The gender gap

[pErvinalia]

(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.

Why would you guess that?

[pErvinalia]

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.

Not even you believe this bullshit. Although, if you actually did do this, it might go some ways to explaining your behaviour here.

[pErvinalia]

Well you quote a study to support an argument and then dismiss it when you don't agree or like something else it says!

. Classic 42.

[pErvinalia]

Well you quote a study to support an argument and then dismiss it when you don't agree or like something else it says!

The issue seems to me still very much to be about power and expectations. Men are not giving up their dominance of the workplace and/or domestic life easily, consistently or for many I suspect willingly. Many would give lip service to the notion of a partnership of equals, but perhaps they hold onto the notion that when push comes to shove they need to be ready to be the 'leader'. That may remain the case for a very long time.

Domestic chores are not going to be fair, because people are fucked, not because of gender.

I used to have a boss who was insane (and lovely). She used to lament the failure of the staff to fill the coffee machine reservoir. I watched for awhile, and saw what happened. If someone emptied the reservoir, or found it empty, they filled it, as one normally would. This boss would fill it if there was 1 cup missing. Because of this, she would fill it much more often than others.

Thing is, it didn't matter. She did all that extra filling (and complaining) but no-one was ever in crisis...she could have left it, filling it only when empty, but instead tried to apply her obsession to those around her.

I let her fill it more often, and let her complain. After she left, strangely, it was never a problem again.

If you asked her, you would hear that almost no-one else ever filled the reservoir, and that she 'had to do it herself' most of the time.

So the data is more than a bit slippery.

What is 'fair', and why is it presumed to exist, in domestic chores or anything?

If someone chooses a partner, and stays with them for years while they avoid doing dishes, should we feel sorry for them for 'having' to do all those dishes?

A long time ago, a partner and I were setting up house. I said that I would not be interested in much kitchen, and one pot, plastic cutlery and paper plates were all I would be willing to invest in. Since they were a 'foodie', they insisted on lots of cookware, plates, silver...the whole usual kitchen compliment...creating a bunch of expense and work. Who do you think should bear that cost? Both? Who should do the cooking and dishes?

Needless to say, she was quite put out that I didn't appreciate all her work. Especially when I ate beans or ramen noodles, no matter what she cooked for herself. So was her 2 hours of cooking part of the 'domestic chores'? Was my 20 minutes of cooking and eating also tallied? Should I have done more? Should she have quit wasting hours in the kitchen so as to enjoy more free time?

My bet is that she still spends HOURS SLAVING over a hot stove, for a family that isn't properly grateful for her 'work'. (haven't seen her in decades, but hear that she has a family now)

Your inane anecdotes aren't "data".

[pErvinalia]

Speaking of 'gender gap', is there enough data to see how single parents are doing, and whether there is a difference between male single-parents and female single-parents? Could we look to the childrens success and draw any conclusions?

Or is it simply true that if female single parents raise children who are more likely to die young from heart trouble (for example) that it will be blamed on the Patritarchy?

So now you've moved on from inane anecdotes to totally made up scenarios in an attempt to push your anti-woman agenda?

[pErvinalia]

The issue seems to me still very much to be about power and expectations. Men are not giving up their dominance of the workplace and/or domestic life easily, consistently or for many I suspect willingly.

I suspect many men do not perceive their own dominance.

Really? Look at the figures on sexual assault and domestic violence. They suggest that on average us men have an expectation of power and dominance.

[pErvinalia]

When we go out to dinner, my wife drives,

Yeah, but you're a cuck.

[mistermack]

Evolution made men and women different. I wonder why? Maybe it's because it's of benefit to the species, to have two different types. You can cover more eventualities.
Females CAN cope better with infants, on average. And males CAN handle a weapon better, and scare off predators. On average.
Females CAN build bonds with close allies better, on average. And males CAN fight rival groups better, and protect the clan territory better. Again, on average.

So out of one species, evolution has managed to cover more behaviour, with a bit of sexual dimorphism.
Nowhere near as much as with Gorillas though, or Chimpanzees, or Baboons.
Males of those species are twice as big as females, and have huge canine teeth as weapons.

The evolution of humans has tended towards less sexual dimorphism, over a period of six million years.
It's a consequence of our social organisation tendency of one-male-one-female families.
You get the greatest dimorphism where there is a alpha male and a harem of females. Males need the size and aggression to stand a chance of passing on their genes. Not so with humans now.

The bit of dimorphism we have now is a reducing remnant. Like your Coccyx.

[Brian Peacock]

Evolution made men and women different. I wonder why? Maybe it's because it's of benefit to the species, to have two different types. You can cover more eventualities.
Females CAN cope better with infants, on average. And males CAN handle a weapon better, and scare off predators. On average.
Females CAN build bonds with close allies better, on average. And males CAN fight rival groups better, and protect the clan territory better. Again, on average.

So out of one species, evolution has managed to cover more behaviour, with a bit of sexual dimorphism.
Nowhere near as much as with Gorillas though, or Chimpanzees, or Baboons.
Males of those species are twice as big as females, and have huge canine teeth as weapons.

The evolution of humans has tended towards less sexual dimorphism, over a period of six million years.
It's a consequence of our social organisation tendency of one-male-one-female families.
You get the greatest dimorphism where there is a alpha male and a harem of females. Males need the size and aggression to stand a chance of passing on their genes. Not so with humans now.

The bit of dimorphism we have now is a reducing remnant. Like your Coccyx.

Well the thing here is not that there's a difference between the sexes but that one sex thinks and acts as if the other is naturally inferior because of that difference.

[Rum]

What Brian said.

Plus the 'why' question r.e. evolution. There is no why that needs us to mould our behaviour to meet some evolutionary 'expectation'. Evolution is just dumb luck more or less. We are (possibly) unique in being able to consciously model our behaviour according to our beliefs and values.

[mistermack]

Well the thing here is not that there's a difference between the sexes but that one sex thinks and acts as if the other is naturally inferior because of that difference.

No, it's about the market value of what they do.

The market value of primary school teachers of both sexes is roughly equal. Although, if I were hiring, I think I'd prefer women, and offer them slightly more.

But if I was hiring a Premiership footballer, or a Formula 1 driver, I'd be prepared to pay the top men more.

If I wanted my dick sucked for money, I'd DEFINITELY be prepared to pay women more.
But one in fifty men would prefer a man. And an unknown number wouldn't care either way.

The market should decide.

Edit :
In any case, it's not one sex deciding that the other is inferior.
This view is held by millions of women too, and historically, it's been a tiny minority of women fighting for equality.

In the past, women have been almost as reluctant to accept a female doctor or pilot or MP as men.

[Scot Dutchy]

Dont mock it until you try it.

[mistermack]

Dont mock it until you try it.

I'm sorry, you'll have to go elsewhere.

I dreamt it once and it was horrible.

[Forty Two]

Well the thing here is not that there's a difference between the sexes but that one sex thinks and acts as if the other is naturally inferior because of that difference.

I'm not sure it's that simple or black and white. About which sex is it openly said with impunity that "________ can do anything better than _______?"

About which sex is it routinely, and almost endlessly said and written that they can do all sorts of things better than the other?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... patriarchy https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/ ... en-things/ https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jens ... or-to-men/

Who can have the toughest job on Earth, just by "being."

"Being a mother is the toughest job on Earth." Oprah Winfrey 92% of mothers agree - https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archi ... om/277685/

"Women, we do it better than men." - Michelle Obama.

"Women make better bosses." Barack Obama.

Television portrayal of men - stupid, bumbling, childlike, butt of endless jokes - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinkin ... fools.html

[mistermack]

"Being a mother is the toughest job on Earth." Oprah Winfrey 92% of mothers agree - https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archi ... om/277685/