Women beat men to jobs due to guys' bad social skills. Whoa – you mad, fellas? Maybe these eggheads have a point... While the world worries about savvy computers taking people's jobs, it may want to focus more on how to retrain its men, who are evidently ill-equipped for work that's increasingly social. For a research paper titled "The 'End of Men' and Rise of Women in the High-Skilled Labor Market," presented by the US-based National …
Somebody has figured out a way to hire women for their abilities instead of their vaginas and you think the anti-positive-discrimination crowd will get angry at that.
Improving your social skills is a practical step you can take to improve your employability. Changing your sex is not. I doubt many people will dislike this development.
Or it may mean that as you employ more women you need more women to communicate and socialise with them. Either, because of bias against the men, the men speak a different interpersonal language, the men regard them poorly and so a grunt is seen as being more than sufficient or because the men will not engage with them due to concerns over their mental stability, maturity and the risk of false allegations. It may also mean that the economy is moving from making stuff to talking about stuff.
So it's good that eggheads have finally come up with ways that women can contribute to a diverse team, even if the rest of us already knew that.
I've given my view on diversity before, with the anecdote about a document in Chinese script that didn't derail a project because there was someone available who could read it. Diversity works because people are different, if we were all the same it would serve no purpose.
What the hell...
... is going on in that picture???
WW1 PTSD therapy using the favorite weapon in the prehistoric psychiatrist arsenal - electric shock. Why on earth did someone decide that it is the right picture for this story is beyond me. Considering the time it was posted most likely getting the afternoon beer drip and the morning espresso drips mixed up.
To my surprise, the gender battles seem to be continuing unabated. In many ways we haven't moved on from characters from Jane Austin and Shakespeare. Actually both are worth looking at in the light of our "modern" views.
Maybe equality is just never going to happen. Or at least our massive obsession around the topic seems to be going nowhere...
Maybe equality is just never going to happen.
Maybe we are not equal to start off with?
Like it or not testosterone is a behaviour altering substance. While it does not change your IQ (unless you overdose on it), it does change your attitude.
Sure, the genders statistically come out equal on IQ, memory, etc tests. That is however only one side of the coin. It is possible to devise an aptitude/attitude test where one gender will get better scores (*). There can be a test which skews results in favour of the ladies same as there can be a test which skews them in favour of the male(**). It is a physiological and biochemical fact, claiming it does not exist and leading a militant crusade against it Andrea Dworkin style is just stupid.
(*)The social side is actually where ladies do better. This is a fact. We have that from our simian ancestry. If you observe a bonobo (to a lesser extent normal Chimp) group there are two societies - an extremely complex one run by the females and a simplistic hierarchy run by males in parallel. Just like a proverbial high school (but with more sh*gging)
(**)The funny bit here is that the ladies are way better than us men in altering their behaviour to game rigged tests like this. This is also a fact.
Maybe we are not equal to start off with?Like it or not testosterone is a behaviour altering substance.
Like it or not, you might be a little behind the times on this one.
Like it or not, you might be a little behind the times on this one.
I disagree with this one. Nothing personal, but I have seen more than enough results of Testosterone doping from the "Golden Age of Eastern European SportDope". Close and personal.
So I definitely beg to differ on the claim that it is not a behaviour altering substance. The fact that it is not gender specific - that is something that book gets right. Women also produce it and some produce in ample quantities too. The ones that don't sometimes have it prescribed as a supplement too. It is one of the things ladies get prescribed if their sex drive is too low and they would like to fix it. If THAT is not a behavioural change use case, dunno what is.
"Like it or not testosterone is a behaviour altering substance."
Apparently, though, it doesn't make you more aggressive: it makes you fairer.
Apparently, though, it (testosterone) doesn't make you more aggressive: it makes you fairer.
Your quote is based on the 2009 study on women. Source
Here's a 2009 study conducted on men. ".Using the Ultimatum Game from behavioral economics, we find that men with artificially raised T, compared to themselves on placebo, were 27% less generous towards strangers with money they controlled... Men in the lowest decile of DHT were 560% more generous than men in the highest decile of DHT. We also found that men with elevated testosterone were more likely to use their own money punish those who were ungenerous toward them." Source
With studies that shown aggression with testosterone, concluding testosterone as a behaviour altering substance is probably the best non-bias conclusion for the time.
@Brewster's Angle Grinder - there's a caveat to that; other studies have shown that hormone levels in 'average' people tend to be have slightly negative effects compared with folk whose hormone levels (whether of testiosterone or oestogen) are unusually low. One study I saw even appeared to show a slightly higher normal IQ in folk who are hormonally nearer the middle than average males and females.
So it could well be that the testosterone per se doesn't induce fairness - it;s the dragging of the average hormonal environment to the centre that does. (I would add that my personal experiences seem to confirm this)
We didn't get equality, we may have actually overshot it. We went from men on the top - to women being pushed to the top, and men being unfairly held back in the name of progress. We also enacted many laws and social standards that punish men for being men but praising everything women do. How many times have you heard "toxic masculinity" mentioned recently?
I constantly see highly qualified women dropping out of the workforce at around 40. As long as women believe that they are ones that mind the house and look after the children, they are the ones that will have to choose between career and family.
If women want both a career and a family, then they will have to start choosing men [1] that are also willing to have both a career and a family. This means that both partners have to work part-time and both will have to do the housework and raise the children. It also means that good childcare facilities and /or willing & able grandparents are nearby. It also means that the men will have to find employers that are willing to have them work part-time.
Furthermore, said employers will have to be understanding when the man has to bring his daughter to the hospital for an 11am appointment. A lot has to change for men and their employers for partners to share in parental and work responsibilities. This invariably means that the pair will earn less but this a part of the price that will have to be paid.
In short, gender [2] roles for men especially have to change on the grounds that gender roles have changed.
[1] well, the heterosexual women will anyway.
[2] personally, I prefer the term 'gender' for how the sexes may conduct themselves. It is very heavily dependent on time and culture. I prefer the term 'sex' for the biological division. 'Male' & 'Female' denote the sex, 'masculine' and 'feminine' denote the gender.
If women want both a career and a family, then they will have to start choosing men [1] that are also willing to have both a career and a family.
I knew a couple where, to start with, the wife stayed at home to look after the children and the husband went out to work. They quickly realised that the wife had much more earning potential (and enjoyed her old job a lot more than the husband enjoyed his) so they swapped: The husband stayed at home and the wife worked. It worked really well for them.
"They quickly realised that the wife had much more earning potential (and enjoyed her old job a lot more than the husband enjoyed his) so they swapped: The husband stayed at home and the wife worked."
Mrs P and I are currently doing exactly this with our recent twins. I am better equipped temperementally to deal with high-dependency creatures with limited communication skills than Mrs P, and she is far more career-minded than I am. Contrary to some comments here, I have had no problems with respect once the initial "there's a man at the playgroup" reaction has passed. In fact, people are impressed (which is a bit sad, since it shouldn't really be worthy of any note).
Well ......
Before Mrs Hmm popped two kids, we had the chat about whod do the kids - post boobs and all.
At he grand old age of 32 Mrs Hmm was fed up with her current job.
So, she had a 8 year break til littlest Hmm started school. Now shes back at work FT - both Hmms being old enough to come back home and not burn the house down.
However, she does know work with women who, even after their kids have reached 16 still insist on not returnign to work.
May the real question is why society thinks ts acceptable for women to avoid work even when their kids no longer need any parental care.
Oh, worse, why society has to fund single parents with benefits with kids older than 11?
At which age kids no longer need parental care? Being able to find the house is just a basic capacity. I see lot of jerks around exactly because their parents believe they were grown up enough to take care of themselves. Even more so in a society that pampers them in the wrong way, including school.
I'd suggest people who are not interested to grow children properly should avoid to have them in the first place. Creating a good adult is a very difficult task, and takes a lot of proper parental care. Having children just to show your reproductive organs work and have been used it's not a good idea.
I see lot of jerks around exactly because their parents believe they were grown up enough to take care of themselves.
I see definitely more of them in the generation of pansies produced by the RSPCC which sues anyone and their dog if they have left a child under 16 unattended for 5 minutes.
Our generation went to school in cities with population of 3+ million across half of town on public transport from the age of 7 and came back home with nobody around so we had to warm up lunch for ourselves. With gas. As there was no frigging microwaves. There were less jerks, not more.
There is a difference however. Our parents did spend some time with us even after they came back home knackered after 6 O'clock. Probably more than a lot of stay at home parents do as it is the TV raising the kids while they are having their intravenous [ prosecco | lager | cider ] drip.
In the US most families, there is no choice in *most* cases. You must make approx. 50k usd/yr to take care of a family of 4. And America's largest employer, Wal-Mart, does not pay much above minimum wage. And no, forcing everyone to get a college degree will never work.
With wages lagging inflation; esp. the cost of shelter, transportation, education, and medical care; having a single bread winner does not work.
<quote>personally, I prefer the term 'gender' for how the sexes may conduct themselves. It is very heavily dependent on time and culture. I prefer the term 'sex' for the biological division. 'Male' & 'Female' denote the sex, 'masculine' and 'feminine' denote the gender.</quote>
It would be more accurate to say that "masculine" and "feminine" refer to the sex/gender stereotypes. If you instead equate gender with the stereotype, you end up with a very large chunk of society having their sex and gender supposedly not match. While a tiny percentage of society might favor that logic, I'm pretty sure most caring guys who enjoy cooking & being around little kids won't agree that their gender is female.
The paper took as granted "that women have a comparative advantage at tasks that involve 'brains' as opposed to 'brawn,'" with the authors citing various academic papers to that effect.
What does that even mean?
The real world shows that engineering and abstract thinking is an occupation best left to the male brain. Other "brain-involving" occupations may show balanced or reversed ratios, it completely depends. I don't know how LGBTUIOP brains would work, and I don't particulary care.
As for brawn - yeah, the real world also shows things about that, in spite of gurrrll power propagandists telling whoever is ready to listen that women are excellent for firefighting, policing in diverse neighborhoods or military frontline duty (the last one is utterly retarded in more ways in one; also - want children? stay out of toxic industrial environments, lady!)
The real world shows that engineering and abstract thinking is an occupation best left to the male brain. Other "brain-involving" occupations may show balanced or reversed ratios, it completely depends.
And it's a pretty well known fact that the way STEM subjects are generally taught from the earliest ages of childhood tend towards putting girls and women off. Perhaps, just maybe, if this were addressed as well as some of the rampantly stagnant sexist views that are clear in such industries, we'd see more women in them.
I don't know how LGBTUIOP brains would work, and I don't particulary care.
So...your sexuality changes your ability to think/do these jobs? Really?
As for brawn - yeah, the real world also shows things about that, in spite of gurrrll power propagandists telling whoever is ready to listen that women are excellent for firefighting, policing in diverse neighborhoods or military frontline duty (the last one is utterly retarded in more ways in one; also - want children? stay out of toxic industrial environments, lady!)
Seriously? I think the 1940's called and they'd like their ideas on sexual equality back.
Are you honestly claiming that women can't/shouldn't be able to choose careers in these fields? I know plenty of women who could kick the arses of, are fitter than and in many ways "better" than men. If you took your head out from your own posterior occasionally, you might notice them too.
"And it's a pretty well known fact that the way STEM subjects are generally taught from the earliest ages of childhood tend towards putting girls and women off."
If you mean that they contain STEM then yes, you're right.
Otherwise, please elaborate.
Oh and why does biology buck the trend?
Are the biology teachers less interested in putting off girls or do the girls (and I might be going way out on a limb here) tend to find the subject matter more interesting than other STEM subjects?
The thing about brawn is that it improves with use in a fairly straightforward way, so that any woman who wants a brawn-based job could probably achieve the necessary if motivated. And while at the elite end of the spectrum, men do outperform women in e.g. athletic world records, male elite-level performance isn't required for very many jobs. Further, at least with brawn-based jobs a large part of the test for suitability is likely to be fairly straightforward.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
