| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Women expect men to like what women didn't https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10656 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Women expect men to like what women didn't |
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1294720488 By JAMES TARANTO CONNECT December 16, 2013 City Journal's Kay Hymowitz has an informative and important new essay out surveying the social-science research into the effects of fatherless household on boys and young men. (Spoiler: They're baneful.) But Hymowitz, generally an astute observer, opens by framing her argument in terms of an immense fallacy of presumption, the unraveling of which should be helpful in any consideration of what those empirical findings mean. Here are Hymowitz's opening 2½ paragraphs: When I started following the research on child well-being about two decades ago, the focus was almost always girls' problems--their low self-esteem, lax ambitions, eating disorders, and, most alarming, high rates of teen pregnancy. Now, though, with teen births down more than 50 percent from their 1991 peak and girls dominating classrooms and graduation ceremonies, boys and men are increasingly the ones under examination. Their high school grades and college attendance rates have remained stalled for decades. Among poor and working-class boys, the chances of climbing out of the low-end labor market--and of becoming reliable husbands and fathers--are looking worse and worse. Economists have scratched their heads. "The greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out 'You need more education' and have been able to respond to that, and men have not," MIT's Michael Greenstone told the New York Times. If boys were as rational as their sisters, he implied, they would be staying in school, getting degrees, and going on to buff their Florsheim shoes on weekdays at 7:30 AM. Instead, the rational sex, the proto-homo economicus, is shrugging off school and resigning itself to a life of shelf stocking. Why would that be? This spring, another MIT economist, David Autor, and coauthor Melanie Wasserman, proposed an answer. The reason for boys' dismal school performance, they argued, was the growing number of fatherless homes. Boys and young men weren't behaving rationally, the theory suggested, because their family background left them without the necessary attitudes and skills to adapt to changing social and economic conditions. Hymowitz asserts--with support from economists--that boys and young men, in contrast with their female counterparts, are failing to behave "rationally." That implies a mismatch between the young men's objectives and their actions. But the first half of that equation is left unexplored. Hymowitz (and her economist sources) does not make an empirical inquiry into what young males' objectives are. Instead, she assumes their objectives to be what she thinks they should be. To make the error clearer, consider Hymowitz's allusion to Homo economicus--a notional creature, an abstraction imagined by classical economists for the purpose of modeling and predicting economic behavior. H. economicus has two qualities: He is rational, and he seeks to maximize his self-interest. The great insight of behavioral economics is that this model misses important elements of human cognition--that in some respects people predictably behave in ways counter to self-interest because our minds are not instruments of pure rationality. The problem with Hymowitz's argument, however, is not one that behavioral economics can solve. Rather, it is an error in applying the H. economicus model. She substitutes for "self-interest" her own normative ideas about male aspiration--for instance, that "a life of shelf stocking" is unworthy. The real revelation comes in the first paragraph, wherein Hymowitz laments nonelite boys' diminishing "chances . . . of becoming reliable husbands and fathers." To be sure, this columnist is acquainted with any number of men who fit that description, and by and large they report that family life is a source of great happiness. But we can't recall ever hearing such a man describe himself, nor can we imagine one describing himself proudly, as a "reliable" husband or father. Hymowitz would like men to organize their lives around maximizing their usefulness to women and children. Hey, what woman wouldn't? But in invoking H. economicus, she ends up equating the goal of serving others with individual self-interest--an outright inversion of the latter concept. The source of that confusion is the failure to distinguish between two different frameworks for understanding human behavior: classical economics and reproductive biology. Economists have trouble explaining why males and females behave differently, because their model considers individual "persons" and takes little or no account of sex. The economists' conception of "self-interest" here at least makes narrow economic sense: Education is thought to improve one's prospects for employment, and thus for accumulating wealth, and for the most part that is equally true of men and women. Hymowitz's concern with "reliable husbands and fathers," on the other hand, makes sense when you think about the matter in terms of reproductive biology. When it comes to the reproductive enterprise--to helping society thrive by producing and nurturing the next generation--the roles of males and females are radically different. The biological process of reproduction is much more intensive for females than for males, and that's especially true of human beings, whose children require constant attention for a much longer time after birth than do the young of other primate species. Men's contribution to reproduction is primarily social: They offer protection and resources to women and children, which enhances the likelihood that the former will reproduce and the latter will survive to adulthood. Purely as a biological matter, individual male lives are expendable: A man's biological capacity to reproduce is easily replaceable, unlike a woman's; and it is in society's interest--in this context meaning the interest of the reproductive enterprise as a whole--for men to take risks in the defense of women and children. Men are instinctively risk-seeking for another reason: because it makes them attractive to women. That serves both their biological interest in reproduction and their self-interest in pursuing sexual pleasure. Women are generally much more risk-averse, because their individual survival and that of their children is biologically crucial. That goes a long way to explaining why today's young women are so well "adapted" to the labor market: For most of them, an education and a good job offer the best hope of a secure future for themselves and their children. In contemporary America, then, girls and young women act in ways that meet with the approval of Hymowitz and her economists, because doing so accords with both economic self-interest and biological instinct. That was once true of boys and young men. It no longer is, because of the same social changes--feminism and sexual liberationism--that transformed the incentives for women. Hymowitz laments that young males are insufficiently interested in "becoming reliable husbands and fathers." Imagine somebody opening a piece with the converse lament that young females are insufficiently interested in "becoming reliable wives and mothers." The author would be attacked as a misogynist and a dinosaur. Why, critics would demand, should women set their sights so low? Well, why should men? Except perhaps in very conservative communities, men with sufficient social skills can find sex and companionship without need of a matrimonial commitment (and for those who lack social skills, a willingness to marry is unlikely to provide much compensation). The culture's unrelenting message--repeated in Hymowitz's article--is that women are doing fine on their own. If a woman doesn't need a man, there's little reason for him to devote his life to her service. Further, in the age of no-fault divorce, "reliable husbands and fathers" not infrequently find themselves impoverished by child support and restricted by court order from spending time with their children. Enlarge Image Homo economicus at rest. Getty Images As for education, the story of Joshua Strange ought to be enough to give any sensible young man second thoughts about enrolling in college. And work? Not all jobs, including those that require a college degree, are as rewarding as writing for an intellectual magazine (or, we hasten to add, a newspaper). Men traditionally sought to "better themselves" not because working in an office or on an assembly line was itself a source of delight, but because being a workingman enabled them to earn respect and made possible the joys of domestic life. Today, the idea of commanding respect for an honest day's work seems quaint, and if you don't believe us, try "resigning" yourself to "a life of shelf stocking" and see where that gets you. In a world of female independence and limitless options, traditional family life is both less attractive and more elusive--for men and women alike--than it used to be. Boys and young men are no less rational, or capable of adapting to incentives, than girls and young women are. They are, in fact, adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence--which inevitably also serve as disincentives to male reliability and self-sacrifice. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
Elmarnieh wrote: But we can't recall ever hearing such a man describe himself, nor can we imagine one describing himself proudly, as a "reliable" husband or father. I am first and foremost a reliable husband and father. |
|
| Author: | Numbuk [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
It's been my personal experience that when (most) women say they want the sexes to be equal, the hidden double-standard meaning behind it is "We want equality, but only the positives and none of the negatives." Well then that isn't actually "equality" now, is it? A prime example is when it comes to courtship. Most women do not ask the man out, at least nowhere near in an equal number. And many of the ones who say they do, typically mean "I asked one guy out one time, and I got rejected. So I don't do it anymore because I didn't like it." So, rejection once or twice sucks so you stop. Or, you refuse to do it altogether. And yet, when this point is brought up to (many) women, the rational part of their brain does not compute it and defiant ignorance crops up instead and says, "Right. It's the man's job. Duh." Can you not see you are contradicting your own argument for equality? /sigh. I am strongly opinionated on this. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
Women don't want equality; they want power inversion and the article critiqued by the OP aligns rather nicely with the political agenda of most contemporary feminists. As a general rule, women are less productive than men in identical jobs, and childbirth is usually lower on the list of reasons than esoteric, intangible nonsense. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
Khross wrote: As a general rule, women are less productive than men in identical jobs You're going to need to back up that nonsense with some cites. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
Aizle wrote: Khross wrote: As a general rule, women are less productive than men in identical jobs You're going to need to back up that nonsense with some cites. I can tell you for certain, that in the line(s) of work I've been in, women are not expected to perform to the level that men are to get the same recognition. It is all too easy to exploit the "great young women, breaking the glass ceiling in a male-dominated profession" meme to get outsized evaluations for average performance. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1997/04/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable21-2010.htm This first link goes to a 1997 BLS article about the disparity in work weeks. The second link goes to the current data table through 2010. Women still work, on average, according to the BLS nearly a work day less a week than men overall. We'll start there: women work less. The best part of that number, though? It's remained relatively static for close to 40 years. The current numbers suggest women average a 35 hour work week as opposed to a man's 40+ (nominally plus). However, wage differences rarely exceed the simple time on job difference. In terms of raw productivity, the most forgiving numbers I've seen have women as high as 99% of men in piece work and significantly lower in rate-an-hour work. Fortunately, the authors kind of wash it all using fancy math and suggest women are 1-4% less productive than men overall. That's in the Berkely link that follows; so, despite all the problematic political maneuvering in that working copy of the article, you'll find that they can't avoid the fact women produce less in identical jobs. When you couple lower production rates with less time on the job, which they ignore by using shift-bound production labor positions instead of service jobs, you get a pretty solid picture on the situation: women work less and women produce less. http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/139-06.pdf Sexual dimorphism is real, Aizle. I'm sorry your politics don't allow for that, because the really depressing picture from all this aggregate data shows up when we start looking at industry concentration and specialization propensities between the genders. The aggregate wage gap numbers get really skewed when you find that women disproportionately avoid STEM and high-finance career paths and education. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My politics allow for reality and facts. So bring those and we'll be fine. It will be a bit before I have time to read the links, however I question the complete relevance of the first 2 as they seem to be related to total hours worked vs. productivity. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Aizle wrote: My politics allow for reality and facts. So bring those and we'll be fine. It will be a bit before I have time to read the links, however I question the complete relevance of the first 2 as they seem to be related to total hours worked vs. productivity. Which are somehow not relevant to the question of relative work hours and productivity between the sexes. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The question was productivity, not relative work hours. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Aizle - it matters, though. Salaried positions are based on 40 hours per week. So, for example, I work 45 hours, I get paid for 40. That functionally increases my productivity per hour paid. Women in my office are mostly part time. There's one that won't work more than 40 and 2 that will do whatever is needed. On average, in my group, women work less than 40 hours per week. That means they are paid for every hour worked, whereas the men are not. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Productivity has nothing to do with hours worked or how much anyone is paid per hour worked. It has everything to do with how much actual work is accomplished per hour worked. The latter is what is of interest to me, and the subject of most of the discrimination towards women in the workplace as far as the information that I've seen shows. Total hours worked is a separate issue, most of which is driven by men by the way. Of all of you who are married with kids where both parents work, when any of the kids are sick, who is it who stays home with the sick kid. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the time it's the woman. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Aizle - it matters, though. Salaried positions are based on 40 hours per week. So, for example, I work 45 hours, I get paid for 40. That functionally increases my productivity per hour paid. Women in my office are mostly part time. There's one that won't work more than 40 and 2 that will do whatever is needed. On average, in my group, women work less than 40 hours per week. That means they are paid for every hour worked, whereas the men are not. Any company that expects you to work more hours than you are paid for needs all its executives and managers to be shot. Fortunately, in most companies, salaried workers still get overtime (it's actually the law here). My salaried full time work week is 37.5 hours (not including lunch). If I work 15 minutes over that amount, I get time and a half for it. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
In the US, "salaried" is pretty much a code word for "unpaid overtime." Only people in management positions are supposed to be able to be put on salary, but companies have managed to twist the laws so they can end up putting over half their workforce on salary and most of them end up working more than 40 hours. Salaried people are expected to stay and work overtime if there's a lot of work, but they don't get to go home early when there's no work. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Fortunately, in most companies, salaried workers still get overtime (it's actually the law here). What is this 'overtime' of which you speak? That word doesn't even exist in the vocabulary where I work. My state has a fairly long list of exemptions for overtime http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/f ... esa101.pdf When I was in the "Operations" group, i was pretty much on-call 24x7, and worked more that 80 hours just about every week that I wasn't on vacation. I never received any extra pay for this. I am no longer in that role, so things are much better now, but it's not uncommon to have to stay late or work on a weekend to get some critical 'thing' done. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Was your salary at that company commensurately large to complement the time you spent working? That's what seems to be missing from this argument. If you're salaried and earning $70,000 per year, then perhaps you are flat refusing to work more than 40 hours per week. If you're salaried at $400,000, it's likely BECAUSE you work more than 40 hours most weeks. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh yeah being essential personel sucks. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
It has its ups and downs. If your job is to fix the internet, you have a sweet gig when nothing is broken. Nobody is going to fire you for sitting on your ***, because when they need you, the situation is that dire. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fix the internet...yeah let me run out and pick up a CCIE. Nah I've been a floor lead for a service desk and we were considered essential. Pack your bags guys and gals you'll be sleeping at the hotel in the complex through this storm. 18 hour shifts but all the pizza you can eat! |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: Was your salary at that company commensurately large to complement the time you spent working? That's what seems to be missing from this argument. If you're salaried and earning $70,000 per year, then perhaps you are flat refusing to work more than 40 hours per week. If you're salaried at $400,000, it's likely BECAUSE you work more than 40 hours most weeks. This is true. The WILLINGNESS to do what is necessary nets you a higher income. This is one of the reasons that women don't earn the same as men. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Aizle wrote: Productivity has nothing to do with hours worked or how much anyone is paid per hour worked. It has everything to do with how much actual work is accomplished per hour worked. The latter is what is of interest to me, and the subject of most of the discrimination towards women in the workplace as far as the information that I've seen shows. Total hours worked is a separate issue, most of which is driven by men by the way. Of all of you who are married with kids where both parents work, when any of the kids are sick, who is it who stays home with the sick kid. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the time it's the woman. These are NOT separate issues at all. This is complete nonsense; all you are doing is saying that per-hour productivity matters, but total productivty doesn't for no reason other than that you don't like hearing that women are less productive. If women are just as productive as men, but can only be counted on, for, say 37 hours a pay period whereas the men can be for 40 or 42 or 45, then the women are less productive overall. Absolute productivity matters. Moreover, those lost 3 hours per woman mean it's not feasible to hire another employee until you get to at least 12 women; at 3 man-hours lost per week per woman. Morever, now you are paying 13 people to do the work of 12. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: Morever, now you are paying 13 people to do the work of 12. Which is a big deal, because those 37 hours are costing you the same amount in benefits as a 40+ hour man. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Or...you could pay people for the work they do, rather than have the fat-cat companies stealing from the pockets of hardworking employees whom they expect to put in long hours for no benefit. Such a novel concept-- It's about integrity. If you have any integrity at all, you will ensure your employees are paid for each and every hour they spend working for your benefit. They don't owe you anything other than what you pay them for. If you're paying them to be available 24/7, that should be reflected in both their job description and pay. If you advertise the job is 40 hours a week, then it should not exceed 40 hours a week without fair compensation, even if that compensation is only time-off-in-lieu during a less busy time. It is not "extra productivity" when people work hours they aren't paid for and aren't spelled out in their contract. It's slavery, or theft, take your pick. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Women expect men to like what women didn't |
No, it isn't. When you've contracted to get paid a certain amount per year, and you get paid that amount per year, it's not slavery or anything else if you have to work more. Throwing out loaded terms like "hard working employees" and "fat cat companies" doesn't change that. If the job is exactly 40 hours per week, then yes, that should reflect in the description at the time of hire, but if it doesn't reflect that, and that isn't the expectation, then people damn well ought to understand that they might have to work more. |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Diamondeye wrote: Morever, now you are paying 13 people to do the work of 12. Which is a big deal, because those 37 hours are costing you the same amount in benefits as a 40+ hour man. That pendulum can swing the other direction as well. What if some person is doing in 37 hours the work of a 40+ hour person? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|