The gender gap

[Brian Peacock]

As some wag once said, the difference between women's work and men's work is that women's work is only noticed when it doesn't get done, and men's work is not only noticed when it does.

[Scot Dutchy]

Very true Brian, very true.

[Forty Two]

As some wag once said, the difference between women's work and men's work is that women's work is only noticed when it doesn't get done, and men's work is not only noticed when it does.

The point is that secretarial work is not "women's work." It's work that women choose to do in greater numbers than men do. If lawyers become mostly women, which is the track that seems to be occurring, as now more law students are women than men, there won't be some sudden shift to reduce the pay of lawyers since women are doing it more than men. And, if men became the bulk of the secretaries, you wouldn't see them ruling the office, bossing the lawyers around, and outearning them.

[Galaxian]

This is the disease of "affirmative action". It is a social engineering agenda that uses the general population's naive & childish expectation of "fairness" as a weapon against it...

Fairness is a value. We teach its virtues to our children because we all understand its importance in regulating society.

That's right. The 'Golden Rule' and suchlike. What I was writing about was when 'fairness' oversteps the bounds of decency and morphs into feeble flatulence... That is the meaning of 'affirmative action'; where creatures who can not stand on their own merits are given privileges unbecoming to their capacity. That can only degrade all society & demoralize the able.
It is absolutely clear that people have different talents & capacities. Think about Blues, Jazz, or Olympic events. No affirmative action was/is necessary. No amount of affirmative action would turn Galaxian into Usain Bolt. And no amount of affirmative action can turn Usain Bolt into Galaxian.
Wishful thinking does not improve human society, it destroys it. And "feelings" don't come into it...they're just a device that lawyers use.
Try this experiment, as I did: Go into a pen of sheep and recite to them the multiplication table. They will respond with "Baaa, baaa". In a year of Sundays they become none the wiser or more erudite. Perhaps you beg to disagree?
Then try this: When the sheep are out in the field run after them. I bet they will outlast you. You'll be out of breath long before they will.
THAT is the difference between human abilities. Some have more or less of this or that. Sadly, some don't have anything at all worth diddly squat.

And yet as adults we're often too eager to portray it as a luxury we can ill-afford, because it stops us doing whatever we want to do or getting us whatever it is we want. The values of kindness, compassion, and expressions of empathy and sympathy, tend to go the same way. We're told these are the soft values of the weak minded, the deluded, the naive & child-like, but in reality (remember that Galaxian?) it takes far more personal strength and self control to uphold and live by those values than to live with one's head up one's arse repeatedly scratching the never-ending itch of one's subliminal, unarticulated desires.

No, speak for yourself. As an adult I don't think of it like that. I pay for much of it without complaining. Neither do I do whatever I want to do. Quite the opposite, I refrain from many things I am entitled to, and remain scrupulously sensitive, honest & incorruptible. To such an extent that it is an obsessive compulsive disorder, and the government and no-hopers take advantage of my good nature.

Would to rather live in a world that aspired to and endorsed the values of fairness, kindness, and compassion, or one which praised their antithetical opposites?

Then you have misunderstood how the world operates. Nature is red in tooth & claw; nothing we can do about that.
Tonight, when you go to bed think about what selection pressure has brought about, and continues to select for, psychopathy. Won't say more.

The ultimate aim is depopulation and emasculation of society, so that it can be even more easily controlled than now. Of course, they're not going to come & blurt it out on TV, radio, etc. The MSM doesn't even know about it... they simply parrot whatever news they're given that day.

Lol. The aim isn't to emasculate society (a phrase which expresses a fear at the loss of male potency) but to de-masculate society - or at least to try and get men to stop stroking their.... erm... egos long enough to notice they were not automatically made the most important creatures on Earth.

Again, you do not see the facts in front of your face. Galaxian is speaking of the pinnacle of the control pyramid. You see only its vulgar base. Neither will I pander to the rewriting of the common vernacular...by design: Emasculate is gender neutral, as is 'mankind'. If it is going to change, it will have to do so gradually, not at the behest of some soy-boy or the 75 self-selecting SJW QRSTUVWXYZ+++ so-called 'genders'.
Remember. In the final analysis: 'There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection!" _Galaxian

[Galaxian]

As some wag once said, the difference between women's work and men's work is that women's work is only noticed when it doesn't get done, and men's work is not only noticed when it does.

The point is that secretarial work is not "women's work." It's work that women choose to do in greater numbers than men do. If lawyers become mostly women, which is the track that seems to be occurring, as now more law students are women than men, there won't be some sudden shift to reduce the pay of lawyers since women are doing it more than men. And, if men became the bulk of the secretaries, you wouldn't see them ruling the office, bossing the lawyers around, and outearning them.

Forty Two, how dare you step out of the bounds of selective wishful thinking? It's indecent!

Also, take the jobs that men are not allowed to do, such as primary school teacher, day care staff, most nursing. Yes, yes, I know that "by law" they are allowed, but in reality, in the 'real' world they are frowned on & so excluded.
Take the actions: Women are allowed to pinch men's bums, but men are not allowed to pinch women's bums. Women can wear what they want. men are not (look at the TV presenters & politicians)....
So there are natural biologically determined differences (see my post above). When push comes to shove, people will take up arms. The trouble makers will simply be sidelined or eliminated. Look at what's happening in Europe: The idiot SJW Merkel tried a criminal act of opening the borders to all & sundry. Now there are repercussions.
But, anyway, these debates are all farts in a howling gale, a piss in a raging ocean. Just 17 years to go...just 17 years...

[Rum]

As some wag once said, the difference between women's work and men's work is that women's work is only noticed when it doesn't get done, and men's work is not only noticed when it does.

The point is that secretarial work is not "women's work." It's work that women choose to do in greater numbers than men do. If lawyers become mostly women, which is the track that seems to be occurring, as now more law students are women than men, there won't be some sudden shift to reduce the pay of lawyers since women are doing it more than men. And, if men became the bulk of the secretaries, you wouldn't see them ruling the office, bossing the lawyers around, and outearning them.

Forty Two, how dare you step out of the bounds of selective wishful thinking? It's indecent!

Also, take the jobs that men are not allowed to do, such as primary school teacher, day care staff, most nursing. Yes, yes, I know that "by law" they are allowed, but in reality, in the 'real' world they are frowned on & so excluded.
Take the actions: Women are allowed to pinch men's bums, but men are not allowed to pinch women's bums. Women can wear what they want. men are not (look at the TV presenters & politicians)....
So there are natural biologically determined differences (see my post above). When push comes to shove, people will take up arms. The trouble makers will simply be sidelined or eliminated. Look at what's happening in Europe: The idiot SJW Merkel tried a criminal act of opening the borders to all & sundry. Now there are repercussions.
But, anyway, these debates are all farts in a howling gale, a piss in a raging ocean. Just 17 years to go...just 17 years...

Plus ça change. I trained as a primary school teacher. The reason these occupations which are 'frowned upon' if men perform them are that way because they are 'naturally biologically determined'? Jesus your capacity for posting garbage knows no bounds.

[Galaxian]

Also, take the jobs that men are not allowed to do, such as primary school teacher, day care staff, most nursing. Yes, yes, I know that "by law" they are allowed, but in reality, in the 'real' world they are frowned on & so excluded...

Plus ça change. I trained as a primary school teacher. The reason these occupations which are 'frowned upon' if men perform them are that way because they are 'naturally biologically determined'? Jesus your capacity for posting garbage knows no bounds.

Well, good for you. But one swallow doth not a spring make...
Your capacity for functional literacy is questionable, as is your capacity for research:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rende ... 554b5105d5
"But when you consider the zeal of anti-men critics in this country and their myopic mission to dismantle masculinity, it makes perfect sense that we have skidded to this juncture.
"Forty years ago, in 1977’s heyday of Her Majesty visiting our shores and Elvis dying, men made up 28.5 per cent of primary school teachers.
"This week, the first national study of teacher numbers revealed that has dropped to 18 per cent."
In the USA it averages at 10.5 %
Worldwide average is also dropping: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQp91d0V4AA18zR.jpg

In the UK it is also dismal: https://www.ielts-mentor.com/images/wri ... achers.png


I hope that you did better preparation for your classes than you do for this forum

[Forty Two]

I reject the notion that those percentages are "dismal." If men wanted to be teachers in greater numbers, they'd go into teaching and teach. Nothing is stopping them. The reality is, it's not a career men tend to gravitate toward right now.

I have a hypothesis about that. Jobs like teaching will attract fewer men in an environment of gender earnings equality (on a job for job basis) because of sexual selection. One of the reasons women select men is because of the man's ability to support her and any potential offspring. There is a known tendency of women to reject men who are of lesser earning power than themselves ("marrying up"). This is not an absolute, but a tendency. So, there is pressure put on men to "earn" and to be seen as having a career which hopefully is superior to that of his spouse and at a minimum "equal."

Apply that fact to a teacher's salary (in the US), and you have salary that generally tracks somewhere within the "average" pay range (to slightly below average) in total compensation. Pay is usually not great, but time off and benefits are above-average. So, you have a guy, say, making $35,000 in his late 20s, has good insurance, a 403(b) retirement plan with a little something in it, dental/vision coverage. Has to scrimp and save if he wants to take a vacation, and it matters if he goes out to dinner this week. It matters if he buys a girl an $8 cocktail. His future outlook is average. They'll live in an apartment, or maybe a small house, and spend most of their time at home, they'll cut coupons and they'll go camping with the kids on vacations and such. That same girl, out and about, also meets engineers in their late 20s pulling $75k and up. Lawyers possibly already over $100k to $150 (much more in NY/LA/Chicago/Atlanta/other metro areas). Accountants at $55k and up. Doctors in residency at $150k and up. Small business owners. Salespeople pulling $50 to $100k. You name it. And, in this day and age, that male teacher is out introducing himself to women all the time who ask what he does, and he says "schoolteacher" and they "oh, that's sweet!" and then they look over at the teacher's wingman, the engineer....

[laklak]

Money talks and bullshit walks, as my momma used to say. Other things being equal (or close enough), who wouldn't choose 100K over 35K? I could always pull because of my raw, unbridled sensuality and staggering intellect, but a bit of dosh never hurt.

[Cunt]

Do you mean the count of posts where you avoid a question?

No, I mean the count of posts where your OCD takes control of you and inhibits you from posting anything sensible.

Not much to say to you beyond asking again why you fear such simple questions...

Maybe it's a trait of you MRA's...

If men are growing up to become 'toxic masculine', should we connect it to this trend of women occupying more and more of our childrens lives, education and overall choices?

I don't know if human experimentation is allowed (probably not) but if we were to increase female animal husbandry in a particular area, say, domestic dogs, could we look at the results and draw conclusions?

Are dogs behaving differently with women training/caring for them compared to men?

Should women be treated better than men? Again, men are not paid fairly (by most measures) instead earning more based on being better negotiators (for example). If women insist on being paid 'fair wages', I think we would have to invent some fair wage first.

Also, with women being able to run businesses just like men, they are able to take over the business world. Unless of course, they are lousy at pitching their ideas to venture capitalists.

[Rum]

(EDIT: This follows 42's last post)
There is certainly a 'tradition' of primary school teachers being female. I accept that. I suspect the reasons are to do with the perception of traditional female roles - nurturing, child care and so on being seen historically as female. We live with our own particular set of circumstances after all. I was changing career from social work to teaching and had seen enough of out of control teenagers so I thought I'd go for primary teaching instead.

Which kind of makes the point. Galaxian says it is about 'natural biologically determined' factors, which is utter balderdash. Females are controlled by their circumstances just as I was at that time by mine.

I think (42) that you are misguided about the 'breadwinner' argument. On a level playing field it doesn't matter who earns more - and in schools I often knew of couples teaching in the same school where the woman was on a higher pay scale and it did not appear to be an issue.

As an aside I really hated teaching. Not because of the kids - loved teaching a room full of 7 and 8 year olds..most of the time anyway. It was the fucking national curriculum and the factory mentality that introduced into the profession. I stuck it for a year and then found a job that was asking for social work and teaching qualifications - I never looked back after that.

[Svartalf]

primary school teachers being female is a tradition? is that a British tradition? because in France, while the profession is mostly female nowadays, it's still in the looming shadow of the Hussars of the Republic, the mostly male schoolteachers that dominated the French public school system from 1970 till at least 1914, if not till 1945... at a time when it was rare that women should receive secondary education and graduate from it.

[Cunt]

(EDIT: This follows 42's last post)
There is certainly a 'tradition' of primary school teachers being female. I accept that. I suspect the reasons are to do with the perception of traditional female roles - nurturing, child care and so on being seen historically as female. We live with our own particular set of circumstances after all. I was changing career from social work to teaching and had seen enough of out of control teenagers so I thought I'd go for primary teaching instead.

Which kind of makes the point. Galaxian says it is about 'natural biologically determined' factors, which is utter balderdash. Females are controlled by their circumstances just as I was at that time by mine.

I think (42) that you are misguided about the 'breadwinner' argument. On a level playing field it doesn't matter who earns more - and in schools I often knew of couples teaching in the same school where the woman was on a higher pay scale and it did not appear to be an issue.

As an aside I really hated teaching. Not because of the kids - loved teaching a room full of 7 and 8 year olds..most of the time anyway. It was the fucking national curriculum and the factory mentality that introduced into the profession. I stuck it for a year and then found a job that was asking for social work and teaching qualifications - I never looked back after that.

I wonder if a woman would be more likely to stay in a shit job like that...

I would guess so. In fact, it is exactly what I've seen a few times. Man gets good teaching job, man finds it sucks donkey dick, man does something else instead.

I've also known many women who hate teaching (for much the same reasons as you describe, with the disengaged parents sometimes a larger complaint) but they are still in it. Getting older, and less likely to try anything else.

That must be good for the kids, right? Loyalty, committment and stick-to-it-iv-ness!

[Rum]

primary school teachers being female is a tradition? is that a British tradition? because in France, while the profession is mostly female nowadays, it's still in the looming shadow of the Hussars of the Republic, the mostly male schoolteachers that dominated the French public school system from 1970 till at least 1914, if not till 1945... at a time when it was rare that women should receive secondary education and graduate from it.

'Tradition' is the wrong word. It is historically a fact that there were rather a lot more female primary teachers than male in the UK. Nor will you be surprised to know there were rather a lot more male primary school head teachers than female. Such has been the way of the world until, hopefully, now.

[Forty Two]

I make no judgments about it. It's accurate, IME. When I was a young buck, out and about, I can recall multiple occasions, when out at bar chatting up a young lady as good as I was able at the time, I recall being asked not only what I did for a living but probing questions looking into what I earned. Usually relatively indirect, but I had the question, many times, asked directly.

These were the heady days, of course, where I would often be Johnathan Zales-Cadbury (related to both the Zales jewelry and Cadbury candy families), in town to visit old friends, and my old friends were a returning fighter pilot from the Persian Gulf War "who doesn't like to talk much about what went on there....and we lost a lot of good men out there..." and another was clothing buyer for Victoria's Secret on Fifth Avenue, among other goodies. So, we were no angels. It was really odd how many would at least play along that I was related to Gustav Zales through my mother, and my father was Francois Cadbury, IV.