formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 10, 2011 21:13:41 GMT -5
I don't find anything wrong with the statistic.
Years ago, we had nearly 80% [guessing statistic] of women living off of their men, simply because it was the way it was done then. Now, men are living off of their girlfriends / wives instead. Shit, I wish I had me a sugar momma so I could stay home with the kids. Just so happens my career was more lucrative.
What I don't like is when a woman complains about it because she's looking for her man to contribute. She has to face the fact that her man isn't the type A like she wants him to be - he's the type "take care of my Ass, woman".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 10, 2011 21:15:04 GMT -5
I'd say at least 5% of those 20% have some type of disability that prevents them from functioning in the workplace. Just a guess though, don't have figures to back it up. But I do wonder of those 20% how many are househusbands, how many are disabled, and how many took early retirement, or how many are self employed. And how many are in prison. And how many are employed, but under the table. And how many are full-time students (sometimes for years and years) These are interesting side issues, but the trend is worrisome no matter what possible reasons there may be. When a fifth of the male population is basically out of the productive sectors of the economy, that's an issue. I mean if David Brooks recognizes that fact, then it has to be pretty bloody obvious. And by comparison, there's something going on: "It will probably require a broad menu of policies attacking the problem all at once: expanding community colleges and online learning..." What needs to change is societal expectations of adult males. I'm not talking manly man bs. I'm talking about you either have a family and you're raising kids, you're a full time college student, a part time college student with a part tim job, or full time employed. At 18, you need to be employed, enlisted, enrolled, or evicted from your parent's pad. If 20% of the male population is in prison- then that tells me that the devil really does make work for idle hands-- the idleness came before the prison sentence-- guaranteed. More money on education? Surely Mr. Brooks is pulling our chain. We need more supervision of what is being taught- especially in government run institutions where topics such as feminist literature is an major. We spend more on education than any other industrialized country, we spend more-- and we get less. There are more schools, junior colleges, vo-techs, and government run "job training centers" and they aren't teaching anything worthwhile. Look at our own President. He presided over the Harvard Law Review, he went to two of the most prestigious centers of learning on planet earth, and what did he learn? A bunch of gobbedly gook. He is probably the most potent, prominent, saddest case of an utterly wasted life having been indoctrinated, propagandized, and completely skewed his whole life. Brooks thinks the solution is German-style labor market practices? Has he lost his ever lovin' mind? We blew past old Europe eschewing such practices; and nations like Chile are now passing us up doing the same things WE used to do. Not establishing huge centralized command and control health systems with "German labor market practices". Hey, Brooks- we're already up to 99 weeks! Wage subsidies? Ever hear of EITC, or do you not realize 47% of US Households don't pay into the Federal income tax system as it stands. And Brooks is what passes for a "conservative" at the NY Times.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:11:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2011 21:15:17 GMT -5
My ex was in upper level management at a grocery store chain. The RULES of feminizing the workplace are insane!! Not a week goes by without some women making some complaint, RARELY about something real, about a male co-worker. Men have to literally walk on eggshells in the workplace these days. My husband had to deal with these issues. Not sure what Paul means, but I know this to be true. People are looking for a high dollar lawsuit, and male on female in the workplace is a good one.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 10, 2011 21:17:17 GMT -5
I don't know how the workplace has been feminized.
I'm a young man, and I haven't ever felt threatened by women in the workplace, or felt my career opportunities were somehow hurt by women being in the workplace.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:11:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2011 21:19:21 GMT -5
I'm fine, of course, with men taking care of the kids if that is what works best, but there are total deadbeats that have Mom the kid(s) at daycare and play video games and drink beer all day. Disgusting. Usually they are abusive, too.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on May 10, 2011 21:22:06 GMT -5
...I think certain industries have been "feminized," but I suspect it's from marketing strategy rather than an emasculation strategy... patrons like girls... and market forces are, well, forceful... ETA: ...and phoenix also mentioned the increased % of female graduates going into information dense industries, which contributes to the shift, too...
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 10, 2011 21:22:48 GMT -5
I don't find anything wrong with the statistic. Years ago, we had nearly 80% [guessing statistic] of women living off of their men, simply because it was the way it was done then. Now, men are living off of their girlfriends / wives instead. Shit, I wish I had me a sugar momma so I could stay home with the kids. Just so happens my career was more lucrative. What I don't like is when a woman complains about it because she's looking for her man to contribute. She has to face the fact that her man isn't the type A like she wants him to be - he's the type "take care of my Ass, woman". I have no issue with the statistic either. I have an issue with the lack of description of the sample size, or what constitutes "get up and go to work". I have an issue with the connotation that the men are lazy because they are not in the paid workforce, as if they might not be students, or that their partners aren't pulling their own weight. whether male or female, why can't those partners be working at a well-enough paid job that allows the guy to be a SAHP? I do believe the world has evolved enough to allow the partner to be the breadwinner, even if it hasn't evolved enough to allow that partner to be equally paid (on average). from Paul's past posts, I don't think it's outside the feasible range to think that he has posted this in order to inflame the overall P&M board.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 10, 2011 21:31:07 GMT -5
"Oh, but it CAN be addressed by reducing the size of government. For starters, when you feminize the workplace-- and look, I am heading out for the night and so I'm trying to keep this brief-- either you understand this, or you don't-- and make it hostile to the aggressive, competitive, results-driven nature of men-- men are disinclined to enter that environment. It was a big part of my own motivation for leaving the cubicle. The work itself was challenging, and I've never actually had a job I truly hated in terms of the work, but the needling little bullshit rules, regulations, and details that have nothing to do with the performance of my duties did sort of nag at me and bother me."
I think Paul already gave his definition of what feminizing the workplace was in his opinion which is "little bullshit rules, regulations, and details" that in his opinion had nothing to do with his performance on his duties.
The thing I find amusing is those places I know of that have the most rules, regulations, and details are male driven or created companies. IBM - they have forms for everything its part of the culture, the military has lots of rules and regulations including appearance which existed way before women were ever permitted in, AT&T, McDonald's created by a man came up with rules and processes how to create each food product, timing, etc.
I would call it the McDonaldization of the work culture because in my opinion McDonald's and their business processes is the cause of the processization of most work so it can be measured and managed. I probably like it less than PBP, but I'm pretty clear it has little to do with women in the work place and more to do with changing ideas of what work should be, out sourcing, etc.
I think the feminization of the work place is just some BS both PBP and SF both like to believe. I wonder where they heard it from?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:11:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2011 21:34:50 GMT -5
Well, my ex sure believed it. He would not be in the manager's office alone with a woman with the door closed.
Paul-- what DID you mean?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,719
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 10, 2011 21:41:19 GMT -5
My ex was in upper level management at a grocery store chain. The RULES of feminizing the workplace are insane!! Not a week goes by without some women making some complaint, RARELY about something real, about a male co-worker. Men have to literally walk on eggshells in the workplace these days. My husband had to deal with these issues. Not sure what Paul means, but I know this to be true. People are looking for a high dollar lawsuit, and male on female in the workplace is a good one. Krickitt, I think this has more to do with its a grocery store and the type of employees and what they are paid. I have worked at many different types of jobs and have noticed when working badly paid jobs that the workers tend to be more petty and do lots of political moves. In my experience this did occur mostly with women, however, when in these jobs the people I worked with were overwhelming female so I wasn't that surprised.
|
|
|
Post by ty on May 10, 2011 21:46:11 GMT -5
That's because women have entered the work place, and as a result you now have men and women both competing against one another for a job which means someone will not get the position. If women weren't in the work place filling in jobs that was onces for men only, then you wouldn't have so many men in the unemployment line.
You may think I am wrong in saying this, but if a man and woman brings a child into the world, one of them needs to spend time at home in raising the kid and let the other be the wage earner.
I also feel that women in the workforce should be paying for their dates and not expect the men to pay for everything. If they wanted equality, then they should be paying for half their dates as well and not just stick all the bills to the man they are dating.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on May 10, 2011 21:49:01 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:11:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2011 21:52:08 GMT -5
I've had a few men try to live off me when they saw I had unlimited hours in the day to work. It stunk.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on May 10, 2011 21:54:52 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
|
Post by ty on May 10, 2011 21:55:38 GMT -5
there is not enough information to show that the 20% are deadbeats, living off a g/f, on welfare or lazy, other than our own individual assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by ty on May 10, 2011 21:58:12 GMT -5
I've had a few men try to live off me when they saw I had unlimited hours in the day to work. It stunk. i have a niece that supports her so-called "deadbeat hubby" but he has to work for it in the bedroom, and he plays the role of the woman in cleaning the home, doing the laundry and watching the kids while she's at work. It's their life arrangement. I don't condone it, but I am not here to judge them. Their life, they can live it anyway they see fit imo.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 10, 2011 21:59:41 GMT -5
I've had a few men try to live off me when they saw I had unlimited hours in the day to work. It stunk. i have a niece that supports her so-called "deadbeat hubby" but he has to work for it in the bedroom, and he plays the role of the woman in cleaning the home, doing the laundry and watching the kids while she's at work. It's their life arrangement. I don't condone it, but I am not here to judge them. Their life, they can live it anyway they see fit imo. he plays the role of the woman? what? especially with what you've posted in this thread! wow.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 10, 2011 22:03:23 GMT -5
1/5 th of men are lazy jerks. Big news. I think I dated all of them in college. Women choosing poorly in the dating arena. Shocking!
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on May 10, 2011 22:03:36 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 10, 2011 22:05:39 GMT -5
palmbeachpaul said: "This is a horrifying observation to me. These men are living off the proceeds of someone else's labor. This cries out for reform- especially welfare reform, but also for reductions in government red tape." How many of these men are stay at home fathers? It's something that I personally wish I could do. My wife stayed home the 1st nine years of my oldest child's life, the bonds that she has with the three children I can never have because of the time I gave giving her that opportunity. Even in today's liberated society, there are not that many stay at home fathers. Even if men have the desire to do so, there are simply not many women who want to marry them. Sure, there are exceptions but not many.
|
|
hannah27
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:51:40 GMT -5
Posts: 69
|
Post by hannah27 on May 10, 2011 22:27:29 GMT -5
I don't believe that the percentage was ever really over 95%. What groups did they leave out of the calculation?
What is wrong with studying feminist literature, exactly? At least that major guarantees an ability to read and think, which is more than can be said for the educational standards of many government-run institutions where sports dominate to the point of lunacy. Far too many players "study" only as much as they need to in order to satisfy requirements, and they get LOTS of academic assistance, especially if the football team is shaping up as a winner. The world needs more feminists just to compensate for these dullards.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on May 10, 2011 22:41:29 GMT -5
I don't believe that the percentage was ever really over 95%. What groups did they leave out of the calculation? What is wrong with studying feminist literature, exactly? At least that major guarantees an ability to read and think, which is more than can be said for the educational standards of many government-run institutions where sports dominate to the point of lunacy. Far too many players "study" only as much as they need to in order to satisfy requirements, and they get LOTS of academic assistance, especially if the football team is shaping up as a winner. The world needs more feminists just to compensate for these dullards. um, there are plenty of private schools that have D-I sports teams. they coddle their players just as well as the "government-run" state schools. just saying....
|
|
teppe2
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:52:48 GMT -5
Posts: 73
|
Post by teppe2 on May 10, 2011 23:46:07 GMT -5
Paul, The wage subsidies they are talking about are subsidies to complement wage rather than having to pay full unemployment. During times of "Kurzarbeit (shortened work), the company pays 37% of the wage, the government pays 67% of NET wage. Taxes and deductions continue to be taken out of the pay check. Companies reduce expenses and retain skilled workers, retirement, healthcare, taxes, and other deductions continue to be paid, and people still bring home a paycheck. Normally this concept is limited to 6 months, only during this recession was it extended to 24. To get 99 weeks of unemployment you have to be over the age of 52 and must have worked at least 48 months full time prior to filing, otherwise 12 months is the absolute maximum. Unemployment payments also decrease over time. If you decline a job deemed suitable by the unemployment office you lose benefits for 3 months, you decline repeatedly you lose all benefits. The longer you receive unemployment the wider the term "suitable" becomes. A former CEO may well find that flipping burgers is a suitable job. In terms of commute, anything 3 hours or less per day is suitable.
|
|
|
Post by ty on May 11, 2011 0:01:31 GMT -5
George Will: Title IXabcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=132569&page=1"Soon a commission will recommend changes in enforcement of the law called Title IX. Passed 30 years ago, the law bans sexual discrimination in education. The problem is how that ban has been construed as applied to athletics. It is a myth that Title IX produced the dramatic increase in women's participation in athletics. Actually, cultural changes produced most dramatic increases before Title IX was even applied to athletics. What Title IX has produced is the elimination of more than 400 men's teams because the bureaucrats who wrote the Title IX regulations required a perverse kind of proportionality: The number of roster spots on women's teams must be the same proportion of women's total enrollment in the school as the number of men's roster spots is of men's enrollment. But more young men than young women care about playing sports. And one men's sport, football, requires a lot of roster spots. So if the school has equal numbers of men and women and has, say, 400 athletic roster spots, then 200 must be for men and 200 for women, even if this means that all women wishing to participate can but half the men wishing to participate can't. Because Title IX has made a dogma of such proportionality, many schools have had to achieve equality partly by reducing the number of male athletes by killing men's wrestling, swimming, baseball, gymnastics and other teams. In a recent five-year period, more than three men's positions on college teams were eliminated for every woman's position created. Some feminists for whom Title IX is a fetish oppose revising the enforcement rules. But those rules mistakenly equate equal participation rates with equal opportunity, and have turned Title IX into a triumph of dogmatism over common sense." ------------------------------------------------------------------- What was meant for equality in the playing field has actually done more damage to the male athletes in our schools.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:11:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2011 0:20:42 GMT -5
Yeah-- that one for bad, Kreepy. Cut lots of guys out of sports.
|
|
hannah27
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:51:40 GMT -5
Posts: 69
|
Post by hannah27 on May 11, 2011 6:17:25 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure that's true. I was addressing "government run" institutions because that's what the original poster was referring to.
|
|
hannah27
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 10:51:40 GMT -5
Posts: 69
|
Post by hannah27 on May 11, 2011 6:27:42 GMT -5
"Many schools" is misleading. The truth is that most colleges have absolutely no problem investing FAR MORE money into men's sports than they do for women's sports. I have no problem with that because I know it's true that most people prefer to pay to attend male-dominated sports. What I *do* have a problem with is the double-standard in terms of educational quality. A player on a women's basketball team will not be able to graduate if she can't make the academic cut whereas a male football player will have his hand held for four years to ensure that he passes because if his grades drop, he's off the team. I know this is true because I've worked in academia for decades; I see what goes on.
Colleges and universities are too often all about the sports, not about education. A non-athletic graduate with a degree in feminist literature is far better educated than a dumb-as-a-plank football player who is barely literate. (Disclaimer: some of the football players are indeed bright and get good grades, but too many are barely a step above plant life.)
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 11, 2011 7:05:23 GMT -5
A player on a women's basketball team will not be able to graduate if she can't make the academic cut whereas a male football player will have his hand held for four years to ensure that he passes because if his grades drop, he's off the team.
Do you know how much money is involved with US college football? Coaches earn millions per year. Up to a hundred thousand fans a game. Of course they are going to get a good player through at all costs. Woman's basketball? No one really cares about that, sorry to say.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 11, 2011 7:12:16 GMT -5
A player on a women's basketball team will not be able to graduate if she can't make the academic cut whereas a male football player will have his hand held for four years to ensure that he passes because if his grades drop, he's off the team.Do you know how much money is involved with US college football? Coaches earn millions per year. Up to a hundred thousand fans a game. Of course they are going to get a good player through at all costs. Woman's basketball? No one really cares about that, sorry to say. Money justifies illegal (NCAA rules) activity?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 11, 2011 7:23:08 GMT -5
I know a couple with 2 kids that the husband lost his job.His wife had a good paying one.After searching for work,they decided the jobs he could get did not pay enough to make daycare for 2 children worthwhile so he is a stay at home dad.I would imagine this is a fairly common and growing scenario,and really don't know how this is the fault of "libs" unless you mean the acceptance of women in the workplace being paid the same as men.
|
|