The four possibilities suggested in the article are good. But I suspect the biggest reason is that the female-dominated professions tend to be lower status, less well-compensated professions than the male-dominated ones. It's not like it's particularly difficult for a male to become an RN or a teacher. There are no institutional or systemic barriers that I'm aware of.
That's not really true tho'. All the dirty, dangerous jobs are male-dominated. Why do you never hear anyone complaining there are too few women driving garbage trucks, mining coal, packing meat, working construction?
Even those low-status male jobs are fairly well-compensated compared the female-dominated professions, especially considering the amount of education required. And several of them will always tend male as long as they aren't done by robots, because men have a physical strength advantage.
You don't think that changing a senior's diaper or dealing with infected needles is dirty, dangerous work? I submit that the jobs you're mentioning are distinctive because they involve lifting heavy things. The women I knew who worked construction were all forklift drivers.
Nurse might be cool, you get to help save people's lives and make a real difference without as many barriers as becoming a doctor. Googling the average salary, though, it's 1/4 what I earn as a developer. So no way.
In the UK National Health System, a Band 5 nurse ( i.e. no longer an assistant but not yet a specialist ) earns between £21k and just under £28k, which is on par with what my IT career was after a similar period in work.
Nurses make quite good money in certain areas[1]. An old boss of mine quit his contract IT workers for hire company and formed a nurse for hire company. He makes more money for them and him[2] and doesn't have to deal with all the foolishness of IT placement. Hospitals actually like people who can provide nurses on demand.
1) My buddy said their bill rate was from $60+/hour
2) he did a 70 / 30 split if you were W2 and a 90/10 split if you were 1099. He also hired a security company to escort the nurses to and from the parking lot. This is a concern at some hospitals.
I suspect there are two reasons why men would push for more women in IT:
- lower wages because of higher competition (the employer's incentive)
- more "attractive" workplace winkwink (the employee's perspective)
I know it's not politically correct to say that, but don't shoot the messenger.
I don't think men feel the need for more "female perspectives" in programming. Especially as they wouldn't even know what those would suppose to be.
Women (feminists) push for more women in tech because they have seen some people become rich via tech jobs and feel left out. They don't push for more garbage women and so on.
I find it disturbing and sad that you didn't even think to mention egalitarianism in either your male or female reasons to push for more females in tech.
The head of one of the teaching unions in the UK, when pressed on why they weren't trying to recruit more men into teaching, replied that to do so would imply that the women presently doing the job weren't up to scratch.
For me, it's as simple as, if you want to be a tree surgeon, you are expected to act like a tree surgeon. If you want to be a pastry chef, you are expected to act like a pastry chef. And if you are a programmer, you are expected to act like a programmer. Gender doesn't really come into it.
How would "egalitarism" be relevant? Does that imply that every profession should have 50:50 men and women?
If egalitarism were a significant motivator, then there would have to be the same push for garbage women as for IT women. Since there is no push for garbage women, egalitarism disqualifies as a reason.
I think fairness and equality are common enough goals that you shouldn't have to ask me why they would be relevant. You should just know. That doesn't mean you have to agree that they override other considerations, but it's unnecessary to pretend that you don't understand they are important to other people.
You asked me how egalitarianism is relevant, and I'm telling you that it should be obvious that it's relevant because some folks think the current distribution of work is not fair to females.
Well you didn't answer what exactly is meant by egalitarian. 50:50 male and female workers in every profession? Or what exactly?
As I said, if "egalitarian" means 50:50 male and female workers, then the same people pushing for tech women would have to be pushing for more garbage women, too. Since they don't, obviously that is not the driving force.
You characterized it as egalitarianism, which could be characterized as 50:50 distribution. In any case I think you should quantify your "demands", or else how can they ever be satisfied? It is not obvious to me why it is unfair if for example a woman is a nurse instead of a PHP developer? Should she begrudge her fate? Why not vice versa (PHP devs who would rather be nurses)?
I don't think he's pretending they aren't important. He's pointing out that people who claim that they are important don't actually act as though they are. I.e. The argument of 'egalitarianism' is used selectively, which makes it into a contradiction in terms.
I think it's generally the same reasons that more women don't pursue male-dominated professions. I think this is typically that there's an established culture, and not fitting in with that culture makes you seem like an oddity or that you've got ulterior motives.
Is that man teaching because he needs a job, or because he enjoys teaching? Or does he just want to prey on the girls?
Is that woman developing video games because she's a good programmer, or is she just desperate for male attention?
The biggest difference is that fewer people see this as a problem when it's affecting men. Culturally men are expected to bear their problems instead of lament them.
To understand conversations about gender bias in professions, you have to understand that the American academy (and by extension, America's educated class) operates from a Marxist ideology. This casts the world in light of class conflict. In the branch of this ideology which deals with sex relations (called "feminism"), men are the oppressor class and women are the oppressed. Thus, male overrepresentation in the suicide or prison population is not a problem (men cannot be oppressed, they are the over-class). But male overrepresentation in tech is a problem, or at least it has become a problem as tech work has gained in prestige.
Male underrepresentation in traditionally female fields is not considered a problem, again because males cannot be oppressed as a class. It is true that men have fared worse than women in the recession[1], and that men have fallen behind women in educational attainment, so that an influx of men into these fields might have strong, positive effects for society. But as long as the "patriarchy" remains, it will not be a concern.
Heh, you seriously think that's why I had a problem with your post? I am once again staggered by the brilliant insights into human nature I learn here on HN...
All the absolutes in here make it very hard to get on board. Americans are not Marxist automatons any more than American culture is something so well-defined that you can reason about it reliably with generalizations like this.
I'm not a cultural anthropologist, so I'm not going to bother suggesting this Marxist origin theory is wrong or even not a large contributor, but I will certainly point out that you're reducing something very large and very complex involving a whole lot of vastly different people with different motivations, backgrounds, and goals to a simple, homogeneous, no-moving-parts summary that's so burdened with subjective assumptions as to be unsupportable.
The point is not whether it's wrong. The point is that a particular perspective dominates. And observation does seem to confirm that.
Also, when did simplification become a bad word? Simplification is great. Half of (university) physics is just a collection of really clever simplifications.
Men are found at the very top and the very bottom of society, even in very even societies like the Scandinavian countries.
So if anything men are both the most oppressing and most oppressed class of society.
Furthermore woman normally marry upwards which makes it even harder for those already at the bottom to find a life companion and escape their situation.
I like this point. I read an facinating article about men being both at the top and bottom of society a year or so ago. I wish I could remember what it was called I would link it to you.
I would say that's about right as someone who basically espouses this way of looking at class dynamics (though I'm not sure it's really a solely Marxist view, as I am still a fan of capitalism, etc.).
One nuance that might be missing from your comment is that folks who believe this still agree that individual men can be oppressed. And some groups of men can be oppressed too -- black males come to mind. But generally, when talking about oppression, they/we are talking about systemic oppression, and would generally agree that men as a whole are not systemically oppressed, although they theoretically could be if women ever became the dominant gender.
Marxist analysis is even more often used in discussion of race than of sex. You will often see the claim that there is no such thing as racism against white people, because racism equals power + privilege and white people are privileged. A person shouting ethnic slurs as they beat up a white person is not acting in a "racist" manner, since white people are the privileged group.
Actually, I have seen and agree with that too. According to my politics, you can be "racially discriminatory" against white people, and you can perform a "racially motivated" crime against a white person, but you cannot be racist-as-in-racism against white people. Incidentally, this is why the slur "cracker" carries essentially no sting.
(BTW, I am not trying to own the definition of "racism." I understand that other people prefer to use the word to label a different concept than those who share my politics. I'm just trying to explain what I think people mean when they say, "You can't be racist against white people." They mean that there is no systemic oppression of white people.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the American academy" but modern feminism has a lot to say about the negative effects of the patriarchy on men. One major example of this is the way men are pressured to work certain jobs rather than others, or to not seek help for physical or especially emotional problems.
Saying that men cannot be oppressed because they are the oppressors seems to come out mostly from MRA strawman talking points.
Third-wave feminists' deliberate use of the word "patriarchy" to describe modern western culture is itself a class-conflict power grab.
But to directly address your point, the OP's argument isn't a strawman. I could compile a list of fifty feminist articles, blog posts, and comics espousing minor variations of:
- "Men can be oppressed, but not for their maleness"
- "Misandry isn't real"
- "Anything that systemically hurts men is simply their privilege backfiring"
But someone will still say that those examples don't represent true feminism.
Talking about “true” feminism is almost meaningless (or at least very imprecise). There are several strands of feminism. Radical feminism in particular tend to have a complete disregard for men’s issues, but my experience is that there are many moderate feminist who do care about gender issues on all sides.
Caring about it and doing something about it are two different things. There is a huge disconnect between theory and practice. In theory feminism concerns itself with the effects of "patriarchy" on both men and women. In practice, groups ordered around feminist ideology are women's groups and other groups that consider themselves in an adversarial position to men as a class.
While I can hardly blame a women's group for focusing entirely on women's issues rather than men, the way they attack and berate any attempt to do so by other people ("oh, boys are now doing poorly in school? the poor menz, why will no one think of the menz!!", "oh so now that boys are doing bad in school it's an issue?", "let's see how you like it for a change") is spiteful and hypocritical.
We're wasting time trying to convince hacker789 of anything. Check his comment history - it's like a work of art. He just repeats the same drivel on this topic.
Maybe some people think like that, but prevailing academic feminist thought does not resemble what you're describing.
Modern feminism sees gender as a continuity rather than a boundary, and looks at how social gender constructs support systems of power. For example: why are men often stigmatized for becoming grade school teachers? The modern feminist (at least one with the theoretical bent you're describing) sees this as oppression and tries to come to grips with it by looking at the social constructs of masculinity and femininity, and more specifically in this case of maternity and paternity.
In a society where women are caregivers/mothers and men are builders/leaders, then individuals who do not embody those characteristics are marginalized and oppressed. And the marginalization goes both ways. In a society where men are stigmatized for embodying femininity, it will be true that women will be stigmatized for embodying masculinity.
The problem is discussed in a far more multidimensional fashion than you're describing. Marxism is used as a tool for analysis, as are many other ideologies, but is certainly not the dominant force. A (good) academic paper that uses Marxism for analysis will often say, "I'm using Marxism to analyze this topic because I feel that in spite of shortcomings A, B, and C, that I can use it to tease out this subtlety..."
I would go so far as to say that you are unapologetically building a caricature of what you're describing. Why? Because it's almost never the case that you can take an entire group of people, (in this case, the 'American academy') and apply such a sweeping generalization to their way of thought.
In fact, the modern feminist would suggest that it's your absolutist way of arguing that perpetuates this kind of system. When you say that a certain group thinks in a certain way (especially one so easily problematized), you are promulgating the same type of thinking that leads to, "Men shouldn't be teachers." The idea is that when you look at any crowd of people, do you understand that what you're looking at is not some group entity but in fact a very complex interweaving of social dynamics--personality, class, gender, sexuality, family, culture, race, age, height, weight, and all of the intersections thereof. Or do you think you have that group 'figured out' and pigeonholed? Once you have the group pigeonholed, you've denied the individuality and agency of the people in that group.
The kind of reductionist feminist theory that you describe (which is neither a valid generalization of the "American academy" nor a valid generalization of "Amercia's educated class", though it has no small amount of currency in each of those domains) isn't Marxist -- or even compatible with Marxism -- its an incompatible alternative to Marxism that follows a similar outline but replaces the class conflict of the Marxism with gender conflict.
I have a cousin who was an elementary school teacher because he loved it. It's all he ever wanted to do. He has a bunch of kids of his own because he enjoys being a dad. He's that "really great with kids" guy.
In school, all he ever got was suspicion. All of the teachers and administrators and parents in schools treat male primary school teachers as if they're child molesters or think that men are totally unsuited to the job. There is _blatant_ sexism.
He lasted two years and now runs his own construction/carpentry business where he's a lot happier.
What's hilarious is that this is so uniquely cultural. My mom, who was raised with an English tutor in Bangladesh, remarked about my elementary school experience that she didn't like how all the teachers were women, because men made far more effective teachers. That is the sexism on that side of the pond--that women aren't suitable for a role that involves inculcating the knowledge and practices and morals of society.
In fairness to your mom, all of my primary school teachers were dumb as bricks and sucked at their jobs. And this was in one of NY's supposedly gifted schools.
Most were really shit-terrible at math especially. I feel like primary education is where the dumbest people with teaching certification end up.
You are totally correct, but it's only as unpleasant as my experience was.
My teachers were absolutely terrible. If it weren't for my mom teaching me math at a much accelerated pace (high school algebra by 3rd grade) and the fact that I practically lived in libraries until I was 14 or so, I wouldn't have done as well as I did.
A common problem I had in school with math was that the teachers were bad at solving the problems themselves and relied on the answer books which had wrong answers/misprints. I would get in arguments with teachers on occasion about the right answer and would often go up to the board with the work or a proof and the teacher would go "well, my book says it's this, so that's what it is."
I guess I was a stubborn kid and maybe a bit of an a-hole then too. :)
Edit: I'm not saying everyone who wants to teach children is an idiot. I know some amazing people who specialized in child education, like the cousin I mentioned. However, all of the really dull people I know that went into teaching all wanted to teach 1st-3rd graders...folks who could barely operate a cash register.
My SO works with child.education.for about 20+ years, and she claims:
1: female teachers scare away male teachers, being very sexist against them.
2. Gender specific education is much better than mixed classes, specially for boys, she noticed a.pattern.where boys quickly tank when girls are around.
3. She laments the lack of male.teachers, because for some subjects they are usually more effective, being able to make both boys and girls understand certain subjects easier.
A 'lot' of these jobs have contact with children and the news organisations have done enough damage to societies perception that a man wanting to work with children is probably a pedophile to wreck that career path.
>Why are women fighting for more women to do STEM while men are not fighting for more men to be therapists?
...and Freakonomics hears: "Why don't more men pursue female-dominated professions?" Not once, but twice. Alfred writes back to clarify his meaning, yet Dubner, again, simply lifts keywords out of his sentences and writes his own question to answer. Literally failing to think outside the bounds of political tropes.
I'm glad another person noticed this. Most comments also missed the distinction.
In their defence I think the two questions have high interrelation. Why men should go into teaching and etc is the same reasons men are not campaigning for more male participation. Programming is a good career so people are willing to fight for equality. From an emotionless stand point teaching is a mediocre career so what is the point? Men who do teach do so for the caring, but they recognize the career is not for everyone. Programming on the other hand is profitable, I imagine programming women recognize that the career would be a good match for many other women.
By a similar token neither men nor women are campaigning to get more people into sanitation engineering, even if women are under represented.
Yes, I noticed that as well. The formula seems to be: a) identify trope, b) throw down cards, c) leave.
Each of your points of evidence is true in-and-of-itself, I think. But not enough compare-and-contrast with outside situations for my taste. Programming is a good career. So is finance. So why no campaigning there? 2) You're right, Men don't campaign for teaching or sanitation careers. What do men campaign for? Further, I might compare-and-contrast with the transitions of other groups which were formerly underrepresented within their industry and ask whether it was campaigning which won that victory.
The final line in what Albert writes does ask that question about the specific occupation, but right before that he had stated more generally that men are not fighting for more men to study traditionally female-dominated subjects or jobs like primary-school teacher, nurse, PR officers and therapists. So it makes sense for Dubner to address the more general "female-dominated professions" than the specific "therapists" part. I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". I think in this situation the answers to either question are going to be largely related.
>I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]".
Really? The mere fact that someone would take these as different questions should suggest that they don't believe they would partake in campaigning as women do now, were they in the same position. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about myself-- people very often are-- but in this case I very much doubt it. Power, tech jobs, diamond rings. Women want none of these; they want the wanting. How to tell? That which they actually do want, they are far more goal-oriented about obtaining. Boyfriends, shoes/handbags, an appearance of not standing out, etc.
I said I don't see that much difference. Not enough for me to make the indictment you made about the author. That was all I was getting at. Personally, I don't think the author answered either question very well. I saw very little point to the whole post. I was a little disappointed.
The author gives "P.R. Officer" as an example of one profession typically dominated by women. When I studied public relations in college, I was one of the few guys in my classes, and I began to pose this question to others in the field.
I think part of the reason is that many guys mistakenly associate PR with publicity and event planning — activities which they view as being "for women." In reality, modern public relations is deeply intertwined with management. It's about managing a company's relationships and persuading important audiences to take action.
Publicity and event planning are tools in modern PR. To say that they're the substance of the field is like saying that computer science is about keyboards and typing.
So, what's interesting here is that the field of public relations has evolved to encompass some things that are perceived as traditionally male, including business management, strategy and law. However, many men perceive the field as it was decades ago.
To answer the OP's question, maybe men don't push for men to break into traditionally female fields because, once those fields are branded as being "for women," they cease trying to understand how the fields evolve over time.
I've always found this to be an amusing counter-narrative: "if you're so concerned about the lack of women in finance, business, and technology, why aren't you concerned about the lack of men in teaching or secretarial work?" How is this not a self-answering question?
I would say that a much more concerning problem is that of male elementary school teachers and male childcare workers, at least here in the USA. There is automatic suspicion facing any man who wants to spend his days working with children. It takes only one accusation to end that man's career, regardless of evidence, regardless of what a great job he does. Nobody seems particularly concerned with this kind of sexism, nor with the real damage it can do, nor with the fact that it creates a line of work that only one gender is allowed to enter.
The assumption is that men are generally doing well under the current system, so nobody needs to encourage men to pursue careers dominated by women. I am sure there is a notion that nursing is a feminine career, but that is beside the point; the real issue is that nobody is trying to dispel that notion. The effort is focused on dispelling the notion that engineering and science are "manly" disciplines.
It also does not help that here in the USA we are trained to be automatically suspicious of men who pursue two common and traditionally female lines of work: elementary school education and childcare. A male kindergarten teacher is always at risk of being branded a pedophile by some paranoid parent, and must watch his every step in his personal life (what if he is into S&M? what if he is gay?).
Because they're paid shit in comparison to the labor and education involved.
There's nothing keeping men from joining female professions, such as teaching, nursing, cooking, or library science, and when they do, they're usually paid more and promoted to management earlier. Look at the sex ratios of the foot soldiers of any of those professions, and compare them to the sex ratios of middle management and upper management. Based on nothing but anecdote, I think you'd find 90-100% women at the bottom, 40-50% women at the middle, and 5-10% women at the top.
"A common complaint expressed by some men and women librarians is the idea of a glass escalator for males in the field. Women expressed frustration at men promoted rapidly into management or administrative positions (Williams, 1992; Greer, 2001). Men are just as frustrated that they are often pushed up the career ladder when they are perfectly content in their present position. One male who desired to work as a children’s librarian was encouraged to move into administration after only six months on the job. He has stayed in his original position for 10 years but only by resisting promotion (Williams, 1992).
"The concern expressed by Suzanne Hildenbrand that men would continue to dominate administrative and director positions has been questioned and contradicted by Paul Piper & Barbara Collamer. They point out that female library directors now outnumber males by nearly a 3 to 1 margin (Hildenbrand, 1999; Piper & Collamer, 2001)."
So, languages and dialects have some sort of (nebulously defined) level of prestige relative to any particular population, and the prestige of a particular language/dialect is one of those factors for a bunch of cultural phenomena, such as where and whether it's appropriate to use a particular language/dialect in a particular social setting, and whether a language is taught to children, etc, etc, etc.
Anyway, point being, prestige is also one of those things you see in careers too. It may be that there aren't more men banging down the doors to get into dietetics and nursing because those jobs aren't perceived to be as prestigious as being a doctor.
People aspire to being the President of the United States, or a doctor, or lawyer or whatever. They don't aspire to being middle management, or nursing home attendants, or city clerks.
(p.s. I think that gender imbalance in any field is questionable/problematic. But on a pragmatic basis there's actual material harm when all of the prestigious and high earning fields are particularly biased.)
A while ago I watched a Norwegian documentary questioning various aspects of Norwegian society. One segment dealt with gender equality. One thing the stats found is that as gender opportunities in employment reached parity women largely abandoned traditional male jobs are returned to traditional female jobs. Having enough of a safety net not to worry about going hungry, homeless or without healthcare may be a contributing factor. But it seems as if when people really go by their preferences they gravitate toward professions that match the traditional gender stereotypes. An interesting bit was when they interviewed psychologists and social scientists, and they discounted the idea that there could be a preference difference between genders. They thought that if society were perfect that there would be a 50/50 split in any profession. Phooey.
In the US I think it's likely that men just don't want to be nurses. Some men do want that and there are male nurses, but it's rare. It doesn't have to be because they're afraid of perceptions. It can be because they don't desire to do that job.
I watched on YouTube and there were several segments. I watched all of them. Very interesting! I may give the vimeo version a try in case I missed anything. And I can always use practice in norsk. Tusen takk for linken!
Let me put on my armchair psychologist hat and say:
I think it's due to the fact that in our society, men aren't socialized to think about feelings, and in fact, men are socialized to not have them. So it's not a surprise that these professions that require some form of feeling caring for one another lack men. For example teaching (sympathizing and empathizing with students and caring about their future), nursing (caring about patients well being and health), and PR (caring about the success of your customers) all require feeling.
For this particular question, it's hard for me to see that there's any real mystery involved. The push for more gender equality in traditionally male professions only shows up for professions associated with high status and/or high income (hence, STEM fields and upper management get lots of attention).
I have seen no similarly strong push to get women involved in (say) garbage collection, which is also traditionally male. Yes, equality there would be great, too, but that inequality isn't as big a factor in preventing women from an equal share of power and influence in society.
Meanwhile, there are efforts to get men involved in higher-status traditionally female jobs like nursing. But there simply aren't many high-status/high-paying jobs that are traditionally female... which is pretty much the point. (Looking at the article, I'm surprised to see psychologists/therapists presented as predominantly female. When I hear "psychologist", the first image that comes to mind is Freud.)
The crucial question is why can women cope with low paying jobs, and men can't. I think the notion that the father in a family should usually be the main breadwinner has a lot to do with that.
Women have the privilege to be able to choose a low paying profession (which offers more flexibility/time for family). The privilege is theirs because they control reproduction.
A meta-comment, which I'm separating from my main reply:
Rather a lot of the comments here seem to be reacting to this in ways that boil down to "Feminism is unfair to men!" For anyone out there who hasn't studied much of this stuff, let me warn you to be cautious buying in to those arguments. They can sound persuasively like justice; I used to nod and mutter "Yeah!" to them myself. But I have eventually recognized that if we want to achieve that goal of true equality that we all want, women have one heck of a lot more catching up to do than men.
>... women have one heck of a lot more catching up to do than men
May I ask what criteria you used to come to that conclusion? What do you use to measure equality? You seem to have analyzed both sides and I'm curious to hear how you arrived at your conclusion.
Unfortunately, I don't have any quick answer to this ready to hand, and I don't have remotely enough spare time right now to try and write a long one. I know that sounds like dodging the question, and maybe it is. But I see it as a symptom of myself feeling like I'm only in the early stages of really understanding this stuff.
Given all that, here's one glimpse of how I'd start to answer your question (meant only to point in the right direction, since I don't have time to build a convincing case). I think I'd say that my active definition of "equality" is something not far from "equality of opportunity" and perhaps also "equality in everyday experience". Our society seems to inhibit women from taking the same risks that it allows for men. Some of that is formalized (e.g. women in the US Army haven't been allowed to serve on the front lines) but a lot of it is buried deep in societal attitudes. I couldn't begin to trace how that happens, but everyone seems to agree on the result: men are overrepresented at the upper and lower ends of society. In our system, women are systematically "sheltered", which sounds nice, but it means that they are prevented from living up to their true potential, and that can be soul-killing.
The "everyday experience" side is (I think) closely related to that on some deep level, but probably feels quite different on the surface. It's hard to summarize, but basically I'm thinking about the many ways that women in our society are forced into a defensive mindset when they go about their daily lives.
An anecdote (presented to me as true when I saw it) may illustrate the idea: A high school teacher asked her class to imagine that they were in a shopping mall late at night and had to walk to their car on the far side of the parking lot alone: what precautions would they take on their way there? The guys in the class wanted clarification: was this mall in a bad part of town? Had they seen someone dangerous hanging around to make them worried? And so on: they wanted to know why they were taking precautions. Meanwhile, every single girl had already gotten well into a long list: "Carry my keys in my fist." "Watch under nearby cars." "Have my phone out." "No way I'm going alone: find someone to walk me out there." "I always park under bright lights close to a door." The lists go on and on.
That's just one illustration, but I hope it captures the basic idea that I'm trying to describe. (To be clear, the threat of violence is a big part of this "equality of everyday experience" factor, but far from all of it. I think that there are big doses of "hard to get taken seriously as a professional" mixed in with it, too, for example.) [The same sort of thing happens in other contexts, too: e.g. how Levar Burton always puts his hands in view outside of the car when he's pulled over by the police http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/01/levar-burton-explains-... ]
Recently we (my wife and I) were on the search for a replacement nanny as our nanny of 2 years was going back to school. During the process, my wife posted to Facebook asking her friends what they thought about a "manny" she found. I was shocked at the whole situation.
First, even just the fact that it seems perfectly legit to call him a "manny" was enough. I can't even imagine how much the internet would explode if someone questioned hiring "womengineers."
Second, the fact that the question is even asked. Like there is something EXTRA we need to look at when hiring a man as a nanny that we would not look at for a woman. Skills are skills. A background check is a background check.
Lastly, I was appalled by the women that spoke up about how sketchy it was and that they would advise against it. Thankfully, there were people that spoke up about it being no different. That it would be great to have our boys see a man in such a role.
Ultimately, he didn't make the cut. But this was not a male/female reason. But seeing what I saw, I do feel a bit sorry for the guy as I'm sure this happens more than he knows. I'm sure he has missed out on great jobs because too many of people's friends thought it was too sketchy.
This is more bias against men than we are ready to admit.
I was somewhat blind to this until the wife opened a daycare in our home. When we interviewed with a new parent, she would very tactfully advise the parents that I might be in charge some days/times. The most common response was 'just let us know what days.' Which was code for: we aren't comfortable with that but we are too polite to say that while he's here. Less than half of the kids showed up the first time she took a day off. My paper airplane tournament was missing a number of contestants.
Then I had a few candid conversations with friends who had children. Almost universally wouldn't consider a male daycare provider. Or any daycare situation where a male would be even temporarily unsupervised with children.
It was disappointing to see that level of bigotry. While there aren't going to be men manning the barricades over daycare and teaching, it is something that should change. If you want your daughters to learn STEM, it might be a man teaching them. Try not to panic.
I am currently going to school to study occupational therapy--which is predominately a female dominated profession. Why did I do it? Frankly, I was getting burned out on tech, and I've always wanted to try health care out without having to over commit in terms of time and money. My program is about 3+ years including the pre-reqs, and the total cost will be only about $25000. I also didn't want to do anything really stressful like nursing. But, now that I'm actually surrounded by women, I am starting to pine for my old tech days of having guy co-workers, which often led to guy friends, talking about guy stuff.
Women are weird. They're exceptionally passive aggressive, and they love gossiping like there was a fire sale on it. It doesn't help that the few female OT's that I've had to shadow were not my cup of tea. I didn't think they were nice at all, and I could see them being overtly political or passive aggressive. Also, as others have mentioned in this thread, there is a very real bias I may have to contend with as a male in a female dominated profession.
Currently, I want to work in pediatrics. I like the idea of working in the schools and with kids. However, I DO see that others, especially women, may view that with a wary eye. It sucks.
There is a bright side though. If you're a single guy, damn, the women... Lots of pretty women. That's something that I don't miss about tech.
96 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadThere are government and industry funded schemes in different countries to encourage more women to go into construction at all levels of the industry.
the real answer is that men aren't exactly breaking down doors to get jobs were they'll be emasculated, underpaid or branded a pedophile.
This is pretty much the sad truth of it.
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-bene...
Band definitions here:
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/nursing/pay-f...
One might say that's not a lot of money for the stress and responsibility, but it's still starting at the UK average salary.
1) My buddy said their bill rate was from $60+/hour
2) he did a 70 / 30 split if you were W2 and a 90/10 split if you were 1099. He also hired a security company to escort the nurses to and from the parking lot. This is a concern at some hospitals.
http://aamn.org/ http://www.worldforumfoundation.org/working-groups/men/
- lower wages because of higher competition (the employer's incentive)
- more "attractive" workplace wink wink (the employee's perspective)
I know it's not politically correct to say that, but don't shoot the messenger.
I don't think men feel the need for more "female perspectives" in programming. Especially as they wouldn't even know what those would suppose to be.
Women (feminists) push for more women in tech because they have seen some people become rich via tech jobs and feel left out. They don't push for more garbage women and so on.
For me, it's as simple as, if you want to be a tree surgeon, you are expected to act like a tree surgeon. If you want to be a pastry chef, you are expected to act like a pastry chef. And if you are a programmer, you are expected to act like a programmer. Gender doesn't really come into it.
If egalitarism were a significant motivator, then there would have to be the same push for garbage women as for IT women. Since there is no push for garbage women, egalitarism disqualifies as a reason.
As I said, if "egalitarian" means 50:50 male and female workers, then the same people pushing for tech women would have to be pushing for more garbage women, too. Since they don't, obviously that is not the driving force.
I think this is the appropriate answer to these guys talking about this kind of a topic.
Is that man teaching because he needs a job, or because he enjoys teaching? Or does he just want to prey on the girls?
Is that woman developing video games because she's a good programmer, or is she just desperate for male attention?
The biggest difference is that fewer people see this as a problem when it's affecting men. Culturally men are expected to bear their problems instead of lament them.
Male underrepresentation in traditionally female fields is not considered a problem, again because males cannot be oppressed as a class. It is true that men have fared worse than women in the recession[1], and that men have fallen behind women in educational attainment, so that an influx of men into these fields might have strong, positive effects for society. But as long as the "patriarchy" remains, it will not be a concern.
[1] http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm
Bye y'all!
I'm not a cultural anthropologist, so I'm not going to bother suggesting this Marxist origin theory is wrong or even not a large contributor, but I will certainly point out that you're reducing something very large and very complex involving a whole lot of vastly different people with different motivations, backgrounds, and goals to a simple, homogeneous, no-moving-parts summary that's so burdened with subjective assumptions as to be unsupportable.
Also, when did simplification become a bad word? Simplification is great. Half of (university) physics is just a collection of really clever simplifications.
So if anything men are both the most oppressing and most oppressed class of society.
Furthermore woman normally marry upwards which makes it even harder for those already at the bottom to find a life companion and escape their situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_pelosi
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/homeless-woman-...
My guess is that it wont be that obvious.
One nuance that might be missing from your comment is that folks who believe this still agree that individual men can be oppressed. And some groups of men can be oppressed too -- black males come to mind. But generally, when talking about oppression, they/we are talking about systemic oppression, and would generally agree that men as a whole are not systemically oppressed, although they theoretically could be if women ever became the dominant gender.
(BTW, I am not trying to own the definition of "racism." I understand that other people prefer to use the word to label a different concept than those who share my politics. I'm just trying to explain what I think people mean when they say, "You can't be racist against white people." They mean that there is no systemic oppression of white people.)
Saying that men cannot be oppressed because they are the oppressors seems to come out mostly from MRA strawman talking points.
There is a very vocal group of feminists who claim this very thing
But to directly address your point, the OP's argument isn't a strawman. I could compile a list of fifty feminist articles, blog posts, and comics espousing minor variations of:
- "Men can be oppressed, but not for their maleness"
- "Misandry isn't real"
- "Anything that systemically hurts men is simply their privilege backfiring"
But someone will still say that those examples don't represent true feminism.
While I can hardly blame a women's group for focusing entirely on women's issues rather than men, the way they attack and berate any attempt to do so by other people ("oh, boys are now doing poorly in school? the poor menz, why will no one think of the menz!!", "oh so now that boys are doing bad in school it's an issue?", "let's see how you like it for a change") is spiteful and hypocritical.
Modern feminism sees gender as a continuity rather than a boundary, and looks at how social gender constructs support systems of power. For example: why are men often stigmatized for becoming grade school teachers? The modern feminist (at least one with the theoretical bent you're describing) sees this as oppression and tries to come to grips with it by looking at the social constructs of masculinity and femininity, and more specifically in this case of maternity and paternity.
In a society where women are caregivers/mothers and men are builders/leaders, then individuals who do not embody those characteristics are marginalized and oppressed. And the marginalization goes both ways. In a society where men are stigmatized for embodying femininity, it will be true that women will be stigmatized for embodying masculinity.
The problem is discussed in a far more multidimensional fashion than you're describing. Marxism is used as a tool for analysis, as are many other ideologies, but is certainly not the dominant force. A (good) academic paper that uses Marxism for analysis will often say, "I'm using Marxism to analyze this topic because I feel that in spite of shortcomings A, B, and C, that I can use it to tease out this subtlety..."
I would go so far as to say that you are unapologetically building a caricature of what you're describing. Why? Because it's almost never the case that you can take an entire group of people, (in this case, the 'American academy') and apply such a sweeping generalization to their way of thought.
In fact, the modern feminist would suggest that it's your absolutist way of arguing that perpetuates this kind of system. When you say that a certain group thinks in a certain way (especially one so easily problematized), you are promulgating the same type of thinking that leads to, "Men shouldn't be teachers." The idea is that when you look at any crowd of people, do you understand that what you're looking at is not some group entity but in fact a very complex interweaving of social dynamics--personality, class, gender, sexuality, family, culture, race, age, height, weight, and all of the intersections thereof. Or do you think you have that group 'figured out' and pigeonholed? Once you have the group pigeonholed, you've denied the individuality and agency of the people in that group.
@override public Conflict getConflict() { Conflict genderConflict = super.getConflict(); genderConflict.setEnemy("Males"); return genderConflict; } }
(I don't necessarily believe this, but I thought it was a funny joke)
In school, all he ever got was suspicion. All of the teachers and administrators and parents in schools treat male primary school teachers as if they're child molesters or think that men are totally unsuited to the job. There is _blatant_ sexism.
He lasted two years and now runs his own construction/carpentry business where he's a lot happier.
Most were really shit-terrible at math especially. I feel like primary education is where the dumbest people with teaching certification end up.
My teachers were absolutely terrible. If it weren't for my mom teaching me math at a much accelerated pace (high school algebra by 3rd grade) and the fact that I practically lived in libraries until I was 14 or so, I wouldn't have done as well as I did.
A common problem I had in school with math was that the teachers were bad at solving the problems themselves and relied on the answer books which had wrong answers/misprints. I would get in arguments with teachers on occasion about the right answer and would often go up to the board with the work or a proof and the teacher would go "well, my book says it's this, so that's what it is."
I guess I was a stubborn kid and maybe a bit of an a-hole then too. :)
Edit: I'm not saying everyone who wants to teach children is an idiot. I know some amazing people who specialized in child education, like the cousin I mentioned. However, all of the really dull people I know that went into teaching all wanted to teach 1st-3rd graders...folks who could barely operate a cash register.
1: female teachers scare away male teachers, being very sexist against them.
2. Gender specific education is much better than mixed classes, specially for boys, she noticed a.pattern.where boys quickly tank when girls are around.
3. She laments the lack of male.teachers, because for some subjects they are usually more effective, being able to make both boys and girls understand certain subjects easier.
1) if you're fine with the female workers changing your son/daughter's diaper, but not fine with the male teacher then you are part of the problem.
'Something must be wrong with you'
>Why are women fighting for more women to do STEM while men are not fighting for more men to be therapists?
...and Freakonomics hears: "Why don't more men pursue female-dominated professions?" Not once, but twice. Alfred writes back to clarify his meaning, yet Dubner, again, simply lifts keywords out of his sentences and writes his own question to answer. Literally failing to think outside the bounds of political tropes.
In their defence I think the two questions have high interrelation. Why men should go into teaching and etc is the same reasons men are not campaigning for more male participation. Programming is a good career so people are willing to fight for equality. From an emotionless stand point teaching is a mediocre career so what is the point? Men who do teach do so for the caring, but they recognize the career is not for everyone. Programming on the other hand is profitable, I imagine programming women recognize that the career would be a good match for many other women.
By a similar token neither men nor women are campaigning to get more people into sanitation engineering, even if women are under represented.
Each of your points of evidence is true in-and-of-itself, I think. But not enough compare-and-contrast with outside situations for my taste. Programming is a good career. So is finance. So why no campaigning there? 2) You're right, Men don't campaign for teaching or sanitation careers. What do men campaign for? Further, I might compare-and-contrast with the transitions of other groups which were formerly underrepresented within their industry and ask whether it was campaigning which won that victory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
Really? The mere fact that someone would take these as different questions should suggest that they don't believe they would partake in campaigning as women do now, were they in the same position. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about myself-- people very often are-- but in this case I very much doubt it. Power, tech jobs, diamond rings. Women want none of these; they want the wanting. How to tell? That which they actually do want, they are far more goal-oriented about obtaining. Boyfriends, shoes/handbags, an appearance of not standing out, etc.
I think part of the reason is that many guys mistakenly associate PR with publicity and event planning — activities which they view as being "for women." In reality, modern public relations is deeply intertwined with management. It's about managing a company's relationships and persuading important audiences to take action.
Publicity and event planning are tools in modern PR. To say that they're the substance of the field is like saying that computer science is about keyboards and typing.
So, what's interesting here is that the field of public relations has evolved to encompass some things that are perceived as traditionally male, including business management, strategy and law. However, many men perceive the field as it was decades ago.
To answer the OP's question, maybe men don't push for men to break into traditionally female fields because, once those fields are branded as being "for women," they cease trying to understand how the fields evolve over time.
It should also be noted that the percentage of male nurses, while still small (10%) has tripled in four decades, and male nurses earn more than female one: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/25/men-nur....
It also does not help that here in the USA we are trained to be automatically suspicious of men who pursue two common and traditionally female lines of work: elementary school education and childcare. A male kindergarten teacher is always at risk of being branded a pedophile by some paranoid parent, and must watch his every step in his personal life (what if he is into S&M? what if he is gay?).
There's nothing keeping men from joining female professions, such as teaching, nursing, cooking, or library science, and when they do, they're usually paid more and promoted to management earlier. Look at the sex ratios of the foot soldiers of any of those professions, and compare them to the sex ratios of middle management and upper management. Based on nothing but anecdote, I think you'd find 90-100% women at the bottom, 40-50% women at the middle, and 5-10% women at the top.
edit: Anything like this for the US?
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/01/14/men-outnumber-...
edit: It's informally called the "Glass Escalator."
http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/v...
"A common complaint expressed by some men and women librarians is the idea of a glass escalator for males in the field. Women expressed frustration at men promoted rapidly into management or administrative positions (Williams, 1992; Greer, 2001). Men are just as frustrated that they are often pushed up the career ladder when they are perfectly content in their present position. One male who desired to work as a children’s librarian was encouraged to move into administration after only six months on the job. He has stayed in his original position for 10 years but only by resisting promotion (Williams, 1992).
"The concern expressed by Suzanne Hildenbrand that men would continue to dominate administrative and director positions has been questioned and contradicted by Paul Piper & Barbara Collamer. They point out that female library directors now outnumber males by nearly a 3 to 1 margin (Hildenbrand, 1999; Piper & Collamer, 2001)."
So, languages and dialects have some sort of (nebulously defined) level of prestige relative to any particular population, and the prestige of a particular language/dialect is one of those factors for a bunch of cultural phenomena, such as where and whether it's appropriate to use a particular language/dialect in a particular social setting, and whether a language is taught to children, etc, etc, etc.
Anyway, point being, prestige is also one of those things you see in careers too. It may be that there aren't more men banging down the doors to get into dietetics and nursing because those jobs aren't perceived to be as prestigious as being a doctor.
People aspire to being the President of the United States, or a doctor, or lawyer or whatever. They don't aspire to being middle management, or nursing home attendants, or city clerks.
(p.s. I think that gender imbalance in any field is questionable/problematic. But on a pragmatic basis there's actual material harm when all of the prestigious and high earning fields are particularly biased.)
In the US I think it's likely that men just don't want to be nurses. Some men do want that and there are male nurses, but it's rare. It doesn't have to be because they're afraid of perceptions. It can be because they don't desire to do that job.
I think it's due to the fact that in our society, men aren't socialized to think about feelings, and in fact, men are socialized to not have them. So it's not a surprise that these professions that require some form of feeling caring for one another lack men. For example teaching (sympathizing and empathizing with students and caring about their future), nursing (caring about patients well being and health), and PR (caring about the success of your customers) all require feeling.
I have seen no similarly strong push to get women involved in (say) garbage collection, which is also traditionally male. Yes, equality there would be great, too, but that inequality isn't as big a factor in preventing women from an equal share of power and influence in society.
Meanwhile, there are efforts to get men involved in higher-status traditionally female jobs like nursing. But there simply aren't many high-status/high-paying jobs that are traditionally female... which is pretty much the point. (Looking at the article, I'm surprised to see psychologists/therapists presented as predominantly female. When I hear "psychologist", the first image that comes to mind is Freud.)
Women have the privilege to be able to choose a low paying profession (which offers more flexibility/time for family). The privilege is theirs because they control reproduction.
May I ask what criteria you used to come to that conclusion? What do you use to measure equality? You seem to have analyzed both sides and I'm curious to hear how you arrived at your conclusion.
Given all that, here's one glimpse of how I'd start to answer your question (meant only to point in the right direction, since I don't have time to build a convincing case). I think I'd say that my active definition of "equality" is something not far from "equality of opportunity" and perhaps also "equality in everyday experience". Our society seems to inhibit women from taking the same risks that it allows for men. Some of that is formalized (e.g. women in the US Army haven't been allowed to serve on the front lines) but a lot of it is buried deep in societal attitudes. I couldn't begin to trace how that happens, but everyone seems to agree on the result: men are overrepresented at the upper and lower ends of society. In our system, women are systematically "sheltered", which sounds nice, but it means that they are prevented from living up to their true potential, and that can be soul-killing.
The "everyday experience" side is (I think) closely related to that on some deep level, but probably feels quite different on the surface. It's hard to summarize, but basically I'm thinking about the many ways that women in our society are forced into a defensive mindset when they go about their daily lives.
An anecdote (presented to me as true when I saw it) may illustrate the idea: A high school teacher asked her class to imagine that they were in a shopping mall late at night and had to walk to their car on the far side of the parking lot alone: what precautions would they take on their way there? The guys in the class wanted clarification: was this mall in a bad part of town? Had they seen someone dangerous hanging around to make them worried? And so on: they wanted to know why they were taking precautions. Meanwhile, every single girl had already gotten well into a long list: "Carry my keys in my fist." "Watch under nearby cars." "Have my phone out." "No way I'm going alone: find someone to walk me out there." "I always park under bright lights close to a door." The lists go on and on.
That's just one illustration, but I hope it captures the basic idea that I'm trying to describe. (To be clear, the threat of violence is a big part of this "equality of everyday experience" factor, but far from all of it. I think that there are big doses of "hard to get taken seriously as a professional" mixed in with it, too, for example.) [The same sort of thing happens in other contexts, too: e.g. how Levar Burton always puts his hands in view outside of the car when he's pulled over by the police http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/01/levar-burton-explains-... ]
First, even just the fact that it seems perfectly legit to call him a "manny" was enough. I can't even imagine how much the internet would explode if someone questioned hiring "womengineers."
Second, the fact that the question is even asked. Like there is something EXTRA we need to look at when hiring a man as a nanny that we would not look at for a woman. Skills are skills. A background check is a background check.
Lastly, I was appalled by the women that spoke up about how sketchy it was and that they would advise against it. Thankfully, there were people that spoke up about it being no different. That it would be great to have our boys see a man in such a role.
Ultimately, he didn't make the cut. But this was not a male/female reason. But seeing what I saw, I do feel a bit sorry for the guy as I'm sure this happens more than he knows. I'm sure he has missed out on great jobs because too many of people's friends thought it was too sketchy.
I was somewhat blind to this until the wife opened a daycare in our home. When we interviewed with a new parent, she would very tactfully advise the parents that I might be in charge some days/times. The most common response was 'just let us know what days.' Which was code for: we aren't comfortable with that but we are too polite to say that while he's here. Less than half of the kids showed up the first time she took a day off. My paper airplane tournament was missing a number of contestants.
Then I had a few candid conversations with friends who had children. Almost universally wouldn't consider a male daycare provider. Or any daycare situation where a male would be even temporarily unsupervised with children.
It was disappointing to see that level of bigotry. While there aren't going to be men manning the barricades over daycare and teaching, it is something that should change. If you want your daughters to learn STEM, it might be a man teaching them. Try not to panic.
Women are weird. They're exceptionally passive aggressive, and they love gossiping like there was a fire sale on it. It doesn't help that the few female OT's that I've had to shadow were not my cup of tea. I didn't think they were nice at all, and I could see them being overtly political or passive aggressive. Also, as others have mentioned in this thread, there is a very real bias I may have to contend with as a male in a female dominated profession.
Currently, I want to work in pediatrics. I like the idea of working in the schools and with kids. However, I DO see that others, especially women, may view that with a wary eye. It sucks.
There is a bright side though. If you're a single guy, damn, the women... Lots of pretty women. That's something that I don't miss about tech.