Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
I have not experienced a war on men. I make 10-20% more than my mammary gland enhanced counterparts.

My recent foray into dating was shooting fish in a barrel (I have a job, a home, and no kids or baby-mama-drama or other afflictions),

And I can piss out a fire.

All in all, I'm doing pretty well from my throne.

Yes but there's a reason for it and it's not simply because they're female.




Also, y'all should really listen/watch these two videos.

 dogma wrote:


1: How is receiving custody rights consider? To men that never claim custody rights get counted into the total of men who get custody rights?

2: Obviously, do mothers receive favoritism? My guess is that they do, but I would wonder if there exists a 'why' dimension.

Based on my superficial understanding of family law, custody is based solely on "the best interests of the child."

That means the court will look at who can provide care, where the kid will be happier, where the kid will be more stable, etc.

And, yes, in the majority of cases it's in the child's best interests to live with his mother, while his dad pays child support, simply due to earning potential, interest, and often, who cared for the child before. Add in the knee jerk "mom's are better caregivers" reaction in most people, and the split isn't hard to understand.

From those vids that were just linked,

A. I LIKE this lady, she speaks a lot of sense no?

B. I think this video might be more relevant to the thread




edit:

So I watched a couple more of her videos




This is pretty disturbing...

The comment at 10:57 is especially disturbing to me as my wife did try to kill me with a cast Iron skillet. I also am not as paranoid or silly as to think these views are common, this like "Men Going There Own Way" are similar nutcase outliers.. still pretty disturbing though.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Yes but there's a reason for it and it's not simply because they're female.

Holy info-graphics batman!

That guy couldn't be any more misleading if he tried. He immediately conflated educational field with job placement. There is no gender gap in educational field choice, there is a huge gap in job placement. That's not entirely the result of discrimination, much of it is about normalized gender roles*, but people that want to defy those gender roles do find themselves having a difficult time.

If you want a pop culture example that doesn't relate to hiring, watch Meet the Parents.


*Which is to say he isn't entirely wrong about differing choices between men and women, but his argument is still misleading.

 dogma wrote:
There is no gender gap in educational field choice, there is a huge gap in job placement. That's not entirely the result of discrimination, much of it is about normalized gender roles*, but people that want to defy those gender roles do find themselves having a difficult time.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with the video, my observations from college reflect that there is a MASSIVE gap in the educational field choice. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find the six women that were in the computer science program to back my story. Contrast this with when I was taking English, Philosophy, or Economics classes, and in the Business/Liberal Arts buildings where there was about 60-70% women.

At my present place of employment, about 35% of the people in the highly technical team I work for are female. I'm unsure of their actual credentials as far as college goes, but as I got in without completing a degree, it's easily plausible that they don't have relevant degrees either.

Anyway, that's my anecdote, but I'm stickin' with it.

When it comes to computers and engineering there is deffinately a huge gendergap. My sister is currently taking her masters in Comp Sci, but when she was doing her undergraduate she was one of only 6 girls out of a class of over a hundred.

Every engineering course I've been to has been at least 2/3rds male if not better.

Many guys seem to have serious motivational issues or just a complete lack of intelligence (or they are just off doing fething idiotic crap like smoking weed). Seriously, I am in 3 AP classes, and I am one of the only two guys in all three. I have to admit, females do seem to have more motivation/regard for their future.


Also, that is quite odd how males totally outnumber females in engineering. Of all things, that seems like the one thing that would be equal among both sexes. But I hope there are at least a few nerdy girls in engineering college . (I plan on being an Aerospace engineer. Space FTW!)

Men are obviously superior to women because they are capable of consuming vastly larger quantities of alcohol.

 Jihadin wrote:
As do I. My wife finds Da Frazz funny as all git go.

My wife finds Frazzled funny too.

 Hordini wrote:
I'm curious about the custody issue though. It seems that statistically, mothers are more likely to get custody of the children, but is that because the mothers are more likely to get the children just because they are the mother, or because fathers are less likely to pursue custody for whatever reason, like not actually being that interested in having their kids that much, or that maybe they just assumed the mother would get custody so they didn't push for it?

Courts today are under instruction that the default position is a 50-50 split. If for whatever reason there needs to be a primary home, the gender of the parents is not a factor a court should consider in its judgement.

Exactly how that works in practice is a little more complicated. There's plenty of reason to figure that gender stereotypes do continue to play a role. For example, if a man claims the woman's home is not suitable for children because she goes out until late and and drinks too much, it is perhaps less likely to be believed than if the woman claims the same about the man. Whether it actually works out that way is unclear. We certainly have lots of claims of such from men, but their evidence tends to consist of the 'I think I was hard done by in my judgement', which is hopelessly subjective and not evidence of anything. Actual studies of the issue at large don't seem to exist, because it is so hard to seperate out cases where the couple agreed to the mother taking full or majority custody.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
My second major issue is that I am of the opinion that the shift in education over the last few decades has directly hurt dudes in favor of helping chicks - the whole kindness, positivity, gentle encouragement nonsense doesn't work with teenage boys. You have to beat civility into the heads of those little monsters to make them into productive members of society. I am about at the point where I think classes ought to be segregated by gender, because we all just learn in different ways. Boys need discipline to turn us into bridge building continent subduing badasses. Kind words and telling us that failing is just as good as passing just makes us not give a gak, because we take that sentiment at face value.

I think there's a fair case for splitting up classes by learning style and disciplinary needs, but I suspect gender may be too superficial an approach. There's plenty of girls who are just as much trouble as boys, and plenty of boys who are very conscientious. Nor do the various styles of learning (audio-visual, kinetic and all the rest) line up all those closely by gender.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the video, my observations from college reflect that there is a MASSIVE gap in the educational field choice. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find the six women that were in the computer science program to back my story. Contrast this with when I was taking English, Philosophy, or Economics classes, and in the Business/Liberal Arts buildings where there was about 60-70% women.

I think that's part of the issue, but the thing is, if you broke it down to qualified people in a specific field, then studies show women still get paid less than men. A lot of that can be explained by family (women overwhelmingly take on the role of primary carer, which places a hold on their career advancement, even if they continue to work part time), but even that isn't enough to explain the problem, as studies have shown that even in really specific positions (so where the qualification, experience required and level of authority and responsibility is the same) the woman will still get paid less than the man in general.

Now, that can't be explained by an employer saying 'you're a woman so I will pay you less', but something more subtle is going on. Part of it might be down to woman not placing as heavy an emphasis on salary as men, and instead choosing career satisfaction, or proximity to home or other factors.

But it's near impossible to sensibly dismiss some notion of patriarchy entirely.

Now, that can't be explained by an employer saying 'you're a woman so I will pay you less', but something more subtle is going on. Part of it might be down to woman not placing as heavy an emphasis on salary as men, and instead choosing career satisfaction, or proximity to home or other factors.

Actually, there was a study on this that I remember listening to over the radio several years back. (Woot! CBC) It seemed to indicate that women actually undervalue themselves when it comes to negotiating salary with their employer, and men, in comparison, overvalued themselves. This led to a salary gap of about 7-10 percent if memory serves.

But I still think it's not systemic discrimination that makes womens average income lower than that of males.

Then there is also the joke, "Women always want to be equal with men, never better. Which seems to me like a lack of ambition. Which is why men are better."

 Ratbarf wrote:
When it comes to computers and engineering there is deffinately a huge gendergap. My sister is currently taking her masters in Comp Sci, but when she was doing her undergraduate she was one of only 6 girls out of a class of over a hundred.

Every engineering course I've been to has been at least 2/3rds male if not better.

There is a large gender bias and engineering education, but when looking at general STEM the genders are roughly equivalent.

One of the issues is actually how you analyze the major choice data. Because majors, at least in the US, are often highly specific it becomes a question of how to construct categories.

 dogma wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
When it comes to computers and engineering there is deffinately a huge gendergap. My sister is currently taking her masters in Comp Sci, but when she was doing her undergraduate she was one of only 6 girls out of a class of over a hundred.

Every engineering course I've been to has been at least 2/3rds male if not better.

There is a large gender bias and engineering education, but when looking at general STEM the genders are roughly equivalent.

One of the issues is actually how you analyze the major choice data. Because majors, at least in the US, are often highly specific it becomes a question of how to construct categories.

Is general STEM including the social and political sciences

Well I'm from Canada and we don't really have that issue here. Anyways, in Canada the ratio of females to males in engineering is about 1 to 5, and in fact, female enrollment is going down in every discipline except for biomedical.

Overall however, there is about a 2.5 to 1 gap in the favour of males for these high earning degrees.

http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Women_Science_Engineering_e.pdf

 youbedead wrote:

Is general STEM including the social and political sciences

Yes, most of the time. It depends on who is defining the term, but I would say yes.

So I'm assuming that if we cut out social and political science that STEM is just a massive sausage fest. It's kind of depressing when I see a very intelligent teenage girl act like an idiot because that's what her peers expect of her.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Actually, there was a study on this that I remember listening to over the radio several years back. (Woot! CBC) It seemed to indicate that women actually undervalue themselves when it comes to negotiating salary with their employer, and men, in comparison, overvalued themselves. This led to a salary gap of about 7-10 percent if memory serves.

But I still think it's not systemic discrimination that makes womens average income lower than that of males.

But it's never that simple is it? I mean, can we definitively say "women undervalue themselves because it's part of their inherently womenly natures" or can we consider that possibly the way woman and men interact might lead women to undervalue themselves?

Note that I'm not calling for government action or anything, but it does seem an interesting issue to continue to research and discuss.

 youbedead wrote:
So I'm assuming that if we cut out social and political science that STEM is just a massive sausage fest. It's kind of depressing when I see a very intelligent teenage girl act like an idiot because that's what her peers expect of her.

Its more like cutting the S and M out STEM (harr harr). There are plenty of women in majors that involved science and math. They are out numbered by men, but not by much. The major gap is in technology and engineering.

The study was done by both male and female interviewers if I recall, and men still ended up with a higher salary even when there was a women interviewing, and females still ended up with a lower salary when hiring was done by a female.

Not sure if that's what you meant but there ya go.

 Ratbarf wrote:
The study was done by both male and female interviewers if I recall, and men still ended up with a higher salary even when there was a women interviewing, and females still ended up with a lower salary when hiring was done by a female.

Not sure if that's what you meant but there ya go.

Its been argued that women tend to be less assertive in negotiations with unknown parties, and so do not push for higher salaries.

No.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
No.

Necro threading!

Have you heard of the term "Man up" in today's context?

It wasn't really nexrothreading, it was only 3 days old, and was still on the front page.