why do men dominate in traditionally "female" occupations? (2 Viewers)

[Diddles]

Because women are too busy multitasking.

 

[Thebeard]

Men are just cooler.

FACT.

 

[flashback]

you all just need to leave transsexuals and furries alone.

they're people too you know.

 

[therealjohnny]

you all just need to leave transsexuals and furries alone.

they're people too you know.

great cooks too

 

[flashback]

I'll be back in 3 - 4 minutes.

 

[actwithoutwords]

I think in that case the real question is why do adults dominate in traditionally 'children's' occupations.

'cooking+children' = 360,000,000 hits

Of course, that figure would include a large proportion of hits related to the cooking of children.

 

[Juno]

Of course, that figure would include a large proportion of hits related to the cooking of children.

One should think so.

 

[theoootini]

what would this guy cook i wonder?

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

The question is not why is it true in 'female' professions but why is it true overall.

Women care less about traditional achievement (pay, promotion etc.) at work than men as they get older, which is when recognition in your field comes.

Women in their twenties perform and earn on a comparable level to men. This drops off precipitously though when women enter the child-rearing years.
Success at work and recognition in their field becomes less important than it does to men.

Actually, I'll just go find the article I'm referring to -->

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

The Economist on gender pay inequality, using Darwinism.

It applies to success at work though.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12795581

A woman’s place

Crime, then, is one field in which women are unequal with men. That does not bother feminists, but perhaps it should. For it might reflect a wider truth which those who believe that the sexes should not merely have equal rights but enjoy equal outcomes will find uncomfortable.
When outcomes are unequal in socially acceptable areas of behaviour, such as employment, it is often interpreted as a sign of discrimination. But people who draw this conclusion rarely consider that the discrimination in question might actually be being exercised by the supposedly disadvantaged women themselves.
A classic example is income. Women earn less than men. Or do they? In fact, younger women do not, or not much. A recent report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a British think-tank, found that British women aged between 22 and 29 who were in full-time employment earned only 1% less than their male counterparts. This age group corresponds for many women to the period when they are single. Once they have found the best available mate, the calculation changes: a woman no longer needs to show off.
In that context, it is less of a surprise that older women are out-earned by their male contemporaries. One reason is that they now care less about the size of their earnings. Of the top 25 ideal employers, as chosen by women, the IEA found that 12 were in the public or voluntary sectors—areas where salaries for equivalent work tend to be lower than in the private sector, though job security is higher and job satisfaction is often believed to be greater. For men, only four employers were in this category. The other reason, of course, is that women usually look after the children. Indeed, the study by Dr Nettle and Dr Pollet which found that reproductive success correlates with men’s income, also points out that with women the correlation is inverted. But the IEA study also found that it is women themselves who are taking the decisions about child care. It reports that two-thirds of the women who had not already had a “career break”, as it is euphemistically known, planned to take one at some point in the future. Less than an eighth of men had similar aspirations. That, too, would be predicted by a Darwinist.
Although there is a strong argument for making working conditions more sympathetic to the needs of parents of both sexes, the underlying point is that many women—and certainly many women with children—do not care as much about striving ahead in their careers as men do. Men, the report found, are more motivated by pay and less by job satisfaction than women are. If managers, they are more likely to work long hours. They also take more risks—or, at least, are more frequently injured at work.
The consequence, as Len Shackleton, the IEA report’s main author, puts it, is that: “The widespread belief that the gender pay gap is a reflection of deep-rooted discrimination by employers is ill-informed and an unhelpful contribution to the debate. The pay gap is falling but is also a reflection of individuals’ lifestyle preferences. Government can’t regulate or legislate these away, and shouldn’t try to.” He failed to add, however, that these preferences are often the result of biological differences between the sexes.
What goes for pay probably goes for career choice as well. At one extreme, it is foolish, as Kingsley Browne of Wayne State University, in Michigan, suggests, to expect equal outcomes in organisations like the armed forces. Not only are men stronger and more aggressive but, Mr Browne suggests, the psychology of both sexes has evolved to trust men (and not trust women) in combat, precisely because of this aggression and strength. At the other end of the scale, it is probably an opposite mixture of evolved aptitudes and attitudes that causes the domination by females of professions such as nursing.
This is not to say there can be no good female soldiers or male nurses. Patently, there can. But it is not clear evidence of discrimination that they are rarer than their counterparts of the opposite sex. A Darwinian analysis of the matter cannot say where the equilibrium would lie in a world free from discrimination. But it can say with reasonable confidence that this equilibrium will often not be 50/50.
Many may harrumph at such a Darwinian interpretation of feminism, and say that it is a circuitous route to a traditional destination. It isn’t: not expecting an equal distribution of the sexes within every profession is not the same as saying that a woman’s place is in the home. And having dared to question the assumptions of both feminists and their opponents, some evolutionary biologists are now hoping to turn conventional wisdom upside down in another area where civil rights meet long-standing prejudice. This is the vexed question of race.....

 

[therealjohnny]

Could be of interest

BBC2
21:00The Trouble with Working Women
Sophie Raworth and Justin Rowlatt ask why, several decades after the Equal Pay Act, there is still a pay gap between men and women

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Could be of interest

BBC2
21:00The Trouble with Working Women
Sophie Raworth and Justin Rowlatt ask why, several decades after the Equal Pay Act, there is still a pay gap between men and women

Show them this thread.

 

[ann post]

it might be an idea to simplify this thread a bit.

 

[broken arm]

Could be of interest

BBC2
21:00The Trouble with Working Women
Sophie Raworth and Justin Rowlatt ask why, several decades after the Equal Pay Act, there is still a pay gap between men and women

i watched this but kind of got bored and had to go back to work.

the same issues of small business not wanting to take "risk" of employing women of "child bearing" age against large comanies have resources to protect decent staff - male or female.

It wasn't getting to grips with the legislation and the imbalance between paternity/maternity leave etc.

 

[sweetoblivion]

The question is not why is it true in 'female' professions but why is it true overall.

Women care less about traditional achievement (pay, promotion etc.) at work than men as they get older, which is when recognition in your field comes.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement to make, no?

I would think many women would care about succeeding in work - but the rub is that the 'traditional' achievement structures were created to suit men who don't take time off (or can't take time off) for raising children.

Women in their twenties perform and earn on a comparable level to men. This drops off precipitously though when women enter the child-rearing years.
Success at work and recognition in their field becomes less important than it does to men.

Actually, I'll just go find the article I'm referring to -->

I got as far as the line: "This age group corresponds for many women to the period when they are single. Once they have found the best available mate, the calculation changes: a woman no longer needs to show off" in that article and didn't really want to read any more.

And that even came after: "But people who draw this conclusion rarely consider that the discrimination in question might actually be being exercised by the supposedly disadvantaged women themselves."

Oh well girls, better give up now - sure it's all our own fault when we don't succeed anyway, eh!

 

[broken arm]

we need to redefine prosperity.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

That's a bit of a sweeping statement to make, no?

I would think many women would care about succeeding in work - but the rub is that the 'traditional' achievement structures were created to suit men who don't take time off (or can't take time off) for raising children.

I got as far as the line: "This age group corresponds for many women to the period when they are single. Once they have found the best available mate, the calculation changes: a woman no longer needs to show off" in that article and didn't really want to read any more.

And that even came after: "But people who draw this conclusion rarely consider that the discrimination in question might actually be being exercised by the supposedly disadvantaged women themselves."

Oh well girls, better give up now - sure it's all our own fault when we don't succeed anyway, eh!

The question itelf is sweeping.

Our animal selves can explain a lot about the way the world is.
I don't think the article is trying to pigeonhole anyone, just making a case for why things are the way they are.

The people who tend to achieve are the ones who are hungrier for it. As a particular group ages, less of those people are women.
There tend to be less women in high positions simply because they're being drawn from a smaller pool.
These are just facts.

 

[ann post]

i still dont know what traditionally female occupations are, other then the blatantly ovious.

 

[flashback]

having babies has to be one of the front runners.

 

[Vinnie]

Why do men dominate in traditionally "female" occupations?
Every time,
You are near?
Just like me,
they long to dominate,
Traditionally female occupations.