3 ms·

There are a number of reasons at play here why the premise of this article does not make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points: 1. Fo

by kleiba2 7mo ago

There are a number of reasons at play here why the premise of this article does not make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points: 1. For years, men have have had a much higher employment rate than women, e.g. 85 million men vs. 66 million women in the US in 2024 [1]. In other words, women are just catching up. 2. Women have a much higher rate of part-time jobs [1]. That is, a certain job would employ more women than men if women typically work part-time while men typically work full-time. 3. Employers are sometimes incentivized to hire women over men in case of equal qualification, e.g. [2] 4. Women earn better salaries than ever before, making it more attractive for them to apply to more jobs. 5. The statistics doesn't say anything about job migration: if I'm a woman who got a good job today but could get an even better one in half a year, will that be counted as two jobs given to a woman? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1378067/number-employed-workers-gender-work-status-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1378067/number-employed-... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4418903/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4418903/

lkey 7mo ago
> Employers are incentivized to hire women over men in case of equal qualification. You can't say this, unsupported by evidence, in Trump's America, where revanchist 'white guy DEI' is the ordering of the world. > Women earn better salaries than ever before ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing. What makes jobs that pay enough 'more attractive', generally, is rising fixed costs, like rent and energy, and stagnant wages.
- kleiba2 7mo ago
  > You can't say this, unsupported by evidence, in Trump's America, where revanchist 'white guy DEI' is the ordering of the world. I've slightly toned down that statement and added a reference. > ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing. The argument is not about the gender pay gap (which I don't doubt) however. I do agree though that increased cost of life puts a bigger pressure on everyone to find sources of income.
- atmavatar 7mo ago
  > ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing. In fact, it has started to reverse. When controlled for experience and hours worked, and comparing pay for the same job, young women out-earn young men. The reason for this is simple: the ratio of men and women in college has flipped since the 90s, going from 60:40 in favor of men to now roughly 60:40 in favor of women. We'll see if that remains true in the long-term, however, as women tend to pay a steep penalty, compensation-wise, for maternity leave.
  - kleiba2 6mo ago
    I don't understand the argument why the gender ratio in college would have an influence on the pay gap?
threethirtytwo 7mo ago
The premise of the article is exactly the same as the title. You’re making an assumption that anyone pointing out these numbers is claiming men are being oppressed, and then arguing against that. There’s no need. Almost no one is making that claim. The real issue is the opposite narrative. The idea that men broadly oppressed women across history, preventing them from participating in economic roles, and that modern outcomes are primarily the result of that dynamic being corrected. There are a number of reasons at play here why that premise doesn’t make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points: 1. For most of history, labor was dictated by physical constraints and survival needs. Work like hunting, land clearing, construction, and early farming depended heavily on upper body strength and endurance, which skewed participation toward men. That’s a division of labor shaped by biology and environment, not a simple story of exclusion. As technology advanced, much of that physicality became unnecessary, which is a major driver of why participation has equalized in modern roles. 2. Women’s roles were not an absence from work, but a concentration in different forms of labor. Childbearing, childcare, food preparation, and household production were essential to survival, even if they don’t show up cleanly in modern employment statistics. 3. Many of the institutions we associate with modern economic life, including formalized science, engineering, and large-scale industry, were disproportionately created and originated in contexts where men were the primary participants. That’s not a claim about superiority, but it does mean the structure of what we now recognize as “work” and “progress” was heavily shaped by that historical imbalance. 4. The concept of a formal job market is relatively recent. In pre-industrial societies, most people, including men, were not participating in anything resembling today’s labor market. Applying modern employment categories backward creates a distorted picture of inclusion and exclusion. 5. Modern workforce participation is strongly driven by changes in technology and incentives. As physical constraints decreased and the returns to education and careers increased, more women entered and competed in the workforce. That shift is not well explained by a single narrative of oppression being lifted, but by broader structural changes.
- kleiba2 6mo ago
  > You’re making an assumption that anyone pointing out these numbers is claiming men are being oppressed, and then arguing against that. I'm sorry but I'm not making any such assumptions nor claims. Sorry if you got that impression. If anything, I'm referring to this part of the title: "What's going on with men?" Other than that, thanks for your contribution - you're listing a lot of important points. If I may add one: disposable hygiene pads that actually work are a fairly recent invention. Through the centuries, women used all kinds of different measures to handle menstruation bleeding that were, however, often associated with social stigma. Therefore, splitting the daily work load such that women could stay was advantageous also just for this practical reason - I suppose it wouldn't have been so awesome to be out in the fields or in a factory during that one week of the month.

by kleiba2 7mo ago

lkey 7mo ago

> Employers are incentivized to hire women over men in case of equal qualification. You can't say this, unsupported by evidence, in Trump's America, where revanchist 'white guy DEI' is the ordering of the world. > Women earn better salaries than ever before ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing. What makes jobs that pay enough 'more attractive', generally, is rising fixed costs, like rent and energy, and stagnant wages.

kleiba2 7mo ago
> You can't say this, unsupported by evidence, in Trump's America, where revanchist 'white guy DEI' is the ordering of the world. I've slightly toned down that statement and added a reference. > ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing. The argument is not about the gender pay gap (which I don't doubt) however. I do agree though that increased cost of life puts a bigger pressure on everyone to find sources of income.
atmavatar 7mo ago
> ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing. In fact, it has started to reverse. When controlled for experience and hours worked, and comparing pay for the same job, young women out-earn young men. The reason for this is simple: the ratio of men and women in college has flipped since the 90s, going from 60:40 in favor of men to now roughly 60:40 in favor of women. We'll see if that remains true in the long-term, however, as women tend to pay a steep penalty, compensation-wise, for maternity leave.
- kleiba2 6mo ago
  I don't understand the argument why the gender ratio in college would have an influence on the pay gap?

threethirtytwo 7mo ago

The premise of the article is exactly the same as the title. You’re making an assumption that anyone pointing out these numbers is claiming men are being oppressed, and then arguing against that. There’s no need. Almost no one is making that claim. The real issue is the opposite narrative. The idea that men broadly oppressed women across history, preventing them from participating in economic roles, and that modern outcomes are primarily the result of that dynamic being corrected. There are a number of reasons at play here why that premise doesn’t make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points: 1. For most of history, labor was dictated by physical constraints and survival needs. Work like hunting, land clearing, construction, and early farming depended heavily on upper body strength and endurance, which skewed participation toward men. That’s a division of labor shaped by biology and environment, not a simple story of exclusion. As technology advanced, much of that physicality became unnecessary, which is a major driver of why participation has equalized in modern roles. 2. Women’s roles were not an absence from work, but a concentration in different forms of labor. Childbearing, childcare, food preparation, and household production were essential to survival, even if they don’t show up cleanly in modern employment statistics. 3. Many of the institutions we associate with modern economic life, including formalized science, engineering, and large-scale industry, were disproportionately created and originated in contexts where men were the primary participants. That’s not a claim about superiority, but it does mean the structure of what we now recognize as “work” and “progress” was heavily shaped by that historical imbalance. 4. The concept of a formal job market is relatively recent. In pre-industrial societies, most people, including men, were not participating in anything resembling today’s labor market. Applying modern employment categories backward creates a distorted picture of inclusion and exclusion. 5. Modern workforce participation is strongly driven by changes in technology and incentives. As physical constraints decreased and the returns to education and careers increased, more women entered and competed in the workforce. That shift is not well explained by a single narrative of oppression being lifted, but by broader structural changes.

kleiba2 6mo ago
> You’re making an assumption that anyone pointing out these numbers is claiming men are being oppressed, and then arguing against that. I'm sorry but I'm not making any such assumptions nor claims. Sorry if you got that impression. If anything, I'm referring to this part of the title: "What's going on with men?" Other than that, thanks for your contribution - you're listing a lot of important points. If I may add one: disposable hygiene pads that actually work are a fairly recent invention. Through the centuries, women used all kinds of different measures to handle menstruation bleeding that were, however, often associated with social stigma. Therefore, splitting the daily work load such that women could stay was advantageous also just for this practical reason - I suppose it wouldn't have been so awesome to be out in the fields or in a factory during that one week of the month.