4 ms·
The final line in what Albert writes does ask that question about the specific occupation, but right before that he had stated more generally that men are not f
by jack-r-abbit 13y ago
The final line in what Albert writes does ask that question about the specific occupation, but right before that he had stated more generally that men are not fighting for more men to study traditionally female-dominated subjects or jobs like primary-school teacher, nurse, PR officers and therapists. So it makes sense for Dubner to address the more general "female-dominated professions" than the specific "therapists" part. I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". I think in this situation the answers to either question are going to be largely related.
- gametheoretic 13y ago>I also don't see that much difference in asking "why don't more men do [some female-dominated profession]" vs. "why don't men fight for more men to do [some female-dominated profession]". Really? The mere fact that someone would take these as different questions should suggest that they don't believe they would partake in campaigning as women do now, were they in the same position. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about myself-- people very often are-- but in this case I very much doubt it. Power, tech jobs, diamond rings. Women want none of these; they want the wanting. How to tell? That which they actually do want, they are far more goal-oriented about obtaining. Boyfriends, shoes/handbags, an appearance of not standing out, etc.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoI said I don't see that much difference. Not enough for me to make the indictment you made about the author. That was all I was getting at. Personally, I don't think the author answered either question very well. I saw very little point to the whole post. I was a little disappointed.