To wonder why male things are always better?

[Bumpitybumper]

Has anyone else noticed things typically associated with men are considered to be better? Examples I've noticed:

Trivial
Names - baby girls being given male names is considered cool and trendy (James, Noah etc) but this seems to seldom work in reverse.
Colours - pink is often rejected even for girls because it's too 'girly' but blue is acceptable for both sexes.

Non-trivial
Professions - women are encouraged to enter typically make dominated STEM industries but little is done to address the appalling pay, conditions and underappreciation of female denominated sectors such as teaching, caring etc
Childcare - the onus seems to be on getting more women into FT work rather than spending time at home to raise their children. Tax system and free childcare entitlements designed to encourage this rather than to incentivise men AND women to be SAHPs.

There are loads of other things I've noticed too.

AIBU to be deeply cynical about why the traditionally male approach is always seen to be superior and to worry that this isn't the best way to achieve equality?

Waterproof watches are almost impossible to find in nice small ladies' size. Who do they think has their hands in the washing up most?

The male midwife debate confuses me. Most births come from a man and a woman having sex. It's not like a man has never peered at your bits before?? They are professionals doing the exact same job as the women!
I have had the misfortune to have had more than my fair share of gynae appointments. Guess what? All male Drs!! I wasn't bothered by that at all! They weren't perving they were trying to fix me! Their job!

Trans women aren't men. Men don't don't ID as women, trans women do.

This is a nonsensical statement. Men evidently do ID as women - that is what makes them trans. However, it doesn't make them women.

Lots of these are just generally opinion based. I don’t think there will ever be true gender equality...because I think that to some degree men and women are biologically different. Different hormones, different muscle to weight ratio, different bone structures etc....however - as long as somebody is happy and the job they have is an honest job I don’t really think it’s anyones business.

This was a really interesting thread until it went off the rails.
For the poster who said pay is equally shit for men and women lower down the scale-not quite. Working class "male" jobs have always paid more than working class "female" jobs.
Also, the flip side of jobs being devalued when women start doing them is that industries employing women that start to become lucrative have always become almost exclusively male run.
Many of the first photographers, film directors and computer programmers were women. Then men realised just how much money there was to be made. ..oh look! Suddenly women are far too stupid to do those things. Ditto medicine. Women had the monopoly in treating the sick..men saw there was money to be made...oh look! Those women are witches and must be eliminated!
If someone worked out a way that cleaning the lav could net a tidy profit we would all of a sudden be seen as far too delicate to attempt it. If only!

Of course men and women are biologically different! Different shouldn't mean one sex is treated as lesser. Different is just..different!

IfNot

You speak a lot of nonsense.

Can you think of why the male jobs of the working class were paid more? I think the two clear reasons are likely to be the strength required and the physical toll on the body (soldier, labourer, miner etc) or because of the danger of these male jobs.

Women had the monopoly in treating the sick..men saw there was money to be made...oh look! Those women are witches and must be eliminated!

No. Simply no. At the time of the witch hunts, women were only allowed to be midwives. Before and after that men tended to dominate the field. For the last few years (since 2015) women medical school enrollees have been in the majority in the US and UK (50.7%).

Your comment about computer programmers is misleading. Although the actual input of code was often done by less-educated women, most of those furthering the field were male.

silverTIRFer
Women working in the mills also did very physical jobs that had a horrible toll on the body. Before and during industrialisation most jobs were more physically demanding and dangerous than they are now. It still doesn't justify why women's work during AND after this era is worse paid even when physical strength or danger isn't a factor.

I think you are willfully ignoring the quite obvious reality that women's work is viewed as inferior to men's. These is true when you compare sectors (e.g. bin men are paid more than cleaners) or when you look at a specific profession (men over represented in management positions in female dominated professions such as nursing). You seem more determined to find poor excuses as to why this disparity can be justified than to tackle the underlying issues that are creating this phenomenon.

At least here in the US, socks and underwear seem to be the exception. We wanted to buy thermal undies and in the end DH bought plain black women's ones because they fit better and were more comfortable. Women's socks and undies tend to be more comfy too with lycra in them whereas only the more expensive men's ones are as nice.

@Bumpity

" It still doesn't justify why women's work during AND after this era is worse paid even when physical strength or danger isn't a factor. "

But you don't give examples. Bin "men" is a job which is suspect fewer people want to do hence the higher pay. I'd far rather be a cleaner than a bin man for the same money. Wouldn't you?

"men over represented in management positions in female dominated professions such as nursing"

Again, this simply doesn't stand up as an argument. Are you comparing nursing or management?

As well as this, why "over" represented?

You seem determined to have perfect ratios and representation. With so many differences between men and women (not down to the oppressive patriarchy) then it's perfectly expected.

There's natural order amongst all humans, animals and sub-groups within them. We have equality of opportunity* and that's what I want. Equality of outcome sounds awful.

*actually, girls do better at school, better at university and better in their jobs until they make the choice to have children. Women who decide not to have children do as well or better than men. Society should not be restructured to compensate a group who compromise out of free choice.

silverTIRFer
I would actually rather be a bin man than a cleaner especially one that cleans public toilets or hospitals. I don't think the higher pay is necessarily to do with fewer people wanting to be bin men as there is a shortage for loads of poorly paid female dominated sectors such as carers etc but this hasn't led to an increase in pay. Market forces are obviously not the reason for the pay disparity in the way you seem to be suggesting.

I'm talking about management positions in professions such as nursing. If the vast majority of nurses are women then I would expect that they should be properly represented at all levels of the hierarchy. It is logical as normally you would want the best nurses to progress with the appropriate level of experience, chances are the majority of these would be women in a women dominated profession.

'There's natural order amongst all humans, animals and sub-groups within them.'
Yes but there aren't bin men and nurses in 'nature'. We live in a supposedly civilised society that shouldn't be trying to regress to some bizarre notion that we should all be stuck in our cave man roles.

"Market forces are obviously not the reason for the pay disparity in the way you seem to be suggesting."

Yes they are. The factor you forgot to include was government handouts keeping people out of these jobs.

Management and nursing are entirely different roles though - I don't understand the point you're making. Why would you want a nurse at all levels of the hierarchy? That isn't what they're trained for. Maybe it isn't what they're good at. I'd imagine that the kind of person who makes a good nurse wouldn't make a good manager and vice versa.

"Yes but there aren't bin men and nurses in 'nature'

[rolleyes]

No, but different groups tend to fall into different roles in nature, within a group of animals. Is it the oppressive patriarchal structure of seagull society which keeps females on the nest while the males go out fishing?

When I was teaching and running the library the general,assumption was that most boys would only read books aimed at boys or written by men but that girls would read everything. J.K. Rowling wrote under her intitals rather than her name, Joanne, for this reason and made a great deal of profit from her decision.

I say ‘most boys’ as the ones in the upper sets would read anything too. My own son loved ‘The Worst Witch’ series and they were based on girls. Getting past the girl/boy barrier gave boys an academic advantage.

Designer clothes excepted, men’s clothing is generally of a much higher quality than women’s. Men have proper linings, decent cloth and pockets as standard.

That said, it might well be that they don’t discard clothes as fashion changes as much as women do and so their clothing is made more robustly to last.

On Monday my husband had a black jumper on that he bought when the children were little. The eldest is 29.

silverTIRFer
Market forces would dictate that where demand exceeds supply then the wages paid should increase. Government handouts would not be relevant if the market was working how you suggest as the wages would soon exceed any government handouts. Also it's not just unskilled jobs that are relatively low paid. Look at teachers, the level of responsibility and education required to do this job would indicate that it should be much better paid.

It is not uncommon, and in fact more the norm that management roles within a profession are occupied by people that have worked in the field at a lower level first. This is true of tonnes of industries where specialist knowledge and experience is a great asset in management roles. All fantastic nurses may not be suited to management roles, but some would and should be encouraged to progress.

I don't know why you can't see that the society we live in is so detached from the natural world that trying to dictate some natural order to things doesn't work. The society we live in is a construct that has been designed and built by men to favour men. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

silvertirfer wrote
"girls do better at school, better at university and better in their jobs until they make the choice to have children. Women who decide not to have children do as well or better than men. Society should not be restructured to compensate a group who compromise out of free choice"
So it's only women who "compromise" by having children? You see men who have kids purely as sperm donors whose careers should remain unaffected by their choice?
Get yourself back to the 1950s.

"Government handouts would not be relevant if the market was working how you suggest as the wages would soon exceed any government handouts. "

Governments distort market signals.

"Look at teachers"

I am one(ish)

"the level of responsibility and education required to do this job would indicate that it should be much better paid."

No. I think we're fairly paid. There are many perks to being a teacher, notably the hours and holidays.

"I don't know why you can't see that the society we live in is so detached from the natural world that trying to dictate some natural order to things doesn't work."

Because we're only animals. Humans aren't the same therefore expecting the same outcome across an enormous population is illogical. We should expect to see clusters and groupings of outcomes according to characteristics. What's a massive defining characteristic of us? Our sex.

It is perfectly normal, natural and expected that those with different characteristics would act, react, behave and achieve differently.

Society no longer favours men. I'd say that in the last 20 years it favours women (not all over the world but it does in the UK).

In India construction, demolition, and bricklaying (ad brick making) is done by women because there isn’t money in it yet. When there is men will probably take over.

"So it's only women who "compromise" by having children?"

No.

"You see men who have kids purely as sperm donors whose careers should remain unaffected by their choice?"

No.

"Get yourself back to the 1950s."

No. Women didn't have free choice then.

Your comment about computer programmers is misleading. Although the actual input of code was often done by less-educated women, most of those furthering the field were male

Darn Ada Lovelace, huh?

The reason males furthered the field is because women were pretty much squeezed out of the industry. You should see the games industry now. Very male centric, very difficult for women to get into and yet plenty of women are interested in coding as a career

silverTIRFer

I am slightly puzzled by your views to be honest. Teaching is a notoriously difficult job with long hours and high levels of responsibility hence so many teachers leaving the profession in droves. Your experience, as with so many things you talk about seems to run contrary to the experience of the vast majority of women.

Stating emphatically that women have it better than men when there is a whole body of evidence to suggest the opposite is misleading at best.

Also, women do ok until they have kids.. yes, that's undeniably true but, why do you think that this isn't an issue to tackle rather than dismissing it as a woman's 'free choice' to be so heavily penalised for having children? It's this kind of attitude that allows inequalities to become entrenched.

You know that naming a woman doesn't have any bearing on my assertion that most in the field were men.

"very difficult for women to get into and yet plenty of women are interested in coding as a career"

Which you're about to prove, no doubt?

YES!

Thanks for womansplaining teaching to me.

Why are you now aligning women and teachers?

"Stating emphatically that women have it better than men"

In education and then in work until child bearing age. They do.

Would you accept a TES article?

www.tes.com/news/gcse-results-2017-girls-maintain-lead-over-boys-despite-new-linear-exams

Graduate employment. Excuse the Guardian article but it's numbers were collected by HESA.

"While nearly three-quarters of women who graduated last summer had found full- or part-time jobs within six months of leaving university, just 71% of men had done the same. Some 8% of male graduates said they were unemployed at the time of the survey, compared with just 6% of women."

Guardian article (again) but a nice read about women out-earning men until their 30s. Data from ONS.

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

"why do you think that this isn't an issue to tackle rather than dismissing it as a woman's 'free choice' to be so heavily penalised for having children?"

Because free choice is not something to tackle.

I like meritocracy and capitalism and minimal government interference in both our lives and the economy.

There was a thread recently about needing enforced 50:50 parental leave. Fucking nonsense. I don't want to be told how to live my life and neither does my husband. We'll do what we want and take responsibility for our own choices.

Men often decide to sacrifice family life for their careers. Women often decide to do the opposite. These decisions are made freely.

Men often decide to sacrifice family life for their careers. Women often decide to do the opposite. These decisions are made freely.

As if.