Why does the US government hate men so much?

Post Reply New Topic

Mr. Walrus, you've been guilty of a lot more rubbish in your posts here than I have been in mine.

First of all, your numbers are limited to people who are employed.

Secondly, your chart shows that men's wages have been flat since 1975. How does that support your statement that "men's wages rise?" It also shows a period if intense growth in wages from the 1950s to the early 1970s (a period in which women had moved back into traditional roles). Furthermore, it shows that wages for women working full-time grew just as fast during that period of male dominance as they have since.

I would also take issue with the way that the BLS calculates price indices, but I don't need to in this case.

If it's true that it's okay to make fun of privileged groups but not the oppressed than how come we don't hear more white person jokes and we aren't exposed to nearly as many white person stereotypes? It seems like the media makes fun of men but not white people. Both are privileged groups so why is it that only one of them gets the "acceptable target" treatment?

One of the reasons is because men and women often choose different educations. The college educations that will make you wealthy and powerful are things like law, engineering, computer science, business administration. In most places the overwhelming majority of students of those subjects will be male.
Look at all those ridiculously overpriced internet companies. Most founders will be male, because most computer scientists and software developers will be male.
Around here almost all primary school teachers are women. That is a very important job, but it won't make you wealthy and powerful.

Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University put forth some hypothesis to explain why there is a higher proportion of men in high-end science and engineering positions.

1. The high-powered job hypothesis

-Men are more likely to purse "high powered" jobs.

2.Different availability of aptitude at the high end hypothesis

- "Generally greater variability among men (compared to women) in tests of cognitive abilities, leading to proportionally more males than females at both the lower and upper tails of the test score distributions".

Thus, a higher % of men than woman perform better on tests.

3.Different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a job search hypothesis

-Women are socialized into non-STEM jobs, and also face some discrimination that deters them from such occupations.

source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

*shrug*

I didn't pursue a STEM job because I suck at math. It has nothing to do with "Evil Patriarchy" or because men are "oppressing" me.

Mostly, from my personal experience. most of the women who complain the loudest about the lack of women in STEM fields were the ones majoring in stupid crap like English or Early Childhood Development. As of August, I'll be pursuing a B.S. in medical laboratory science, but I have little fear that men are going to prevent me from attaining it. I've found that I've done well in "male jobs" once I proved that I was willing to work hard.

I just don't see the relevance in all this. Statistics are fine and dandy--but they frequently don't apply to individual people; they should be considered as merely a generalized "take" on things. The only way people could advance is through their own initiative--keeping in mind prevailing trends so as to enable his/her self to adapt to these trends in their own manner.

Each individual person is not a statistic.

I am an individual man who might have benefited from the "patriarchy"--I probably, didn't, though.

Women, owing to their advocacy, are rising in every profession.

I work within a court system. Most of the judges are now women; most of the Assistant District Attorneys are now women. This is a fact. The source is my own objective observation.

At any college, there is, in the vast majority of instances, a 55-45 percent plurality in favor of women. Much of the time, it's above 60-40. The source is in the enrollment statistics at individual colleges.

I think the "playing field" is evening out at a rapid rate.