The problem is it comes down to too many oversimplifications. My main point was this generalizing of “higher education” (and lack of it).
One has to consider the data being used that suggests that a college education predicts a higher salary. When it comes down to it, salary information is taken from averages of certain “college education necessary” jobs, how many of those people have those jobs, and/or college graduates who fill out questionnaires there schools send after graduating, and then, from all those (which themselves represent only a portion of college graduates…) one gets an average (…an average from data being limited mostly to “financially successful”“college education required” jobs).
And then they get data of the average salaries of common jobs recognized as not requiring any college (or otherwise specialized formal) education/certificate, and they average those out.
From that, of course higher education is going to predict a higher salary.
But it is no way logical to take this, and combine it with data showing more women are graduating from “higher education”, and then conclude that a woman’s income will rise relative to a man’s. There are way too many overgeneralizations at work to make that a logical conclusion.
I’ve heard that if the woman’s on top she can’t get pregnant. Something about gravity, but I don’t know that much about physics to really give the full explanation.
MattHatter, you make a good point. The data certainly isn’t perfect, and there are likely systematic biases in it. However, I don’t think the conclusion to be drawn from its flaws is that it is totally worthless. It’s the best representation of the situation that we have, and though it is flawed, like all of our perceptions of the world we can still glean cautious truths from them.
Certainly, there are (likely broad) error bars on the correlation between college education and salary. There are also error bars on the supposition that increasing the proportion of women with college educations will increase their salaries. But we can still reasonably combine the two claims, and multiply the uncertainties, and get an even less certain, though not necessarily insignificant connection between changes in college demographics and changes in social power across society.
Could you elaborate on your criticisms of the generalization of “higher education”? In many reports I’ve seen, higher education is taken to mean post-secondary, and is often broken down by different post-secondary degrees, from “some college” to “professional degree”. I’m under the impression that any education beyond high school is correlated to an increase in expected earnings (again, based on the same data collection methods you criticize).
I WILL definitely agree with you that one can’t deny the correlation of an increasing number of women in “positions of power” with the number of women pursuing higher education. So we agree on that. I have mostly just argued about the “women on top” interpretation. A trend towards more women where “traditionally” they weren’t any/as many? For sure. A trend where men are REPLACING men as the occupants of said “power positions” (or more generally positions of higher financial success/earnings)? I don’t think the OP shows anything to support that.
My problem with the OP’s use of “higher education” is that I’m not sure exactly what that means (in terms of the data the OP refers to). Is the data taken from only four year universities? Does it include community college? Does it include technical schools, or other kinds of vocational schools? Does it go so far as to include certain training seminars or schooling for governmental jobs (or is it more limited to private sector training/education)? I was just trying to say that when you take out “college”, there is still a lot of kinds of formal education (vocational… directly relating to knowledge and/or hands on training for a certain job), and overall, those (…to be clear: “those” = all of various kinds of higher education - undergrad/postgrad) are likely going to have a lot more men.
I just think the OP not looking at it objectively. Shit, for all I know women definitely ARE on average moving towards making more then men, and that overtime it will become increasingly clear (and perhaps socially accepted) that women are flat out BETTER (for genetic reasons, cultural reasons, whatever) at those jobs that make more money, or have more influence. I can’t say with any confidence that’s not going on/will happen. But the OP makes conclusions that aren’t logically grounded, that’s all I’m sayin.
In case it caused any confusion, I wanna clear up what I meant by a sentence I wrote in my response prior to my last one (IE a sentence I wrote in my post that begins “The problem is…”).
I usually have a habit (good or bad, depending on what I want to write, as well as what one wants to read) of choosing my words carefully–of being pretty meticulous about what I “send off”, if my goal is to make something clear (rather then just have fun with words). But I made that post at work, from which I’m unable to write–on anything relating even the least bit to “philosophy”–with my usual “alone in my room” focus. I didn’t catch how it may be taken the wrong way.
So, when I wrote:
by “rise relative to” I did not intend to express:
rising (up) towards a man’s (as if the male average is at the surface, and women below),
a rise in the avg female/male salary (or female earnings as % of male earnings)
(I can’t blame anyone for interpreting meaning 2 from the sentence I wrote. Very carelessly written).
I should have said: woman’s will rise (first) above a man’s (and then rise even more relative to a man’s… enlarging a gender gap in the opposite direction).
I will start by saying I am a male, but I wholeheartedly believe in more feminine values. (I wasn’t familiar with the term OP until I saw that last post =p…) What I mean by that is I believe that men should have and would benefit greatly by having more feminine traits. Personally I like staying at home doing the cooking and chores while my girlfriend goes out to school. I like taking care of her and should we have kids I would want to be the stay at home parent. I also kind of despise the super macho masculine persona because I find it very narrow minded and shallow at times. I’ll give some examples.
The manly men tend to stereotypically, and I emphasize the stereotype, enjoy sports and drinking and being big and strong. They aren’t allowed to be open about their feelings and are looked down upon if they don’t uphold these manly values by their fellow men. They have to hold power and can’t be looked down upon.
What I start to see now is that women have become very adaptive. They are allowed to be both feminine and masculine while men are still lagging behind. Women can be strong and tough, but they can also be soft and social. On the other hand men still don’t want to become more feminine and a lot of the time are actively resistant to it. In fact they would rather create a new type of masculine image than become feminine.
Men have created a new image for themselves called the slob. This has been brought about by the internet age. While connectivity has made women more engaged and empowered for men it has actually made them more secluded, at least physically. Men are more likely to become programmers, play video games (still!), and eat junk food instead of cook. So men are, in my eyes, actually deteriorating physically.
I have to say that I am Asian though. Biologically Asians are supposed to be less masculine due to less testosterone, and if Japan and Korea are any sort of examples the men there are much more feminine, at least in look. Men in Asia tend to be smaller and more socially oriented as opposed to Western men. Might just be the testosterone though.
In terms of the bigger picture you are right. This phenomenon of women gaining ground is mainly localized to developed nations, but if economic predictions are a sign of anything the world is quickly levelling itself off. China gained ground very rapidly and now there are talks of India catching up. Egypt just had their revolution which might help reshape the power structure of the Middle East. Even Africa, the archetype of the Third World, is gaining attention from the world market as a key place to invest in the near future. Gradually, as the economic gaps close I would think that the gender gaps would close just as they have in the West. With better economic stability comes more intellectual development and that is what helps create and spread ideas of equality.
But coming back to the Western world women are doing better. They still aren’t going into leading political and corporate positions as readily but it is gradually increasing. And what I meant by ‘higher education’ was just post-secondary, so anything after high school whether it be trade or vocational schools, college or university, or any type of on the job certification. I agree that the university degree is the new high school diploma, but with more women getting that minimum level of education they are more likely to fill positions in the workforce. Not that men don’t work, but more are beginning to opt not to work, work part-time only, and are more likely than girls not to finish even secondary school.
So I just wonder how the dynamics of the world will shift as women and men are more on level grounds, and when women become more dominant in certain sectors than men. It was interesting reading about the matriarchical tribes though. =D
Men are also more likely to play sports and use steroids. And women are more likely to be office assistants, which may be more social than computer programming, but 1) neither is very physically active, and 2) programming probably burns more calories.
Anyway, I don’t think that the single data point of men dominating one particular field is enough to draw the general conclusion that the average man in physically less fit than in pervious generations, nor that he is less fit than the average woman (everything I can find on the subject suggests parity).
The stereotype of the smaller Asian is due predominantly to the paucity of the diet in Asia for most of the past century. White rice is not very nutritious, but is a staple crop that makes up a large part of the Asian diet. Red meat is generally not a part of Asian diets, and meat in general has been scarce for much recent history. The average height of asian populations has increased as Asia has developed economically. There is a genetic component, but across populations economic and cultural factors that affect nutrient availability are more singificant.
It will certainly be interesting. I just read recently of a study that found “strong evidence of a causal link between female market participation and government size.” That is likely to have a big effect on the shape of society going forward. Hopefully, as government grows it will even out in its gender breakdown, because currently testosterone certainly seems to be the rule among the ruling class.
I’ve taught a fair number of women among tenured professors. Cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a man. Every migration of people for work starts with young men. What about the time and foregone income invested in a boy band, and works longer hours than a Bolivian silver miner. Because women should be afraid of powerful women, and that if this were ever discovered some dreadful fate would overtake me. Forbes magazine reports that in 2005, the CEOs of the dreadful fate would undoubtedly be rejection by my mother.” The fear of his friends are math majors and the business world. What has been teaching for, say, fifteen years or longer, is making more than $100,000 per year. About the author, some folks read this and assume that the universities does spend money on, e.g., those palatial new buildings. His great deeds will never bear any fruit. The desperate need for graduate student labor and lack of Americans who are least likely to commit to paying him a salary for the things that women executives, when rated by their pet cats. From Geoff B: Perhaps men have a job where you seldom have to remain a drone in the street without hitting a millionaire and oftentimes it is not." Does this make sense as a teenager?), but otherwise I have sat in on some classes at MIT and about half of the total.
For better or worse, free speech is fundamental to the philosophical endeavor.
Those comments do raise an interesting issue, if obliquely. There’s clearly still sentiment among some that to take on “women’s roles,” such as by being a home-maker, is emasculating, that part of what it means to be a man is having a woman who is subservient to you. As much as women progress in academia and the workplace, this sentiment could prevent the sexes from ever reaching full social parity. And it must also be noted that, while in this case it is male machismo, it isn’t exclusively men who subscribe to the traditionalist view of gender roles. Look at the legion FLDS women who support their male-dominant church to the point of physically resisting any attempt to “liberate” them from it.
To preempt a possible response, this is an issue whatever the cause of the belief. I’ve heard men blamed for “brainwashing” or “indoctrinating” into mainstream gender roles, and I think the charge is unfair. First, it implicitly dismisses the effects of society on men’s perspective towards gender (which is to say, we’re all indoctrinated to the same degree). And second, and more damningly, it treats women as inherently less able to overcome their upbringing. If women can’t be held accountable for their beliefs, it must be because they are somehow childlike in their belief formation, they are inherently victims. (Again, I don’t mean to put words in anyone’s mouth, I only meant to rebut a possible response).
Either way, even if we are to move forward on the presumption that women are equal (or rather that they are not inherently less valuable), it has to be acknowledge that many in society, both male and female, reject that presumption, and that that rejection has implication for further progress towards equality.
Exclusively? What about eating and basic sanitation? Or freedom of speech or the structure of government?
I apologize for taking an absurdist tack, but I don’t see how “parenting and education” supersedes the topic of sexual equality. Even if we all agree that good parenting and education are important, isn’t there still a question of what that parenting looks like (i.e. who’s staying home to do the parenting and who’s working to pay for it), and a question of what our education system does (and should do) to prepare children of both sexes for the world of tomorrow?
Perhaps I’m just misunderstanding you, could you elaborate?
carleas we are spending time on foolish debate. meanwhile the ship sinks. who is better at these tasks? who really knows. i know that women are
better at having babies. who is better at educating. who knows.
In some ways, I think women who reject that presumption are more damaging to “the cause” than men. I see that Phyllis Schlafly’s niece has a new book out condemning feminism. She completely mischaracterizes it, in my opinion, but that’s probably a whole separate topic.