This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The minimum deal for both sexes is a congenital illness that kills you in infancy. I think we need to clarify what the minimum deal is for, say, a non-disabled, psychologically normal, non-hideous person who grew up in at least the lower middle class. I don't think this is an unfair winsorizing of the outliers since drawing a conclusion about the normal scope of human outcomes by resting your case on outliers is not good practice.
If you restrict your sample this way and think about it, you'll find that men have far more failure modes and far more agency than women. If you define life success very generally as career you enjoy + spouse you love + kids + financial security + friends (and therefore requiring you to have avoided the vice pits of life on your way through it), I'd say 50% of men fail to thrive. For women, maybe 40%? Still, a man has more agency to own his life and this alone makes the "deal" of being a man better than being a woman on balance. I think this is true in many facets of life. Dating and marriage for instance is pretty bad for the broad middle of women given the dearth of quality men. I do acknowledge that the broad expectations and behaviours of young women incentivize men to be low quality, but that doesn't help a normal woman finding a husband. Leave that aside though, lets just look at work:
Broad swathes of the job market are largely closed to women. Now I don't mean literally closed. What I mean is for the 80% of women who will one day become mothers, many jobs are simply impossible to juggle with that: Virtually every job worked outdoors, finance and law, construction, academia, etc. Not to mention that some of these professions make a woman less attractive a mate to a man because men don't value women for their incomes, but prize femininity and future capacity to have children and fit them into their lives.
Partly because balancing family and work is impossible for many job classes and being a stay-at-home mom means too large a blow to family incomes, women concentrate in just a handful of jobs. One in nine adult American women are either a teacher or nurse. Expand the top job titles to say 25 and that accounts for ~50% of total female employment. Women crowd into these fields partly because of innate biology, but also because these professions -- being dominated by women -- cater to women's fertility preferences. And what are these jobs like? Poorly paid drudgery for the most part. They trap you too with their small number of employers and receiving your compensation in the form of generous pensions. Again creating an incentive not to exercise agency and Keeping people in the same thing for decades. And what's more they require huge amounts of credentialling which pushes women into higher education to accumulate debt. How much of the 60/40 university sex balance is caused by the demands for lower middle class women searching for credential tickets to their job market? A lot I think. And while they are at university they naturally with look for a spouse and find they are at a significant demographic disadvantage -- there are 3 women competing for every 2 men.
All of which is to say there are big trade offs that women face that men do not.
I agree with the broader gist of this, but a few things to pick on.
I'm not sure that's true of law and academia, with some caveats.
And I think the passage below proves too much:
I thought nurses were paid quite well? They are, where I practice. Looking up American statistics, nursing pays 77k median and 82k average in the States; I would think this qualifies as pretty good.
Look at top job titles for both sexes and you’ll find that most work is poorly paid drudgery. It is true that on the male side you get jobs like finance and engineering that are male dominated and are high status/remunerated well, but this is by and large not the majority of work for either sex. I would wager at least – likely significantly more than – 50% of men work as some sort of tradesperson, construction worker, retail, transport, factory working, security, or farming. This even excludes the poorly paid white collar drudgery that you could count administration and most of “tech work” in (For what it was worth, I did check the statistics with at least one Anglosphere country.) (I suppose you could quibble with how poorly paid e.g. tradespeople are, given the meme of 100+k cushy plumber jobs etc, but my understanding is that on average they don’t outearn teachers – and they get to wreck their bodies for it!)
Conversely, looking at jobs that aren’t poorly paid drudgery, women don’t do that badly, especially given that the shift towards large-scale employment of women is only a few decades old. Younger doctors – as a complete cohort – are close to parity, women now outnumber men going to medical school, and female-dominated medical careers aren’t necessarily inferior in pay (and surgeons are predominantly male but also the life of a surgeon isn’t what most women or men want out of life); lawyers are at parity IIRC; accountants and auditors are now mostly women;…
Considering the above, I think the effect of women clustering into fewer types of jobs is less pronounced than you posit. Sex gaps still exist, of course, but sex gaps in favour of women are in as many professions as sex gaps for men now, and on the whole the female-dominant professions look only somewhat worse compared to the male-dominant ones, and that only because senior management and engineering are still male-slanted. (Like, would you rather be a psychologist/a physiotherapist or a bus driver/a butcher?)
On the other hand, I think it’s fairly well that women tend to cluster around the lower-paid strata of each industry, even if the sex gap amongst both the highly-paid and the lowly-paid isn’t quite a yawning gulf. Even if lawyers are at parity (or over parity) at this point, I’m pretty sure partners are still mostly men; and despite relative parity in the lower ranks of academia more men than women attempt to go for professorship, even if the actual tenure-track population is surprisingly close to parity at this point (I think 44-56 or something?). I think that’s probably partial evidence for
biological impulseslifestyle decisions having an impact on employment, amongside other factors such as the female workforce being much newer to the game than the male one.*edit to clarify ambiguous sentence
Nor finance. And I suspect that 'etc' is not very extensive.
Is finance at sex parity at this point? Colour me surprised.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link