The End of Men

[kievstar]

If women want to be equal lets start with the Olympics and not have sports divided by women and men.  Same goes for college athletics.   

[Boethius]

Yeah, good idea!  And women should start shaving their faces daily, while men can wax their legs and wear killer heels.

Equality means equality of opportunity.  

Only an idiot, or an emasculated man, believes equality means the sexes are equal, or desire to be equal, in each and every respect.

[BC]

If women want to be equal lets start with the Olympics and not have sports divided by women and men.  Same goes for college athletics.   

Kiev,

No need for that.. women will always have more stamina in bed than the strongest of men.

They win.

 

[Blues Fairy]

Equality means equality of opportunity.  

How about privileges for women-owned businesses?  Such measures are said to promote equality of opportunity.   A paradox, IMHO.

[Boethius]

That would be a paradox only if there had been equality to begin with.

[Blues Fairy]

That would be a paradox only if there had been equality to begin with.

Were there at any time any specific restrictions for women who desired to own business?  Less women in business does not mean less opportunity for women in business.  Affirmative action aims to achieve equality of outcomes, not of opportunity. 

[Boethius]

Yes, BF, there were.  There were no restrictions in the letter of the law, but there were definitely restrictions in accessing capital.  A woman could not obtain a bank loan on her own, for example.  That's why most of these programmes were created, initially.

Affirmative action aims to achieve equality of outcomes, not of opportunity.

I disagree 100%.  However, affirmative action needs to be overhauled.  It needs to be geared to creating an equal playing field for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, rather than be based on race or gender.

[Ade]

Equality means equality of opportunity.  

Only an idiot, or an emasculated man, believes equality means the sexes are equal, or desire to be equal, in each and every respect.

 

[Blues Fairy]

A woman could not obtain a bank loan on her own, for example. 

So now women can obtain a loan and these programs still exist.  Wasn't the purpose of such programs precisely to eliminate the need for such programs?  However, they only grow and flourish as time passes.  Another paradox, I suppose.

[Ade]

So now women can obtain a loan and these programs still exist.  Wasn't the purpose of such programs precisely to eliminate the need for such programs?  However, they only grow and flourish as time passes.  Another paradox, I suppose.

Bo is right that affirmative action type systems can be beneficial, but of course, only when they properly level an inherently unfair playing field, for instance, when sexism or racism prevent someone from having the same opportunity as others. It goes without saying that it's not easy to properly regulate such systems so that they are truly fair and free of misuse.

[Boethius]

BF, can you point to the objective evidence of those programmes growing and growing over time?

[OlgaH]

Yeah, good idea!  And women should start shaving their faces daily, while men can wax their legs and wear killer heels.

Equality means equality of opportunity.  

 

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1IUhwCYiXs[/youtube]

[IAmZon]

Rather than esoteric observations and debate, this article illustrates REAL and DRAMATIC changes affecting the sexes already well underway.  The focus should be on change and adaptation; rather than if, and whether or not it is appropriate.

It is difficult to accept and engage this issue without taking sides; but I think we ought to try for the sake of finding a new balance in the world we live.  And, it ought be noted this is an individual process.  It could affect you, or it could not.  Future generations will have a completely different model in which to operate in.

[vwrw]

When business heavily relied on the application of physical stamina there were less opportunity for women in business and there were fewer women in business. Thus, fewer women in business might mean less opportunity for women in business.

On the other hand, directing others to perform a task in a usual circumstance does not require the aplication of the physical stamina, yet women rarely occupied such positions; hence, fewer women in business may result from contribution of factors other than lack of opportunity for women in business. Those factors might be social expectation that business was not a place for women, upbringing that did not encourage women to develop qualities necessary to be a good business lady, difficulties in gaining proper education for business purpose that could not be overcome and so on. I think these factors can be classified as restrictions for women who desired to own business. Thus, there were restrictions for women and those restrictions barred women from usage of the opportunities.

[Boethius]

Rather than esoteric observations and debate, this article illustrates REAL and DRAMATIC changes affecting the sexes already well underway.  The focus should be on change and adaptation; rather than if, and whether or not it is appropriate.

Sorry, but I think the article is a lot of hype.  Because of a collapse on predominantly male sectors of the economy (manufacturing, finance), women, by a bare majority (1.7% or so) now outnumber men in the workforce.  That is hardly "dramatic". 

The economy is changing, as vwrw has alluded to.  Men have already begun to adapt.  Two decades ago, there were few male nurses.  That's no longer the case.

I think it is interesting that some men seem to be threatened by women who want equality.  I think also, that this discussion could lead to discussions of where society has failed men and, more especially, boys, in educational opportunities.

[vwrw]

I think the onset of the end of male dominance was caused by the invention of pregnancy prevention means.  Even in contemporary world with its technologies relieving the domestic chores, it is still difficult to imagine how a pregnant woman with four children would find time to give enough care to her children and find time to look for business opportunities to use.   

[Blues Fairy]

BF, can you point to the objective evidence of those programmes growing and growing over time?

At least they show no signs of contracting, as they should: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/01/Time-to-Set-Aside-Set-Asides-With-the-civil-rights-race-won-our-government-should-embrace-colorblindness

On the other hand, directing others to perform a task in a usual circumstance does not require the aplication of the physical stamina, yet women rarely occupied such positions; hence, fewer women in business may result from contribution of factors other than lack of opportunity for women in business. Those factors might be social expectation that business was not a place for women, upbringing that did not encourage women to develop qualities necessary to be a good business lady, difficulties in gaining proper education for business purpose that could not be overcome and so on. I think these factors can be classified as restrictions for women who desired to own business. Thus, there were restrictions for women and those restrictions barred women from usage of the opportunities.

If we view lack of opportunity as specific restrictions, then you are contradicting yourself.  Social expectations, upbringing and no proper education do not signify lack of opportunity; just the lack of incentive.  

[vwrw]

Social expectations, upbringing and no proper education do not signify lack of opportunity;   

Certainly, social expectations, upbringing and no proper education do not signify lack of opportunity; however, can those factors be viewed as restrictions that prevent women from using the available opportunities in the business world?

[Blues Fairy]

Certainly, social expectations, upbringing and no proper education do not signify lack of opportunity; however, can those factors be viewed as restrictions that prevent women from using the available opportunities in the business world?

I still would define "restrictions" as formal regulations, not common practices. 

[vwrw]

I still would define "restrictions" as formal regulations, not common practices. 

Okay, let’s call those factors as common practices. In this case, the common practices placed women at a disadvantage and led to inequality between men and woman when it came to a use of the available business opportunities.

[IAmZon]

That is hardly "dramatic".   I strongly disagree.  If things continue, terms like "manly" will carry a different meaning.

For the last several years, I have been struck with how role confusion has seeped into advertising.  Every time I hear I hear real life comments such as "My wife just likes to complain to me.  Last year I was making 80K and she only made 60K.  Now the tables are turned and she is in charge". (actual recent statement I heard yesterday ... the young man's shoulders were rounded and he looked pathetic).

If you back up to see the big picture, gender roles are changing - pretty dramatic.

[Shostakovich]

that's a good point, but in reality it is not true.  take female firefighters for example.  they often do not have the upper body strength to do the job, but because of lawsuits and imposed "equal rights"--even though they were not equal to men, or capable of doing the job properly, cities are forced to hire them.  I pity the child who dies in a fire, in order to offer "equal" rights to a woman who is inferior and incapable of properly doing the job.

No.  Sometimes governance attempts to thwart the natural order.  As a temporary measure, such as immigration control, it is the right thing to do in the hopes that whatever factors drive mass immigration eventually subside.  But governance that attempts to 'make a silk purse out of a sow's ear' is bound to fail eventually.  The equal opportunity programs were rightly instituted to ameliorate for years of discrimination. and that has had its positive effect.  But ongoing programs like these only put a drag on the economic life as it introduces to, for example a university, an inferior group in the student body.  Such institutions eventually become ineffective as the education fails to meet the needs of the capable students and yet does not take among the inferior ones.  Equality is a fine concept as it relates to opportunity but nature itself is aristocratic.  Its the mob mentality that thinks  everyone should live like a king.  But as Dostoevsky notes, taking away a person's struggle is one of the worst things you can do to them.

But the article referenced is not about equality, it is about the shifting sands in labor that now favor the talents of women.  The point is that such a trend is not artificial, government programs may have opened some doors but if women could not sustain themselves in their new found roles then the whole thing would collapse eventually. 

[Boethius]

If you back up to see the big picture, gender roles are changing - pretty dramatic.

Gender roles are expanding.  I don't see that as a bad thing.

[OlgaH]

Certainly, social expectations, upbringing and no proper education do not signify lack of opportunity; however, can those factors be viewed as restrictions that prevent women from using the available opportunities in the business world?

The history shows that the social expectations have a great influence on upbringing and education. We can go back to the Victorian era and take a look on women gender role in the society, their status and their limited rights and how many opportunities they had, that was exactly the social expectations of women.

[OlgaH]

Gender roles are expanding.  I don't see that as a bad thing.

I agree.

Just let the "Ken Bucks" occupy all the sits and see where the women place will be