8 ms·

> "By 27 years of age, 32 percent of women had received a bachelor's degree, compared with 24 percent of men. " And because of the huge inertia in political di

by Camillo 13y ago

> "By 27 years of age, 32 percent of women had received a bachelor's degree, compared with 24 percent of men. " And because of the huge inertia in political discourse, the gap will have to reach something like 50% vs 20% before it even becomes acceptable to raise this as an issue.

sliverstorm 13y ago
I'm sure to some groups it will never be acceptable. 100% vs 20%? We like those numbers, but let's see if we can't lower the second one! Thankfully while real, those are fringe groups. So I guess my point is that there will probably always be resistance/people who reject bringing it up out-of-hand.
ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
I doubt it. In America "victim culture", "David vs Goliath", "hatred of the rich", "_____ privilage" and "the haves and have nots" mindset controls who gets sympathy and who does not. If women have less degrees or make less than men guess who gets the blame? Where as if men have less degrees or make less than women in the household it's automatically assumed it's men's own fault and no one is to blame. Why? Because only the squeaky wheel gets the grease, if you don't squeak you don't get grease.
scarmig 13y ago
Although that sentence doesn't refer to it, something to keep in mind: there are the race and class variables lurking in there. IIRC if you're upper-middle class and white (and Asian, I'm guessing), the gender gap disappears. That doesn't mean that we're not failing our young boys; we certainly are. But it's always useful to break it down by race and class, especially in the States. A deeper question is why? If our culture is biased against boys, you might expect the gap to appear in all racial and economic classifications. My hypothesis is that we're in the midst of a giant pauperization: technology is eating most real jobs. In recent decades, however, there's still been a relative abundance of salaried jobs that require stability and organizational and interpersonal skills, which women, either by genes or socialization, are better at. So there's a real difference in investment payoff for a woman to go to college than a man, given their existing skill sets [1]. So more women go to college [2]. For now, at least. Give it a decade or two and I'm predicting an even lower proportion of men and women both going to college, particularly those in marginalized communities whose labor wouldn't be improved to the point that capital needs them to to make more real profits. [1] One way to confirm that would be whether a man with a college degree makes less money than a woman with an equivalent degree. Which I think is the case but want to find a real cite for it. [2] Another hypothesis: traditional male archetypes are falling by the wayside. Discarding those is a strategy people are using, consciously or no, to try to build up the interpersonal skills of men. I don't know how to test this, however.
- ll123 13y ago
  If you're comparing all males and all females isn't that already disregarding race and class variables?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Err... yes? He's saying, don't disregard race & class. Considering all women vs. all men certainly does not eliminate race & class as impactful factors.
    - ll123 13y ago
      OK, I was confused because it seems to make the most sense to me to eliminate race and class as factors. So if you were to take into account race and class, what conclusions could you make considering that overall men are less likely to be college graduates than women? If say upper class white men are equally likely to be graduates compared to upper class white women, then that would mean, for example, lower class black men would be egregiously disadvantaged compared to lower class black women. So your point would be that male privilege only applies to rich white men and that privilege is reversed for poor black people and for that group women are privileged over men? Let's look at the gender wage gap. Assume someone looks at the statistics that say that overall women earn less than men and says, why aren't race and class considered as factors? Why would someone say that, and what possible conclusions could they reach if they were to slice up the data for those demographics? They could say that some demographics are equal or in favor of women, but overall it would still be in favor of men, so what sort of point could they make there?
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        So your point would be that male privilege only applies to rich white men and that privilege is reversed for poor black people and for that group women are privileged over men? Sort of. At least, that's the net result. But it isn't because gender privilige is truly reversed- it is because they are weighted down by things like incarceration, which impacts men more than women, and gang violence, which also impacts men more as more men join gangs!
anaphor 13y ago
Or in other words "You can't just extrapolate random variables into the future, unless it's clearly discrimination"
Fomite 13y ago
"And because of the huge inertia in political discourse, the gap will have to reach something like 50% vs 20% before it even becomes acceptable to raise this as an issue." The gap in achievement at later levels of schooling on an aggregate basis has been an active discussion for years already - we don't yet understand why, but it's an active area of interest, discussion and research. As has the fact that the recession hitting those with lower levels of education harder are hitting men disproportionately. Because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- Camillo 13y ago
  I am aware that it has been considered as a research issue, but I was talking about political discourse.

by Camillo 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

I'm sure to some groups it will never be acceptable. 100% vs 20%? We like those numbers, but let's see if we can't lower the second one! Thankfully while real, those are fringe groups. So I guess my point is that there will probably always be resistance/people who reject bringing it up out-of-hand.

ChrisNorstrom 13y ago

I doubt it. In America "victim culture", "David vs Goliath", "hatred of the rich", "_____ privilage" and "the haves and have nots" mindset controls who gets sympathy and who does not. If women have less degrees or make less than men guess who gets the blame? Where as if men have less degrees or make less than women in the household it's automatically assumed it's men's own fault and no one is to blame. Why? Because only the squeaky wheel gets the grease, if you don't squeak you don't get grease.

scarmig 13y ago

Although that sentence doesn't refer to it, something to keep in mind: there are the race and class variables lurking in there. IIRC if you're upper-middle class and white (and Asian, I'm guessing), the gender gap disappears. That doesn't mean that we're not failing our young boys; we certainly are. But it's always useful to break it down by race and class, especially in the States. A deeper question is why? If our culture is biased against boys, you might expect the gap to appear in all racial and economic classifications. My hypothesis is that we're in the midst of a giant pauperization: technology is eating most real jobs. In recent decades, however, there's still been a relative abundance of salaried jobs that require stability and organizational and interpersonal skills, which women, either by genes or socialization, are better at. So there's a real difference in investment payoff for a woman to go to college than a man, given their existing skill sets [1]. So more women go to college [2]. For now, at least. Give it a decade or two and I'm predicting an even lower proportion of men and women both going to college, particularly those in marginalized communities whose labor wouldn't be improved to the point that capital needs them to to make more real profits. [1] One way to confirm that would be whether a man with a college degree makes less money than a woman with an equivalent degree. Which I think is the case but want to find a real cite for it. [2] Another hypothesis: traditional male archetypes are falling by the wayside. Discarding those is a strategy people are using, consciously or no, to try to build up the interpersonal skills of men. I don't know how to test this, however.

ll123 13y ago
If you're comparing all males and all females isn't that already disregarding race and class variables?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Err... yes? He's saying, don't disregard race & class. Considering all women vs. all men certainly does not eliminate race & class as impactful factors.
  - ll123 13y ago
    OK, I was confused because it seems to make the most sense to me to eliminate race and class as factors. So if you were to take into account race and class, what conclusions could you make considering that overall men are less likely to be college graduates than women? If say upper class white men are equally likely to be graduates compared to upper class white women, then that would mean, for example, lower class black men would be egregiously disadvantaged compared to lower class black women. So your point would be that male privilege only applies to rich white men and that privilege is reversed for poor black people and for that group women are privileged over men? Let's look at the gender wage gap. Assume someone looks at the statistics that say that overall women earn less than men and says, why aren't race and class considered as factors? Why would someone say that, and what possible conclusions could they reach if they were to slice up the data for those demographics? They could say that some demographics are equal or in favor of women, but overall it would still be in favor of men, so what sort of point could they make there?
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      So your point would be that male privilege only applies to rich white men and that privilege is reversed for poor black people and for that group women are privileged over men? Sort of. At least, that's the net result. But it isn't because gender privilige is truly reversed- it is because they are weighted down by things like incarceration, which impacts men more than women, and gang violence, which also impacts men more as more men join gangs!

anaphor 13y ago

Or in other words "You can't just extrapolate random variables into the future, unless it's clearly discrimination"

Fomite 13y ago

"And because of the huge inertia in political discourse, the gap will have to reach something like 50% vs 20% before it even becomes acceptable to raise this as an issue." The gap in achievement at later levels of schooling on an aggregate basis has been an active discussion for years already - we don't yet understand why, but it's an active area of interest, discussion and research. As has the fact that the recession hitting those with lower levels of education harder are hitting men disproportionately. Because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Camillo 13y ago
I am aware that it has been considered as a research issue, but I was talking about political discourse.