 |
Looks like the progressive Libertarian Gender Engineer Feminists are taking note that they are no longer in the perceptual moral lead. It must be scary for them.If women are more likely to be employed then men are, then why would they reward men who work hard? women who are autonomous are not in need of cash. could it be that our entire culture is deteriorating because we are not rewarding men for hard work? The other question is how do we reward women's libido? working hard and getting ugly from it would not quench a woman's needs.
Nineteenth and early century anti-Semitism flourished in part because many Europeans didn’t understand that the economy wasn’t a zero-sum game in which gains for Jews can only come at the expense of gentiles. Today’s fears that economic gains for women somehow harm men are similarly misplaced. Even if women end up out-earning men (which they are still far from doing), that does not mean that men have been harmed, any more than gentiles suffer because of the much higher average income and educational attainment of Jews. But the evidence underpinning the case for male decline doesn’t add up. Most of it consists of the well-known facts men now have slightly lower levels of educational attainment compared to women, and never-married men trail comparable women in income. However, there is no actual decline in male performance in either field. Rather, what has happened is that women are doing much better than before thanks to economic and social changes that have opened up new opportunities for them. When several European nations lifted legal disabilities imposed on Jews in the 19th century, the percentage of Jews in various occupations and educational institutions rapidly increased, and the percentage of gentiles in the same fields fell. Obviously, gentiles were not “in decline.” Rather, Jews were doing better because of the easing of discrimination against them. Much the same can be said of women over the last few decades. On balance, men actually benefit from the rise of women, just as gentiles benefited from that of the Jews. Everyone is better off when society is able to more fully benefit from developing the talents of more of its people.Cato Unbound has an interesting symposium on the changing status of men in society, including a lead essay by Kay Hymowitz arguing that men are in decline and “falling behind.” The idea that the men are declining is not unique to Hymowitz. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger has a book advancing the same thesis. Other writers have also taken up this mantra.
Comparing Jews to women is rather silly. It is fair to say the attributes are not the same. Jews might not have expertise in the same skills as women and vice versa. To bring up economic issues one must take this into consideration.
It’s also worth noting that men continue to dominate the highest levels of achievement in many occupations, in part because the variation in male achievement is greater than that among women. Men are more likely to become high school dropouts than women(thereby explaining some of the data cited by Hymowitz), but they are also more likely to be at the top of the class or their profession. yes,but a minority of elite men who make more then women will not effect the ecosystem
Hymowitz also argues that men have suffered because of the “collapse of marriage norms.” However, the data shows that only about 20% of men aged 40–44 have never been married. And even that twenty percent doesn’t all consist of people deprived of marriage opportunities by social change. Some men (like some women) simply don’t want to be married, and anywhere from 3 to 9 percent of men are gay (gay marriage is a recent phenomenon, and is still available in only a few states). Marriage continues to be available to those men who want it.er... marriage is not available for men who argue against these progressive points. just look at MoveOn.org advertising. the progressive are openly saying to their peers to use sexuality to further their agenda. There is no doubt in my mind that a person like myself has a harder time getting a mate because we are not open to women taking our jobs.
And despite Hymowitz’s concern that men have lost their status as providers for the family, married men who live with their spouses still have incomes about a third higher than those of married women.Hymowitz does identify two genuine areas of male decline. It is certainly true, that men have suffered a relative loss from the diminishing importance of occupations where physical strength is a key job qualification. On balance, however, men — like women — have benefited enormously form the rise of modern technology that has displaced work previously performed by human brawn. It has made an enormous range of goods more readily available to a wide range of people at lower prices. Men who rely on physical strength to make a living were relatively more in demand fifty years ago. But their overall standard of living was far lower than today.The married men are expected to share the income. I'm not certain the same is true with women.Whether or not married men should be the primary bread-winners in their families, the majority still are.
that is if the men can afford the goods at all Also I'm not sure if this assumption is true at all. not sure where they see that.Hymowitz is on firmer ground in pointing to the extremely low marriage rates and high rates of single-parenthood among poor African-Americans and Hispanics. This is a genuine social tragedy. But it has little to do with any broader decline of the male gender. Rather, it is in large part caused by the War on Drugs, which imprisons a high percentage of young inner city males, thereby making family formation extremely difficult. The best way to begin to restore family values in poor minority communities is to end the War on Drugs. That’s likely to be a lot more helpful than worrying about the supposed decline of males.if you take all the jobs away from men then the black market is the only solution.
I'm not sure I see any argument here either.
UPDATE:...Hymowitz doesn’t, in so many words, say that men are in decline, merely that they are “falling behind.” That phrasing is consistent with a view that men are better off than before, but merely haven’t made as many gains as women have in recent years. Still, it’s hard to justify concern about men “falling behind” unless there is some actual harm to men involved, as opposed to merely having slightly lower educational attainment (and among the never-married, slightly lower income) than women.
via volokh.com
do a Google search for, "Mancession". It is real. The men are feeling it. The reason this topic has come up is because obviously the feminists can feel the angry breathing down their necks. I would go much further then say that women have cost men jobs. I would go so far as to say all our economic ills relate to this Gender revolution dating back to the mid 20th century and reaching it's zenith in the early 90s. I'm glad we now have cancer suffering Barbara Ehrenreich (Karma is a BITCH ain't it?) and Gloria Steinem's attention, but our society is now in decline. The cultural engineers are now screaming about proof. They are attempting to obscure... but when you are talking about social science there is no proving anything. The rage begins while the feminists play socratic after censoring men in the University for decades. Consider this Larry Summers's revenge. It isn't a matter of asking if women caused damage at this point. It is a matter of asking where the terrorism will launch. Gabrielle Giffords is the start. Our friend Anders in Norway is one of many. While the progressives point fingers at bloggers,,, there are zillions of men who are about to react. See how Socratic the feminists are in the University when faced with a gun.... oh... and don't send the police to my door. That was tried already. I'm here to give the message. I'm not here to kill anyone. There will be others to do it for me. Till that point... go ahead and make little arguments about if the feminist movement has effected men or not.
Randy: “. No wonder 75% of divorces are filed by women. What is the economic incentive to stay married when you can take the kids and most of your ex-husband’s paycheck.” Yes, every single divorced woman I know says that she is so much better off working a full time job and taking care of the kids.With all that free time they have, they write about how rotten men are. “Women say they want equality but then parade around in their Slut marches acting like they are completely blameless when it comes to sexual misconduct and sexual violence. Just don’t fault a female college student because she goes out in a top with her boobs popping out and a skirt that barely covers her behind, then flirts with men endlessly because the attention makes her feel good, doesn’t bring a dollar to buy her own drinks because she is going to con men into buying them all for her, then dance in a sexually suggestive manner with a man, and then off all things don’t expect a man to get any ideas that she might want something more than to wave “ta-ta” at the end of the night and go home. If women truly think that kind of behavior is acceptable and risk free then they really are from Venus.” So why do you keep falling for such behavior? ” In the USSA, women use marriage and politics to gain wealth, status and opportunity that by their merits they would not deserve.”
 |
You can PROVE Anything About Boys Without Fathers...
|
the economy has killed blue collar jobs. and yet the stimulus money was used to attempt to push pink colar (where there is real growth) into taking jobs from men.
