Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tiger parents: what job do you want your kid to end up doing?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Panscan. SJW. Thank you. Appreciate the compliment. I still wish I had the ignore function. Makes my life easier. Don’t worry I’d ignore you as well.

    Tim. Looks like our wives disagree. She’s also an immigrant. Just curious, where is your wife from? Peace be with you as well.

    Tim. You are right. One word responses are not super elucidative. But do you really need a long diatribe to tell you that racism is bad? No, of course not. That discrimination against women, minorities, and immigrants is real? Of course not.

    If. you don’t think that we are starting a discussion from very different launching points. And perhaps any discourse we have will not be super constructive or particularly revealing

    Equal results is not what I want. Equal opportunity is the best we can strive for.

    One word responses are useful when you want folks to realize that they are not sitting in an echo chamber where everyone agrees with their views. I do not agree with panscan and ent doc and a few of the others above.

    Also, much easier when we are busy working.






    Comment


    • #47
      And it's not possible there is discrimination against men? Even in the face of someone showing you multiple ways? How is it equal opportunity if teachers are inherently scoring girls better than boys? How is that not a problem? You are the one in an echo chamber because anyone who runs contrary to you you are labeling



      Comment


      • #48
        @EagleEyes,
        To me, launching points and one word responses are short cuts, excuses or simply unsupported by logic. Emotionally it is extremely strong. More recent experiences and confirmation bias lead to poor decisions and conclusions as well.

        For Christmas Eve, we had black white, brown from 4 to 94, from autistic to MBA, attorney, physician to Hs dropouts that have served time. Mistakes are made but good people are welcome. Trash and gaming the system doesn’t gain acceptance. My MIL and I don’t speak the same language. She loved her new shoes, I told her mine were 10 years old. Now, everyone knows her shoes are “new” and mine are old. USA was hard for a sixth grade education with no English then and limited at 94.

        A niece or nephew that is some percentage of black, brown or white deserves a better break than my kids?
        MIL “judges” any newcomers and doesn’t hesitate to express her opinion. Thank goodness she doesn’t understand that my roots go back to the Mayflower, colonial New England and Woodrow Wilson ( true racist).
        Your children deserve the same opportunities as my nieces and nephews and my own. I truly believe the focus should be where you are going. Where you are from doesn’t matter.

        Comment


        • #49
          @FireShrink,
          “So, it’s a self governing system and we don’t have any problems”.

          Ten years ago, IM’s were the rage. Screen rules must have looked different then. I wonder how rules will look in ten more years? How does Echo Dot and VR get regulated without a screen? There will be bumps, but congratulations on clear communication and the personal responsibilities.

          Comment


          • #50




            I think your point of view on this and most things is pretty laughable.

            Feel free to hide your bigotry behind long paragraphs and pretty words. We see you.
            Click to expand...


            Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I accept that.  I doubt you'll return me the same respect, which you've made quite clear.  And I'm the bigot.

            The things I brought up are fairly well supported, so if you have something to bring to the discussion please do so.  Otherwise, use of terms like "crock", "galling" and "bigot" without anything of real substance doesn't have a good look.

            Comment


            • #51







              I think your point of view on this and most things is pretty laughable.

              Feel free to hide your bigotry behind long paragraphs and pretty words. We see you.
              Click to expand…


              Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, and I accept that.  I doubt you’ll return me the same respect, which you’ve made quite clear.  And I’m the bigot.

              The things I brought up are fairly well supported, so if you have something to bring to the discussion please do so.  Otherwise, use of terms like “crock”, “galling” and “bigot” without anything of real substance doesn’t have a good look.


              Click to expand...


              They don't like uncomfortable truths and if someone points out that the victimhood narrative has got it substantially wrong, they're dubbed a primitive evil hater who could only be motivated by base instincts of allegiance to their in-group. And in launching these accusations they perfectly illustrate that they are the ones who engage in that kind of self-promotion.

              Comment


              • #52
                No kids, but if any of the numerous children in my life asks me for advice, I will encourage them to seek a career that:

                1.  Has some autonomy of movement (i.e. You are not stuck at a desk all day) but also does not involve hard manual labor

                2.  Is intellectually interesting to them (this will mean different things to different people)

                3.  Is difficult to automate

                4.  Can potentially be done on a small enough scale that you can be your own boss

                I think doctor actually checks most of these boxes.  At least it does for me.

                Reading this thread reminds me that there will always be demand for mediators and conflict resolution experts .

                Comment


                • #53




                  Feel free to take apart an argument presented by anybody on this forum – I’ve received my share and that’s part of the public discourse nature of a forum. Please, though, no personal attacks.
                  Click to expand...


                  Well, this sounds like permission to me, so I'll go ahead.  I've got a couple of minutes to spare.

                  Let's sink our teeth into ENTdoc's word salad.  I'll try to go point by point, but there will be some regrouping for my convenience.


                  Well, let’s see the various ways males in particular seem to be at a disadvantage these days:



                  -They are now expected to have worse education that their fathers
                  Click to expand...


                  Well, we're off to a great start here.  We've got a totally unsubstantiated claim.  According to whom?  Based on what?  What's more even if true, it does not inform us about whether white males have any sort of advantage.  If you're not too busy maybe you could give us a source on this.  I'd be very interested in the methodology.

                  This as you will see is a common problem, you make a bunch of claims that are not substantiated and have a tenuous connection to your thesis even if they were.  The former is a problem because no one can argue with you if they don't know what exactly what you're referring to.  The latter is just poor logic.

                   




                  -A society that clearly hasn’t catered to or addressed male deficiencies as evidenced by a higher incarceration rate and over 9:1 M:F prison ratio (also show me the last mass shooter who was female)
                  Click to expand...


                  Once again, this is something that sounds horrible but there is no effort to make a logical connection to the issue at hand.  If we can all agree that there was some time in history that being a white male was a clear advantage, what do you think the male incarceration rate and suicide rate was then?  I'm pretty sure that the male incarceration rate has always been substantially higher than the female incarceration rate.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. Yet by some miracle at some point in the past white men were able to have an advantage despite this?  Must have been magic, I guess.

                  I'm not saying that this isn't a problem.  It is.  But it doesn't prove what you think it does.

                   




                  -Marked increase in the lack of fathers in the home over the last 50 years, which puts males at a particular disadvantage and affects some of the above statistics
                  Click to expand...


                  Here we are again with claims pulled out of thin air.  I would think that having no father hurts daughters also.  It's really hard to argue against stuff when you just assert it.  So once again, if you've got some evidence that it put males at a "particular disadvantage", I'd love to see it.  Just for fun, do you think sons of lesbian couples are at a disadvantage as well?   And if so, based on what?

                   


                  -Male teacher deprivation in school, which has been shown to affect performance (OECD did a study showing boys were 1/3 more likely to be graded higher on a reading test when the teacher didn’t know the pupil was a boy, for example)

                  When you say male teacher deprivation when are you comparing this to?  Has there been a marked change?  What were things like in the past when being white and male was advantageous?

                   


                  -Actual performance gaps compared to girls in reading and math in developed countries (lower GPAs and more likely to flunk these subjects)

                  -Lower high school graduation rates



                  -Lower college entrance and graduation rates
                  Click to expand...


                  Once again I'd love to see the actual studies (I realize they're alluded to in the Atlantic article, but I'm sure you realize that's not the same as looking at the primary source).  Nevertheless, I agree that all of these things are true.   Also it's nice that you decided to limit to developed countries here.  The problem is of course when you look at the highest level jobs in tech and similar industries (execs, CEOs, etc) or even medicine, they're still male dominated (if you really require citations on these things, I can did them up).  And the high-school graduation rate disparity, etc. has been present for a long time (the article you cited is 20 yrs old and it relies on data farther back than that).  When we get to the point that the actual labor force has the same problem, maybe you'll be right then.

                  I already stated that the advantage is less than it used to be. And it is narrowing.  I just don't think we're there yet.




                  -Lives can be destroyed by simple accusations of sexual wrong-doing while no equivalent exists for the other side
                  Click to expand...


                  This one is my personal favorite. If you want actual citations for any of the below claims, let me know. Most people I know accept them as common knowledge, but I suspect you may be different.

                  1. False accusations of rape and sexual assault are uncommon and far more uncommon than actual rape and sexual assault.  So while you are correct that a false accusation can ruin someone's life and that is indeed unfortunate, those things are far less likely than actually being a victim of sexual assault or rape.  And you know something that really ruins lives: being assaulted or raped.  The fact that you would actually put this issue on the advantage side for women is idiotic.  And I'm being generous.

                  2. You know what there is also nearly no equivalent for.  Actually being sexually assaulted or raped.  Who do you think that happens more to?  Men or Women? And do you think the difference is small or large?




                  -They have to constantly be reminded that their “toxic masculinity” is the problem in society, or that the “white patriarchy” is to blame for everyone’s lot in life
                  Click to expand...


                  Clearly you love to just assert things and have them automatically support you worldview.  Obviously, what you allude to happens.  There are lot of messages out there in society. And I've got news for you. Many of them are anti-women.  Unless, you've got a way to list all the various messages out there in society and gauge their impact, your cherry-picking one of them shouldn't be persuasive to anyone.


                  -No governmental programs to support male-owned businesses, unlike their counterparts



                  No college or job is seeking them out or designing quota systems for them, unlike their counterparts
                  Click to expand...






                  After controlling for various factors this wage gap nearly vanishes.  The aspect that doesn’t vanish in the studies that have looked at this need looking into and *may* support a wage gap difference based on sex alone.
                  Click to expand...


                  I put these together.  I like how you try to hand-wave away the wage-gap as you knew it was coming.  Good effort, but let's talk about that.  You are correct that the when controlling for other factors, the gap nearly disappears.  But it doesn't and you obviously know it. Based on the studies I've read it shrinks to about 5% or so.  If you have different data in mind, I'd be interested in hearing about it. So, if we can agree to the 5% or something similar, think about what that actually means.

                  We're on a website where everyone is intimately aware of the power of compound interest.  If I make 5% more than you do every year over an entire 30 year career, that's is a ton of money, and hence a massive advantage.  As much as you try to minimize it.   And as of right now, there is no other explanation for this gap other than gender.  As your post suggests, there may be some other undiscovered factor, but until that's discovered right now we have a small wage gap, that when extrapolated over a whole career is really quite significant.

                  And that's how all this stuff ties together: even with the more education, all the programs targeting them, etc, when it comes to actual results in the labor force women are still behind.  The gap is definitely closing.  And some day it may even flip.  But we're not there yet and to think we are is to deny reality.

                   

                   

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I think this thread could have been easily summarized by everyone just noting where they went to college and how they voted in the last 3 elections.

                    The really interesting cohort would be people who wish they had the opposite experience e.g. state schoolers who wish they had gone Ivy+ or the alternate. In my experience I have only ever met a few people who wish they had gone to different colleges. Everyone is always just going to declare their experience to be adequate or excellent and their own narrative to be instructive.

                    Personally I enjoyed college but I don't think I went to a great school (State U). I wouldn't send my kids there if I had to pay a lot of money for it. My med school, much as I enjoyed it, was in the unhappy valley of high tuition and relatively low prestige. My standard advice to college students looking at med school now is "go to your state school or to the best school you can get into."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Because women care for things besides money more than men do. In the typical family the guy is the bread winner and the woman is less prioritized with making money and more with taking care of kids, running household, etc.

                      All the rape stats are so skewed it's hilarious. the whole 1 in 5 college women survey that everyone references is complete and total trash, it defines being raped as being looked at in a way you don't like and is self-reported. I guess I was raped at target 2 days ago because I got catcalled by a group of women. wow the horror, no I just smiled said thanks and moved on. not anything close to rape.

                      Yes not having a father is definitely more detrimental to a son than a daughter. Just like I imagine not having a mother would be more detrimental to a daughter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a study to show that. And yes, sons of lesbian couples are definitely at a disadvantage. Just like 2 gay guys raising a girl would put her at a disadvantage. Children need role models. Extremely logical and consistent.

                      You ask for research but this is all super politically charged and a lot of academics won't touch this stuff or are scared to publish for fear of retribution. It's hilarious to me how the scientific community was so up at arms about disproving christianity but now SJWs are trying to literally overwrite fundamental concepts of biology and science as a whole sits there on their hands and watches. Yeah I'm sure there was research on teacher bias with kids grades in the 1800s....Give me a break. Life isn't about a study showing something.

                      women aren't behind in the labor force. reducing it down to a single variable (income) is so short-sighted and honestly extremely disrespectful of the contributions women make to our society.

                      P.S. Most of the anti-women messages come from other women. Have you seen how women nurses treat women physicians? Look in the mirror.

                      Comment


                      • #56




                        I think this thread could have been easily summarized by everyone just noting where they went to college and how they voted in the last 3 elections.

                        The really interesting cohort would be people who wish they had the opposite experience e.g. state schoolers who wish they had gone Ivy+ or the alternate. In my experience I have only ever met a few people who wish they had gone to different colleges. Everyone is always just going to declare their experience to be adequate or excellent and their own narrative to be instructive.

                        Personally I enjoyed college but I don’t think I went to a great school (State U). I wouldn’t send my kids there if I had to pay a lot of money for it. My med school, much as I enjoyed it, was in the unhappy valley of high tuition and relatively low prestige. My standard advice to college students looking at med school now is “go to your state school or to the best school you can get into.”
                        Click to expand...


                        a tip of the hat to @AR and @eagleeyes as a woman who has never seen or experienced another woman gaining advantage over men. Especially in medicine holy cow.

                         

                        MPMD I can be the first of your cohort who wishes her cards had been dealt differently. I have a bachelors, masters, and post certificate. For graduate school in particular I applied at some rather competitive programs, accepted to every one of them. Ended up attending a mid-ish tier program. The decision was 100% based on finances. Every one of the schools I attended were chosen by which was cheapest. Would my future have been different if my family had money? Unquestionably. Have I been discredited and even mocked based on where I went to school? More times than I can count. Am I still more successful than some of my peers with a fancy school behind their name? Some. Depends on the school. Would my talents have been further utilized at a more prestigious program? Yea, I think so. My last year of school a professor said every job he's ever won he's known someone on the committee. I was rather shocked by the statement but it's proven more or less true for me. Issue is, my contacts are from those mid tier programs and not the best.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          @AR,
                          Elegantly stated your point of view. Your interpretation and rebuttals are to the point.

                          You kind of lost me with the “if we can agree”. Opinions were stated based upon some common points of view.
                          You are 100% right, updated studies weren’t produced.

                          “Actually being sexually assaulted or raped.” I chooses this statement only as an example. The definition of the actual act in today’s environment seems rather fluid and has actually changed and still is different in different situations. One example is two different presidents, Bill Clinton and GHW Bush.
                          https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/26/560148936/george-h-w-bush-acknowledges-groping-multiple-women
                          Depending on one’s personal values then and personal values now , different conclusions could be reached.
                          Everyone agrees that sexual assault and rape is wrong.
                          That is something we can agree upon. Keep in mind, when weaponized, damages are done to more than just the accused. I have personal connection where accusations were swept under the rug so to speak and where careers were damaged and whole department torn apart on unfounded claims that in my opinion where accusations were orchestrated for personal reasons. Even though found unsubstantiated, serious damages were done. I have a daughter that is in a medical field notorious for being a “boys club”. Self selection of sub-specialties has a lot to do with compensation. Harassment is my biggest concern.
                          She kind of reminds me that as a HOF athlete not too many physicians would be much of a problem.
                          So, agreeing on any of your stipulations is not agreeable.
                          White men, rapes, assaults, pay differences or any of the extrapolations. It’s not worth your or my time to prove anything. A lot of information is subject to interpretation. I don’t care for discrimination or misuse of power or accusations. I certainly hope we as a society take steps necessary when it impacts us or it is observed to fix the problem.

                          Comment


                          • #58







                            I think this thread could have been easily summarized by everyone just noting where they went to college and how they voted in the last 3 elections.

                            The really interesting cohort would be people who wish they had the opposite experience e.g. state schoolers who wish they had gone Ivy+ or the alternate. In my experience I have only ever met a few people who wish they had gone to different colleges. Everyone is always just going to declare their experience to be adequate or excellent and their own narrative to be instructive.

                            Personally I enjoyed college but I don’t think I went to a great school (State U). I wouldn’t send my kids there if I had to pay a lot of money for it. My med school, much as I enjoyed it, was in the unhappy valley of high tuition and relatively low prestige. My standard advice to college students looking at med school now is “go to your state school or to the best school you can get into.”
                            Click to expand…


                            a tip of the hat to @ar and @eagleeyes as a woman who has never seen or experienced another woman gaining advantage over men. Especially in medicine holy cow.

                             

                            MPMD I can be the first of your cohort who wishes her cards had been dealt differently. I have a bachelors, masters, and post certificate. For graduate school in particular I applied at some rather competitive programs, accepted to every one of them. Ended up attending a mid-ish tier program. The decision was 100% based on finances. Every one of the schools I attended were chosen by which was cheapest. Would my future have been different if my family had money? Unquestionably. Have I been discredited and even mocked based on where I went to school? More times than I can count. Am I still more successful than some of my peers with a fancy school behind their name? Some. Depends on the school. Would my talents have been further utilized at a more prestigious program? Yea, I think so. My last year of school a professor said every job he’s ever won he’s known someone on the committee. I was rather shocked by the statement but it’s proven more or less true for me. Issue is, my contacts are from those mid tier programs and not the best.
                            Click to expand...


                            do you understand what affirmative action is? It's not just about race. It's an advantage.

                            have you ever seen a guy apply to OB/GYN? Have you ever heard a woman patient refuse to be seen by a male OB/GYN? It's an advantage.

                            Breast surgeons?

                            You can debate what the tide is, but to say there are 0 instances of a woman having an advantage is absolutely ludicrous and so naive its scary.

                            Comment


                            • #59







                              Feel free to take apart an argument presented by anybody on this forum – I’ve received my share and that’s part of the public discourse nature of a forum. Please, though, no personal attacks.
                              Click to expand…


                              Well, this sounds like permission to me, so I’ll go ahead.  I’ve got a couple of minutes to spare.

                              Let’s sink our teeth into ENTdoc’s word salad.  I’ll try to go point by point, but there will be some regrouping for my convenience.


                              Well, let’s see the various ways males in particular seem to be at a disadvantage these days:



                              -They are now expected to have worse education that their fathers
                              Click to expand…


                              Well, we’re off to a great start here.  We’ve got a totally unsubstantiated claim.  According to whom?  Based on what?  What’s more even if true, it does not inform us about whether white males have any sort of advantage.  If you’re not too busy maybe you could give us a source on this.  I’d be very interested in the methodology.

                              This as you will see is a common problem, you make a bunch of claims that are not substantiated and have a tenuous connection to your thesis even if they were.  The former is a problem because no one can argue with you if they don’t know what exactly what you’re referring to.  The latter is just poor logic.

                               




                              -A society that clearly hasn’t catered to or addressed male deficiencies as evidenced by a higher incarceration rate and over 9:1 M:F prison ratio (also show me the last mass shooter who was female)
                              Click to expand…


                              Once again, this is something that sounds horrible but there is no effort to make a logical connection to the issue at hand.  If we can all agree that there was some time in history that being a white male was a clear advantage, what do you think the male incarceration rate and suicide rate was then?  I’m pretty sure that the male incarceration rate has always been substantially higher than the female incarceration rate.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it. Yet by some miracle at some point in the past white men were able to have an advantage despite this?  Must have been magic, I guess.

                              I’m not saying that this isn’t a problem.  It is.  But it doesn’t prove what you think it does.

                               




                              -Marked increase in the lack of fathers in the home over the last 50 years, which puts males at a particular disadvantage and affects some of the above statistics
                              Click to expand…


                              Here we are again with claims pulled out of thin air.  I would think that having no father hurts daughters also.  It’s really hard to argue against stuff when you just assert it.  So once again, if you’ve got some evidence that it put males at a “particular disadvantage”, I’d love to see it.  Just for fun, do you think sons of lesbian couples are at a disadvantage as well?   And if so, based on what?

                               


                              -Male teacher deprivation in school, which has been shown to affect performance (OECD did a study showing boys were 1/3 more likely to be graded higher on a reading test when the teacher didn’t know the pupil was a boy, for example)

                              When you say male teacher deprivation when are you comparing this to?  Has there been a marked change?  What were things like in the past when being white and male was advantageous?

                               


                              -Actual performance gaps compared to girls in reading and math in developed countries (lower GPAs and more likely to flunk these subjects)

                              -Lower high school graduation rates



                              -Lower college entrance and graduation rates
                              Click to expand…


                              Once again I’d love to see the actual studies (I realize they’re alluded to in the Atlantic article, but I’m sure you realize that’s not the same as looking at the primary source).  Nevertheless, I agree that all of these things are true.   Also it’s nice that you decided to limit to developed countries here.  The problem is of course when you look at the highest level jobs in tech and similar industries (execs, CEOs, etc) or even medicine, they’re still male dominated (if you really require citations on these things, I can did them up).  And the high-school graduation rate disparity, etc. has been present for a long time (the article you cited is 20 yrs old and it relies on data farther back than that).  When we get to the point that the actual labor force has the same problem, maybe you’ll be right then.

                              I already stated that the advantage is less than it used to be. And it is narrowing.  I just don’t think we’re there yet.




                              -Lives can be destroyed by simple accusations of sexual wrong-doing while no equivalent exists for the other side
                              Click to expand…


                              This one is my personal favorite. If you want actual citations for any of the below claims, let me know. Most people I know accept them as common knowledge, but I suspect you may be different.

                              1. False accusations of rape and sexual assault are uncommon and far more uncommon than actual rape and sexual assault.  So while you are correct that a false accusation can ruin someone’s life and that is indeed unfortunate, those things are far less likely than actually being a victim of sexual assault or rape.  And you know something that really ruins lives: being assaulted or raped.  The fact that you would actually put this issue on the advantage side for women is idiotic.  And I’m being generous.

                              2. You know what there is also nearly no equivalent for.  Actually being sexually assaulted or raped.  Who do you think that happens more to?  Men or Women? And do you think the difference is small or large?




                              -They have to constantly be reminded that their “toxic masculinity” is the problem in society, or that the “white patriarchy” is to blame for everyone’s lot in life
                              Click to expand…


                              Clearly you love to just assert things and have them automatically support you worldview.  Obviously, what you allude to happens.  There are lot of messages out there in society. And I’ve got news for you. Many of them are anti-women.  Unless, you’ve got a way to list all the various messages out there in society and gauge their impact, your cherry-picking one of them shouldn’t be persuasive to anyone.


                              -No governmental programs to support male-owned businesses, unlike their counterparts



                              No college or job is seeking them out or designing quota systems for them, unlike their counterparts
                              Click to expand…






                              After controlling for various factors this wage gap nearly vanishes.  The aspect that doesn’t vanish in the studies that have looked at this need looking into and *may* support a wage gap difference based on sex alone.
                              Click to expand…


                              I put these together.  I like how you try to hand-wave away the wage-gap as you knew it was coming.  Good effort, but let’s talk about that.  You are correct that the when controlling for other factors, the gap nearly disappears.  But it doesn’t and you obviously know it. Based on the studies I’ve read it shrinks to about 5% or so.  If you have different data in mind, I’d be interested in hearing about it. So, if we can agree to the 5% or something similar, think about what that actually means.

                              We’re on a website where everyone is intimately aware of the power of compound interest.  If I make 5% more than you do every year over an entire 30 year career, that’s is a ton of money, and hence a massive advantage.  As much as you try to minimize it.   And as of right now, there is no other explanation for this gap other than gender.  As your post suggests, there may be some other undiscovered factor, but until that’s discovered right now we have a small wage gap, that when extrapolated over a whole career is really quite significant.

                              And that’s how all this stuff ties together: even with the more education, all the programs targeting them, etc, when it comes to actual results in the labor force women are still behind.  The gap is definitely closing.  And some day it may even flip.  But we’re not there yet and to think we are is to deny reality.

                               

                               
                              Click to expand...


                              Those pieces of information I quoted were from reputable books on the subject - one in particular called The Boy Crisis cites many of these statistics and studies - some of which are from OECD research.  Hoff Summers has written on this too.  The Economist and Newsweek even ran lengthy articles a few years back about "The Weaker Sex".  Take a wild guess which one was weaker.  It's funny that you second guess my sources but provide zero evidence of your own.  I could just as easily make the unsubstantiated claim on your post.  Yet I'm supposed to believe that you're right.  You say the gap has narrowed but that we're not there yet.  There where?  With salary?  Other benefits?  What exactly are you talking about?

                              The labor force will never achieve some utopian equality due to the simple fact that women have our children.  This simple fact changes everything.  Women will sometimes take extended times off work, pick different employment out of the gates, or quit the labor force to raise children.  This should be celebrated, and they should be allowed to make those decisions with society's full backing.  But those decisions also have economic realities attached to them.

                              Since we're only talking about America here I think it's most relevant to look at developed countries, including statistics in America.  I don't know why that is controversial.  Males indeed do have a tendency towards conflict and so naturally you'd expect disproportionate rates of incarceration.  But as the rate of fatherless homes has increased so has incarceration.  There exists a causal link between fatherless homes and deviance, so as one increases you'd expect the other to as well.  I hope you don't think the fatherlessness rate hasn't increased over the last 50 years.  That would truly be something.  Also, crime laws have incarcerated these males at longer sentences over the years, making them even less likely to do well in society.

                              The graduation rate and GPA differences are on full display for you to see via a simple Google search.  This has been recognized for years.  As for the feminization of education, indeed this has always been the case and indeed males had prior advantages as they were expected to enter the workforce and be the breadwinners.  But when those expectations changed the dynamic favored the women.  I believe the Economist article talked about this.  All else was not equal over time.

                              Of course women are the targets of sexual assault more often, and that is shameful.  This is certainly a disadvantage.  But that doesn't discount my point.  It simply shows that women have certain disadvantages.

                              The 5% or so gap you speak of has been shown to be eliminated by being less agreeable and negotiating like a man does.  At least that's what my female negotiations teacher taught our class.  Pretty sure she was citing a HBR article on this - sorry I don't have this readily available.  Also, from a financial perspective your compounding example was not accurate, as the only thing that can compound is after-tax, after-spending dollars - not the 5% wage difference, if it exists.  Far from the "massive" advantage you suggest.  But I agree where there is a difference (because not all studies show an elimination of the gap) this needs to be dived into and determined if it's actually due to discrimination and/or bias.  And if so there should be a price to pay.  But this sole statistic doesn't mean that women are broadly disadvantaged.  It means they are disadvantaged in one specific area - wages.  To say that a particular sex is advantaged or disadvantaged means including all information.

                              I think you missed the overall point of my post.  It was to show that the simple fact that one is male doesn't confer the advantages that one might think, and that there are substantial disadvantages to being male.  It was give pause to the narrative that males are inherently advantaged.  I'm not saying that males are broadly at a disadvantage, nor am I saying females are.  Both sexes have problems and advantages, some inherent to genetic tendencies and others as a result of societal constructs.  I don't think the various advantages and disadvantages each faces can simply be boiled down to say one has a clear advantage.  That was my point.

                              Comment


                              • #60







                                I think this thread could have been easily summarized by everyone just noting where they went to college and how they voted in the last 3 elections.

                                The really interesting cohort would be people who wish they had the opposite experience e.g. state schoolers who wish they had gone Ivy+ or the alternate. In my experience I have only ever met a few people who wish they had gone to different colleges. Everyone is always just going to declare their experience to be adequate or excellent and their own narrative to be instructive.

                                Personally I enjoyed college but I don’t think I went to a great school (State U). I wouldn’t send my kids there if I had to pay a lot of money for it. My med school, much as I enjoyed it, was in the unhappy valley of high tuition and relatively low prestige. My standard advice to college students looking at med school now is “go to your state school or to the best school you can get into.”
                                Click to expand…


                                a tip of the hat to @ar and @eagleeyes as a woman who has never seen or experienced another woman gaining advantage over men. Especially in medicine holy cow.

                                 

                                MPMD I can be the first of your cohort who wishes her cards had been dealt differently. I have a bachelors, masters, and post certificate. For graduate school in particular I applied at some rather competitive programs, accepted to every one of them. Ended up attending a mid-ish tier program. The decision was 100% based on finances. Every one of the schools I attended were chosen by which was cheapest. Would my future have been different if my family had money? Unquestionably. Have I been discredited and even mocked based on where I went to school? More times than I can count. Am I still more successful than some of my peers with a fancy school behind their name? Some. Depends on the school. Would my talents have been further utilized at a more prestigious program? Yea, I think so. My last year of school a professor said every job he’s ever won he’s known someone on the committee. I was rather shocked by the statement but it’s proven more or less true for me. Issue is, my contacts are from those mid tier programs and not the best.
                                Click to expand...


                                Yeah I can tell with 100% certainty that med school choice really matters for residency.

                                It's easy to just be like "well I wouldn't want to go to a program that cared." That's just not true for lots of people and it's terrible advice for many careers in medicine.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X