. Rinse repeat for a few thousand years and yeah, you're not likely to be designing ancient pyramids.

Or that they have been denied education at the same level and in the skill sets as men until recently. That even today in some countries girls will be denied any education and can be killed for simply trying to learn a skill not deemed appropriate for girls. Or that many even in modern countries have been denied a college education in whatever field interested them thru out most of modern history. Yes in the 1950s you could get a PhD in Fine Arts or English Lit but try for a hard science and it was rare to be accepted. Or try to get a  blue collar, labor, or  trade education and job - no way. 

So yeah there's a reason many women are further behind but that doesn't mean they aren't capable if given both the same education and training,  as well as the historically long time frame to learn those skills and build on those opportunities that men have had.

[GuitarStv]

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

Women soldiers have also been categorized by archeologists as men just because they were soldiers. They have found it more likely that a male soldier has an unusually female-looking size and pelvic bones than that a soldier would clearly be a woman.

Again, Invisible Women is an absolute MUST READ for understanding how fucking warped so much of our "factual" data is.

It's truly a spectacular analysis of the world of data science and how brutally flawed so much historical, scientific, and demographic data is, with serious consequences for absolutely everyone.

When you mis-measure SO MUCH aggregate data, it has substantial consequences on everyone and creates criminally inefficient systems.

But how am I going to find time to sit down and read a book when I am busy building the modern world for the frail womenfolk?
/s

Seriously though, major +1 for this book. I consider myself to be a pretty enlightened dude, and this book was mind blowing in both it's breadth and depth of how everything needs to be rethought when it comes to what we know in our data and how we use it. Thanks to the women of this forum for bringing this book into my orbit.

It really needs to be re-released under a different name and marketed to men, like "Invisible Data: How Weak Information Drives Weak Decisions"

The name is great!  My 10 year old son picked up the copy of Invisible Woman that I took out from the library and actually got a solid chunk in before giving up.  I asked him what he thought of the book and if he found it interesting:

"So, like . . . I think things are unfair for women or something?  But it's a rip off.  Nobody turns invisible or has superpowers."


So at least one man was roped in because of the title.  :P

You haven't done a good enough job socializing him to believe that his dick will fall off if he reads something having to do with women.

Nope, not at all.  He was all like "When the hell does the Invisible Women get into the story and start kicking ass????"

[Metalcat]

Some women did work in those careers though far less than men, but their work was often attributed to the male supervisors or counterparts.  Even many women authors were published under mens names.

Women soldiers have also been categorized by archeologists as men just because they were soldiers. They have found it more likely that a male soldier has an unusually female-looking size and pelvic bones than that a soldier would clearly be a woman.

Again, Invisible Women is an absolute MUST READ for understanding how fucking warped so much of our "factual" data is.

It's truly a spectacular analysis of the world of data science and how brutally flawed so much historical, scientific, and demographic data is, with serious consequences for absolutely everyone.

When you mis-measure SO MUCH aggregate data, it has substantial consequences on everyone and creates criminally inefficient systems.

But how am I going to find time to sit down and read a book when I am busy building the modern world for the frail womenfolk?
/s

Seriously though, major +1 for this book. I consider myself to be a pretty enlightened dude, and this book was mind blowing in both it's breadth and depth of how everything needs to be rethought when it comes to what we know in our data and how we use it. Thanks to the women of this forum for bringing this book into my orbit.

It really needs to be re-released under a different name and marketed to men, like "Invisible Data: How Weak Information Drives Weak Decisions"

The name is great!  My 10 year old son picked up the copy of Invisible Woman that I took out from the library and actually got a solid chunk in before giving up.  I asked him what he thought of the book and if he found it interesting:

"So, like . . . I think things are unfair for women or something?  But it's a rip off.  Nobody turns invisible or has superpowers."


So at least one man was roped in because of the title.  :P

You haven't done a good enough job socializing him to believe that his dick will fall off if he reads something having to do with women.

Nope, not at all.  He was all like "When the hell does the Invisible Women get into the story and start kicking ass????"

I remember when you first told this story, and I've shared it many, many times when recommending this book in person.

Made me literally laugh out loud. Thanks for sharing again, it's a GREAT story.

For anyone who hasn't read the book, it's dense as fuck and a bit of a brutal read. Most adults can't get through more than chunks of it at a time, so picturing a kid make it a full 3rd through is a wild thing to imagine.

[Metalcat]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/mar/05/no-equality-for-working-women-in-any-country-in-the-world-study-reveals-world-bank-gender-gap