Anonymous wrote:Women in the workplace is a way for the government to tax the same household twice. It also drove wages down when more women entered the workforce although that may have to do with sexism. When women started going to college in higher numbers than men, suddenly having a bachelors didn’t mean a great salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I think the answer is that men should do more. I mean, people can decide what’s best for them, but if you have two people working then you can’t rely on one of them for most other tasks, too.

It's not even just the tasks. It's all the planning and organizing that they somehow can't see and do not help with. My husband and I split most chores evenly. For example, we switch off weeks of meal planning and cooking meals. So it's split 50:50, and he is quite proud of himself for this. But he seems to think a magical elf manages the pantry and restocks to cooking oil and seasonings, who cleans out the fridge and scrubs the shelves, who wipes down the counters and mops the floor, etc. But if you ask him, he does half the work of feeding our family.

Stop patting yourself on the back. He probably does things that you don't even notice or register either.

Anonymous wrote:Women in the workplace is a way for the government to tax the same household twice. It also drove wages down when more women entered the workforce although that may have to do with sexism. When women started going to college in higher numbers than men, suddenly having a bachelors didn’t mean a great salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

If your brain just goes to women and not a million other factors that have changed over time, that's a you problem.

As for the workplace, are any of them really better from having HR departments or other such areas birthed by feminism?

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

Cry harder

You're missing the point.

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth simply because the need for group agreement (aand agreeableness as a female trait) doesn't allow for such conflict. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

Please tell me how male dominated workplaces treat women who display the traits you consider unnatural for them. Tell me how direct, opinionated, argumentative, unvarnished-feedback-giving women are thought of in the workplace, BY MEN.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

Did it change it for the better for men?

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

I think the answer is that men should do more. I mean, people can decide what’s best for them, but if you have two people working then you can’t rely on one of them for most other tasks, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As a female physician, please just stop. We are routinely cleaning up after our arrogant male colleagues who can't get out of their own way, routinely get patient complaints, and have bad outcomes. This doesn't include the 4 male physicians removed from faculty at our local DMV trauma center for sexually harassing female nurses, all in the last 3 years:

"Older adults admitted to the hospital fare better if under the care of a female physician rather than a male physician. More specifically, the patients in this study were less likely to end up back in the hospital, or die, in the 30 days after discharge if cared for by female physicians than similar patients cared for by male physicians."

- Comparison of Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates for Medicare Patients Treated by Male vs Female Physicians

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2593255#google_vignette

As a patient that pays attention, and one that works with physicians every day, it’s obvious to see. I am a male and I refuse to see male doctors if I can help it. I get way better personalized care this way.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the article. Obviously, women should be treated as equals, etc, but I think it is worth asking questions about whether many of feminism's achievements have actually improved things for women. Arguably, women now have to do everything a man has to do, in addition to everything that women do, and it doesn't seem like this is a good deal. Men are miserable, women report the lowest levels of happiness in decades, and yet we can't question whether this is all working for us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

If your brain just goes to women and not a million other factors that have changed over time, that's a you problem.

As for the workplace, are any of them really better from having HR departments or other such areas birthed by feminism?

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

Cry harder

You're missing the point.

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth simply because the need for group agreement (aand agreeableness as a female trait) doesn't allow for such conflict. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

Soooo, you decided to quote a large chunk of Helen Andrews’ “Great Feminization” essay without attribution, and pass it off as your own comment. Not very honest or swashbuckling of you.

Anonymous wrote:But men gossip! They gossip all the time! It's just called male bonding or golf or Friday night drinks or whatever. But men absolutely do gossip.

And backstabbing? Men don't backstab? Come on! Wake up! It's demonstrably untrue that every male on male conflict is overt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Is there actually any argument for the opposite?

If your brain just goes to women and not a million other factors that have changed over time, that's a you problem.

As for the workplace, are any of them really better from having HR departments or other such areas birthed by feminism?

Yes. People no longer have to put up with groping, harassment, racist jokes, nude pinups, and other things that don’t belong in a workplace.

because women find it offensive

Cry harder

You're missing the point.

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth simply because the need for group agreement (aand agreeableness as a female trait) doesn't allow for such conflict. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

Since women are now the majority in the college system, the majority of MD and JD recent graduates, those fields will all soon be female dominated. As women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.