BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Girls Rule, Boys Drool: The New Gender Gap

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Cherry Bomb
10:38 / 20.06.03
I am not sure if the switchboard is the right place for this, but let's start here and move the topic if necessary. According to this article in Business Week, girls are snapping up all the top spots in schools, while boys lag behind. And it's a major cause of worry for the future.

Here's a snippet:

Today, across the country, it seems as if girls have built a kind of scholastic Roman Empire alongside boys' languishing Greece. Although Lawrence High has its share of boy superstars -- like this year's valedictorian -- the gender takeover at some schools is nearly complete. "Every time I turn around, if something good is happening, there's a female in charge," says Terrill O. Stammler, principal of Rising Sun High School in Rising Sun, Md. Boys are missing from nearly every leadership position, academic honors slot, and student-activity post at the school. Even Rising Sun's girls' sports teams do better than the boys'.

I'm a little apalled at this article, which clearly indicates dire consequences for the world if girls continue to excel in such a way, and quotes Christina "Fake Feminist" Hoff Summers. And it's not like men still don't control 90% of the world's wealth, women still make less, etc. etc.

On the other hand, what ARE the possible implications of this "pattern." If more "female traits" such as "emotional intelligience" are valued, how will the world, society as we know it change? And are men really, truly in danger?

Thoughts?

Oh, link in case I've screwed up my link again is http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:23 / 20.06.03
My worries would be, in no particular order...

1. Assuming such divisions can be made:

i. does this mean girls are being trained more succesfully to think, learn, and behave like boys?

ii. does this mean that the educational system has been altered from a bias towards boy-thinking and boy-learning to one towards girl-thinking and girl-learning?


2. Does this statistic mean we can look forward to a 'boy-backlash' where more educational time is focused on male students?

3. Assuming the divide is significant and accurate, are there negative as well as positive consequences of having these alumni take over the world? The positive consequences are obvious - equality, and potentially a less testosterone-fuelled style of business and government. (Is there any research demonstrating women actually do have a less confrontational style of authority, or are less territorial? I know there was some conflict res stuff, but it's qualitative rather than quantitative.) If the answer to 1(i) is 'yes', what does that mean in real terms?

But by and large, I suspect this isn't such a deal. The only one of these problems I rate very highly is the chance that we're failing half the students, and while that's not good, I'm reasonably confident it'll get looked at and sorted out - and it's hardly new, it just used to be the girls. In the meantime, a little structurally-generated positive discrimination is no bad thing, and could be very good.
 
 
Nematode
16:38 / 23.06.03
[Very slightly off topic,soz] Men are already in danger in the modern corporate office. They simply aren't as good in an environment where the ability to multi task, solve issues in a non-confrontational way, infight savagely but effectively and look good are required. A while spent working for Amex convinced me that that space could be a very disempowering place to be a man. Oh and if it goes seriously against men then everybody's in trouble: when men abreact it gets messy and ugly and frequently involves the emergency services.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:10 / 23.06.03
Well, that's a trait we're just going to have to shed, isn't it?

Good grief.
 
 
HCE
00:15 / 24.06.03
Well let's not get all up in arms about this. Why not give it or two or three thousand years before we do anything rash like enact legislation to assure equal pay for for men's equal work.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:35 / 24.06.03
And that's an equally enlightened point of view. It depends what you want. Revenge? How very atavistic. Or something approaching genuine equality, which is likely to everyone's benefit?
 
 
Nematode
19:21 / 24.06.03
Well, that's a trait we're just going to have to shed, isn't it?

That'd be really nice but I can't see it happening around me. Quite the opposite, infact. And anyway isn't all that an indivisible flip side of other more positive aspects of masculinity?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
20:30 / 24.06.03
Well, that dawg won't hunt. You can't just sit back and say "well, we can't do anything to upset the boys, because then there'll just be rape and murder in the streets". That's ghastly. It's not inevitable unless everyone panders to these little fits of rage. And actually, God help the fellas if there ever really were a 'gender war' - women have a higher pain threshhold and, when forced to violence, are much more likely to kill rather than threaten.

You simply cannot base your approach to life on the worry that someone's going to get violent if you do the right thing. It's insane.

Which is not to say, as I have already observed, that it's a good thing that men are getting confused and discombobulated about identity and masculinity, or that many feel that masculinity is problematised. If one half of the population is fucked up, that's bad news for the other half; we've only just got to the point where a large section of the human race is allowed make a contribution - let's not lose value from the chunk we already had.

There's a deeper discussion here about the value of binary gender ideas, notions of gender and race, class, wealth, nationality, religion...

But Cherry, are you still there? Or did I fuck up your discussion?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
20:34 / 24.06.03
'Kill rather than threaten' from the above being a reference to the 'Shoot the Women First' policy operated by German Anti-Terror police during the seventies and later in reference to the RAF and Palestinian terror groups such as the PLAF. The natural inclination of the male officers was to treat the armed women in these situations with a certain chivalry... which turned out to be a mistake. The men would hesitate when violence arose. Apparently, the women did not.

I'm not suggesting that women, in the everyday, are more likely to resort to fatal violence than men - which I'm quite sure is not true. Although I would be interested to know whether, in cases of genuine self defense, women use potentially or actually fatal attacks more or less often than men.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:19 / 25.06.03
I am still here, Nick, I'm just watching and thinking about what to say.

Off to re-read the arguments...
 
 
BioDynamo
13:20 / 25.06.03
The justification for the 'Shoot the Women First'-policy that I have encountered (possibly here but not sure) is that women in militant/terrorist organisations have had to prove themselves over and over, more frequently than the men, and so will be "harder", hesitate less when faced with the question of whether to fire on police or military.

Thus, the police or military should actively target and eliminate female opponents first, because they compose the greatest risk.

This would seemingly tell more about the effects of a male-dominated or macho/militant work environment on women, rather than something about the "nature" of femininity?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:03 / 25.06.03
[shrug]

Open question, without further information. You could equally well say that, once women override the socialisation which says they have to be ornamental, gentle homebodies rather than Mother/Defenders, they're naturally lethal. Since the 'male' role includes violence, men are never 'de-socialised' in this way, and retain trace notions of mercy and so on.

I think it's a lousy area for specualtion, really. We need some evidence.

Related: I was interested in the apparent gender gap in the MMR Court cases, (2), (BMA info sheet). The mothers don't want to give their children the combined jab, the fathers do.

I can see both views: the MMR is supposed to be safe, but there's a groundswell which says it may not be - and in the aftermath of CJD, we don't really give great credence to confident, positive government health statements.

The single jabs, however, don't seem to have been tested at all, and may not be as effective - and if there is a chance of autism, for which there is as yet no evidence, it may still be present.

In other words, the choice is between a possible risk (MMR), the known risk of the diseases (Measles, Mumps, Rubella, none of them very funny at all) and the single jab (unknown quantity).

The mothers opt for the unknown quantity - which may not provide the same level of security but about which there is no negative anecdotal evidence - and the fathers want the BMA-recommended MMR jab.

Why?

(Hope that doesn't take us too far afield from education and gender - if anyone wants to get into a discussion about the jab, let's do that elsewhere.)
 
 
Nematode
20:33 / 25.06.03
Well, that dawg won't hunt. You can't just sit back and say "well, we can't do anything to upset the boys, because then there'll just be rape and murder in the streets". That's ghastly. It's not inevitable unless everyone panders to these little fits of rage. And actually, God help the fellas if there ever really were a 'gender war' - women have a higher pain threshhold and, when forced to violence, are much more likely to kill rather than threaten.


Er that isn't remotely what I'm saying. An all out gender war isn't happening and is never going to happen. We aren't talking about an apocalypse, we are talking about thousands of quiet tragedies. What is happening is that men particularly less articulate and capable men are increasingly finding themselves in a disempowering situation culturally socially and especially in the work place if they have one. Unfortunately the socialised outlet for emotions under these circumstances is rage and male rage is particularly destructive. It isn't a matter of pandering to 'little fits' of it it will occur and people will get hurt unless the issue is addressed. Watch out for things like a resurgence in gang culture an increased murder rate, higher rates of drug addiction and alcoholisim increased domestic abuse, child abuse, stranger violence and increasing suicide rates. That is what male disempowerment means unless the issue is tackled in a meaningful way which in a society which is becoming a laissez faire police state isn't going to happen. It will simply lead to a substantial rise in the prison population and a perpetuation of the problem. And yes it is inevitable unless there is grass roots action [i.e us] sorting it out by developing a meaningful dialogue with one another as men and women and that is not going to be particularly easy but I hope is possible. How about this as a start what in the modern world are the virtues of masculinity? I know that is a question with so many questions of definition behind it but I think as a man that I would like to see that question answered because I find my gender denigrated far more than I am comfortable with.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
02:01 / 26.06.03
Nematode I don't even know where to begin on that last paragraph but I seem to have a very strong instinctive reaction to it. I don't agree with anything you've said there- to be honest I've avoided posting in this entire thread because I feel that this gender gap is the creation of a media that is male orientated and really quite sick. Even if girls are getting better marks educationally I doubt very much that it effects grown men that much. The only inferiority they will feel is created by articles that tell them they're getting lower marks. Especially because until you look at statistics it's not obvious at all.

What is happening is that men particularly less articulate and capable men are increasingly finding themselves in a disempowering situation culturally socially and especially in the work place... outlet for emotions under these circumstances is rage

Right, I don't see this at all. Plenty of women feel a lack of capability, are less articulate, find themselves disempowered. It does not follow that men in this mode would necessarily fold to violence unless they had a very specific association to it ie.if they were victims of abuse themselves.

it isn't a matter of pandering to 'little fits' of it it will occur and people will get hurt unless the issue is addressed.

Where's your evidence? That's a sweeping statement and one that you haven't backed up. Why is the issue of disempowered men more significant than that of disempowered women and why this mass hysteria that girls are getting higher marks than boys? If it were the other way round, as it was for years, no one would bat an eyelid. You are simply bowing to this idea that the male is more dangerous than the female, more important than the female and should thus get higher grades and be more empowered than the female. Frankly that's utter bullshit. Gang culture is a social construct and is very much related to money. It happens to be a male thing because of the particular culture that it has come from. an increased murder rate- so murder's a purely male thing? How many murders are committed by women? higher rates of drug addiction and alcoholism increased domestic abuse, child abuse, stranger violence and increasing suicide rates- all male? All male things? All purely male things?? I think you'll find that a lot of heroin addicts drag their partners in to it so, you know, does that not count as a meaningful dialogue between the sexes?

I think you're segregating the genders in a specific way just as the businessweek article is and it's wrong. It's plain wrong because while there are clear differences between the genders- physical and mental- there is no need to place one above the other and that's what the article does and I'm afraid Nematode that your post is emphasising the same type of segregation and hierachy. While you continue to think in that kind of way you will probably not find that meaningful dialogue with one another as men and women occurs.
 
 
waxy dan
08:30 / 26.06.03
I'd have to agree with Nematode in a whole buncha ways. Ways that I unfortunatly find very difficult to verbalise, which is why I've avoided posting in this very articulate thread thus far. So you'll have to forgive me/pick my words apart if I go off on one here.

First off, I don't see where "more important than the female and should thus get higher grades and be more empowered than the female" is even implied in Nematode's text. But I could be looking right past it, could you point that out? I can neither see where he suggests that a "hierachy" is a good thing. I'm not being sarcastic here, I honestly can't see it.


so murder's a purely male thing? How many murders are committed by women?
No, certainly not. But it mostly is, as far as I'm aware.

higher rates of drug addiction and alcoholism increased domestic abuse, child abuse, stranger violence and increasing suicide rates- all male? All male things? All purely male things??
Again, certainly not. But, with the exception of drug addiction and alcohlism, mostly male, as far as I'm aware.

Are there any sociologists here who might have stats for these things? My google-fu is failing me.


Anna, even if a lot this discomfort and feeling of loss is a creation of the media, it's still there. It still exsists and should still be dealt with and confronted no matter the source. The media do have a powerful influence on our self-image (I know that's stating the obvious, but I don't think it's something you've addressed).


Myself: I don't believe that it is entirely a creation of the media (I don't think anything is). I think that the male identity is something that is being erroded at present, and has been visibly so for as long as I've been alive (i.e. not that long, but a very short time for a cultural change to be so clearly visible).

I don't think saying "well, it's happened to women for centuries, tough shit" is a particularly helpful approach. If someone were to treat issues of race in the same manner, it would be unacceptable, there's no reason it should be okay with gender issues.

I think that while what it means to be female has been redefined and expanded, what it is to be male has simply been chipped away at, with no new definition arriving to take it's place. Perhaps the problem here lies in the redefinition of power structures. In that there is no 'natural' heirarchy, so a redefinition of female can simply mean a greater level of equality. It can expand without nessecarily changing... if I'm making any sense with that one?

However (and, as said, I'm really having difficulty verbalising these unfinished thoughts) an alteration of the power structure does necessitate an essential change in what it 'means' to be male. As 'erg, we're in charge coz we're bigger and tougher than the rest of ya' is a large part of what we are. Which is unforunate but, I believe, true.

As I don't think I'm doing a great job of this, I'm going to turn to a media example. Pretty much any film by Paul Schrader. Especially Affliction. Nick Nolte and Willem Dafoe play two brothers who have reacted in very different ways to developing with a (self) destructive father. Dafoe was become ineffectual and emotionless, his character has denied and quelled the rage and anger in him. Nolte's character is quite the opposite, to a tragic extreme. His rage is all that defines him, until he eventually drives himself into a slow insanity; creating a narrative in which he can play the part of the male heroic figure. A role that, he feels, he should be playing. But, as he can find no cause or focus for it in his life, he creates one. As studies of male rage, Schrader's films (and perhaps Fight Club and American Beauty) are, for me, excellent examples. They attempt to portray, and even find a solution to, the propensity for violence among men (and, no, of course that's not a purely male thing).

I think the difficulty in being male in western society at present, is that our role is quite confused. We still grow up with classic definitions of the male raison d'etre, but it is one that we have great difficulty in applying to our daily lives. And we haven't managed, as a society, to come up with an alternative yet. Which creates a great deal of angst, frustration, and confusion.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
09:07 / 26.06.03
I'm kind of wondering how many people who have posted here have read this article and noticed the things that set off alarm bells in my head at least. My personal favorite in the entire article:

The percentage of boys entering college, master's programs, and most doctoral programs -- except for PhDs in fields like engineering and computer science -- has mostly stalled out, whereas for women it has continued to rise across the board. The trend is most pronounced among Hispanics, African Americans, and those from low-income families.

I'm not exactly sure why this is cause to worry? Maybe we're all going to come and get whitey?

Also later in the article it points to the possibility of a "skills shortage" if this trend continues, which I also don't udnerstand. How can there be a skills shortage if there's an overload of qualified women out there??

Personally, I think this is indicative simply of fear on men's part, and also possibly, yes, what waxydan said, a lack of male role models. Society is changing, how will men grow into it?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:32 / 26.06.03
Society is changing, how will men grow into it?

Stop whining and adapt?

I'm not really kidding.
 
 
waxy dan
09:51 / 26.06.03
2 Flyboy 2 Furious
Stop whining? I'll remember to say that the next time a female friend is pissed off about a lower wage packet or not getting a job because she didn't wear a short enough skirt to the interview.

Cherry Bomb
Yup, I really enjoyed reading the article, thanks for posting it. Though the skills shortage bit was a bit confusing, you're right.

Bits that got me were:

Indeed, brain research shows that boys are actually more empathic, expressive, and emotive at birth than girls. But Pollock says the boy code, which bathes them in a culture of stoicism and reticence, often socializes those aptitudes out of them by the second grade.

and

A new world has opened up for girls, but unless a symmetrical effort is made to help boys find their footing.... it takes more than one gender to have a gender revolution.

Last one is a bit melodramatic, but I agree with the sentiment behind it.

I find the article's consideration of altering teaching techniques, as Nick was talking about above, to be the most relevant parts.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
10:14 / 26.06.03
Ah, but waxy, it's not just "stop whining," it's "stop whining and adapt." Adapting may be "sit down and shut up" (not the best way I fear), or it may be "find a new way," a new job, a new law, etc. etc.

Here's a woman who stopped whining and took action at covermypills.org - and it is about time that U.S. health insurance covered birth control pills. I mean, if they can cover viagra...

Anyway another interesting side to the Business Week article is the fact that I think is that, apart from the "Oh My God They're Stealing All Our Jobs!!!" aspect, it shows that women, whatever detriments may be in their way, don't have to be "victims" and can achieve heights that were previously not available (to Western women at least) to them. Next stop, the glass ceiling!!

On the male roles tip, I am now wondering lads, are there any men who you think fit a description of a "New Man"? A new role model? David Beckham springs to mind, but then he and his wife are such gaggy media whores I really hate to use him as an example....

This might call for a new thread.
 
 
waxy dan
10:28 / 26.06.03
I don't think "stop whining and adapt" means much more than just "stop whining and get used to it", or similar. If something else had been offered along with it, then maybe I'd read it differently. But, as is, it's a bit glib.

...

I don't really get the "Oh My God There Stealing All Our Jobs!!!" aspect to teh article. It is written by a female writer, and I can't see the scaremongery that you seem to be referring to (or am I completely misreading your text here? Please tell me if I am). The Next stop, the glass ceiling!! was more what I took from it.

I think it was just considering what the fallout of that might be to the other gender, and therefore society at large. Not that it itself was a bad thing, but that it's inadvertant consequences should be considered.

...

"New Man"? Is that still a common phrase or an objective? I know 'they' tried it out in the '90's, but I thought it had been replaced with some kind've 'big boy' culture instead. Don't try to be a sensitive man, don't try to be an aggressive man, just play with your PS2 and get drunk, and maybe the problems will just go away.


(Keep it in this thread, I reckon, it shows a natural evolution in the debate).
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:52 / 26.06.03
Firstly any statistics aren't going to be accurate because society is readier to believe men than women where violence is concerned. Less women are convicted for domestic abuse but that doesn't mean less women engage in such acts. Personally I blame the media- what do you blame?

Nematode's whole post reeks of male-female segregation because he's attributing acts as being male rather than female and there's absolutely no evidence to say that they are.

I think that the male identity is something that is being erroded at present, and has been visibly so for as long as I've been alive

Yes, just like our cultural and racial identity, in your head. Male identity has been changing forever. Why has it suddenly become a point of such angst? Oh because women have gained some power. During the industrial revolution the male role changed completely but this discourse didn't exist thus it must be created to a very high extent by the media. Men still get paid more, if you would just start using exfoliating face wash without feeling like a 'girl' you wouldn't hardly have a problem- the major difference would be reduced to the fact that girls have babies. It is major... obvious physically but hey, mentally speaking, you try giving birth to the 'other'.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:19 / 26.06.03
Stop whining? I'll remember to say that the next time a female friend is pissed off about a lower wage packet or not getting a job because she didn't wear a short enough skirt to the interview.

That would be an appalling thing to say. But then, it's an example that bears no relation to the question I was answering. A more appropirate example might be: should you say that to a male friend who is pissed off because he cannot award a job on the basis of how short a woman's skirt is? To which the answer is: yes.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:35 / 26.06.03
This seems to be getting sidetracked into what might be a wothwhile Headshop debate on male image. (When was the last time we did that?)

Personally, I agree with some of what Anna says - domestic violence is an interesting example, IIRC, in that men are more often the victims than one would think - but not with everything. War or gang violence, for instance, is a male behaviour that does seem to cross cultures, so cannot be solely attributed to media images. I think there are more, although anthropologists should correct me if I'm wrong.

Still, waxy dan and nematode seem quite genuine in their unease and may be more representatitive of the males that are doing badly at school who then go on to find themselves confused at their role in society. But Nick is right to say that though this is a problem at the school level, it is unlikely to be one that will be ignored.

But what do pèople think is really causing this phenomenon? What change of emphasis favours the female student? And is it an effect that is confined to the US? I seem to recall reading about a similar trend in the UK, though not nearly so pronounced as suggested by the article.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:44 / 26.06.03
Careful, Flyboy. If you and I find ourselves on the same side of an argument for any prolonged period of time, it's just possible the world will come to an end.

One thing I'm sick of:

Men whining about not having a role or an identity in an equal society - well, gee, I guess we'll all have to stop defining ourselves along gender lines, then, eh? Boo fucking hoo.

Another:

Arguments which say it's time for women to 'get their own back'. Why? Because I don't see it does anyone - male or female - any good. It just perpetuates an opposition we're better off without.

Another:

Blatantly unfair pay packages and bonuses for women in the workplace. Quite obviously, many companies put women above the glass ceiling so that the boys in the boardroom can laugh at their underwear - or less figuratively, large corporations still discriminate against and systematically undervalue women and (what are still thought of as) female approaches to work.

Another:

The blowback problem: many of my female friends who have their own companies will not, under any circumstances, hire women of child-bearing age. Why not? Because small companies can be crippled by maternity law requirements. Result: a law which is intended to protect women can make them unemployable.

My take: any gender gap in education is probably symptomatic of a series of misunderstandings and errors which permeate the system. At this moment, it shows itself as (alledgedly) a disproportionate gain in girls scoring high - though there may be variations across ehtnic groups and class which are more or equally significant. What I suspect is that we need to look at roles, skills, and what our system tests for across the board.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:54 / 26.06.03
any gender gap in education is probably symptomatic of a series of misunderstandings and errors which permeate the system.

Not sure what you mean there Nick. Care to expand that one for us?

Also, while I have sympathy with your feeling sick of

Men whining about not having a role or an identity in an equal society - well, gee, I guess we'll all have to stop defining ourselves along gender lines, then, eh? Boo fucking hoo.

I think it may be a bit unfair. Sure, some men can probably do without a gender identity, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, or that one is not desirable.
 
 
waxy dan
12:35 / 26.06.03
Flyboy
The question you were answering was: 'how will men grow into a changing society?' To which I still think "Stop whining and adapt?" is a rather glib answer.

...

Anna.
Why has it suddenly become a point of such angst? Oh because women have gained some power. That's an awfully big assumption as to what I was saying. Go back through my words and please point out where exactly you drew that conclusion from. Because, as a learning excercise, I'd really like to know at what point I fucked up my writing that badly.

And no I don't feel under attack by the evil sisterhood of mutants and I don't feel any "unease". Frustration and some confusion was to what is expected of a male in modern western society does not nessecarily translate to any ill feeling toward women.

That's like me stating that I like apples, and you assuming therefore that I must hate oranges.

...

On the I blame the media front: who are the 'media' exactly? It's very simple to just blame the media, or the government, or (insert monolith here), who is it exactly that you're blaming here?

...

we'll all have to stop defining ourselves along gender lines, then I just don't see that happening any time soon. It'd be great though. Much like an effective anarchy would be great, but it's just not realistic. I'd rather accept the fact that we do have problems based on gender roles and try to debate and confront them than just say they're pointless and looking the other way.

Also, there are differences between the genders that aren't all sociological. These are hardly the 'be all and end all' of our beings, but they are there nonetheless.

...

Some men can probably do without a gender identity, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, or that one is not desirable.
Thanks Lurid, you're voiced that better than I would have.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:37 / 26.06.03
In a way I think that the idea of gendered roles in the workplace is a very successful piece of misdirection (and I know this post is not about education, but I thought I'd address the issue anyway, because it seems to be one of the problems which nematode and waxy dan are having).

I think everyone would agree that there is still a significant gap between men and women in terms of remuneration and status in the workplace, especially at high levels of the business hierarchy. And I think everyone would also agree that that gap is a result of centuries of discrimination (let's say at least two, beginning with the Industrial Revolution era - I don't want to get into a fight over historiographical issues. In this thread, at any rate). Moreover, I hope no one would deny that women should be given the opportunities to gain the status and remuneration that men are - and that, if they are given those opportunities and make those gains, that in no way disempowers men.

So the root problem must be something else, and I think it can be found in the feelings of disempowerment which have been expressed in this thread. The increase in service industries, and the corresponding decrease in manufacturing industries, etc. in Britain (at least) seems to have resulted in lower-status workers all being forced into rubbishy service sector jobs - call centres etc. Because these jobs are associated with women (probably because they are low status and women have traditionally done low-status jobs, as well as ideas that women are better at communication etc. than men), it's relatively easy to see it as a 'feminisation' of the workplace which excludes masculine behaviours and leaves men feeling redundant, and so on. But surely this is misdirection - in this situation no one is empowered - everyone, whether male or female, is doing the same numbing job and everyone has the same lack of control over their work. The problem is not a gendered workplace, but the increasingly tendency of big companies to use their workforce as interchangeable units within a rigid structure which denies the workers agency in the workplace.

Does that make sense? Thinking on my feet...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:37 / 26.06.03
Previous threads on male identity here and here.
 
 
waxy dan
12:51 / 26.06.03
Okay.
disempowerment:
I've obviously really being giving the wrong impression about how I feel here. I don't feel any sense of disempowerment or unease. It's all good.

What I find when looking at gender roles today as portrayed in mass media, or just in the people I meet, is that there seems to be some confusion and frustration as to how men are 'supposed' to act. I'm not just talking about power structures in offices or classrooms, I'm refering to how people carry themselves in their daily lives and interactions.

My stating that I feel the traditional gender role that men play is being erroded does not automatically infer my support for that role. Nor should it imply that I feel threatened by the expansion of the roles that women can play in society.

It just states exactly that: that I feel the traditional role for men in society is being erroded and that, I feel, that erosion is leading to a great deal of frustration as nothing seems to be rising to replace it.

(Sorry, Kit-kat, I think what you're saying is spot on, but I just really wanted to try to clarify my position here before becoming any further embroiled)
 
 
Nematode
21:53 / 26.06.03
Interesting little bit of sociology, sorry I can't source this but there you go. In a society men define a sense of identity from their role, lawyer, doctor, soldier, train driver etc. In a society in which societal roles are far more fluid or for ten percent of the population of Europe who are unemployed non existant [apart form 'claimant', 'pauper']men suffer more than women who do not draw their definitions form their societal role.
Anna I take your point about domestic abuse more goes on the other way than we are told but the evidence for higher levels of male violence lies in most city centres in this country every saturday night I mean do we actually need a statistic on this one. [Admittedly my mate had a very dodgy experience in a welsh pub with a women rippping off a blokes ear with a stiletto heel, but I hope that isn't too common......] If you look at what I said I mentioned that we were talking about masculinity as a concept needing definition and the best I can come up with is that male and female are reletive terms not absolute ones [as if such a thing exists at all, anywhere]. Perhaps I should have been more explicit than this and said that both feminity and masculinity needed defining.I am becoming increasingly and uncomfortably aware that my perception of myself is culturally defined.Most men and womens are. How do we change this? Nowhere in my post do I suggest that men are more important than women. I'm certainly not at all clear about the danger factor although physical strength and a few millenia of warfare must count for something here and you may notice that I apologised for posting slightly off thread because I didn't mention anything about grades which I really don't give a toss about, it was an aside about the modern workplace. Did your instinctive reaction get the better of you?
 
 
Cherry Bomb
10:54 / 30.06.03
Bitch magazine's, take on it:


Smart Girls Are Scary!
In true "anything you can do, I can do better" fashion, girls across America are rapidly becoming the stars of academia, ruling their schools as honor-roll members, heads of student government, and captains of academic clubs. To most of us, this sounds like a good thing, but you wouldn’t know that from reading BusinessWeek’s May 26 cover story, "The New Gender Gap," which wrings its hands in concern over a "female lock on power" in America’s educational system that’s turning our nation’s boys into underachievers. The article asserts that schools have lost sight of boys, "taking for granted that they were doing well, even though data began to show the opposite." Boys, BW worries, have become "the second sex."

Though the article does concede that men still dominate in the highest-paying fields of employment—engineering, investment banking, and high tech—and that boys still score higher than girls on standardized tests, its Chicken Little-like tone predicts big trouble if girls are allowed to flourish and—horrors!—become powerful women leaders. What should be good news for America—a rise in young girls’ self-esteem, and an attendant rise in their academic achievement—is used instead as the fear factor in this call for education reform gone awry.

If BusinessWeek’s point is that boys deserve the same educational benefits as girls—well, no argument there. But the article’s references to declining male wages, a new white marriage gap, and a "loss of (men’s) talent and potential" make another point entirely: Don’t let the girls surpass the boys or their fearsome power could, 20 years down the line, lead to nothing less than the destruction of society. These views might seem par for the course in a nation whose president is currently trying to undermine 30 years of progress for girls by questioning the effectiveness of Title IX; but in these times, as Susan M. Bailey of the Wellesley Centers of Women says in the article, "It would be dangerous to even out the gender ratio by treating women worse. I don’t think we’ve reached a point in this country where we are fully providing equal opportunities to women." We’d say that’s putting it mildly.

 
 
Nematode
19:32 / 30.06.03
Working on the assumption that neither sex is innately superior, what do you suppose are the factors that have encouraged such a shift in educational success from boys to girls? Does anybody have any thoughts on this?
 
 
Salamander
22:01 / 30.06.03
I welcome the day women bare the children and run the government, maybe they can fight the wars and suffer a shorter life span too, I sure hope so, being in charge is of dicey importance anyway, and thats what this is really about, so come on gals, lets make the men into subservient slaves, oh wait they're still stronger, (sniker).
 
 
gingerbop
23:49 / 30.06.03
I would imagine that in days of yore, the vast majority of teachers would be male. These days, there are *very* few male teachers, particuarly in primary and nursery, when the whole school/child relationship is established. Teacher's styles are probably more adapted to their own sex, because of the way their brains work, and also their experiences of education.

Blatantly unfair pay packages and bonuses for women in the workplace. Quite obviously, many companies put women above the glass ceiling so that the boys in the boardroom can laugh at their underwear

-Actually, we were gonna have a glass ceilinged area in our school extension, until one teacher pointed out this flaw. They frosted the glass. Its hideous. I hope never to be anywhere near a glass ceiling.
 
 
Servalan Queen of the Universe
17:16 / 01.07.03
The tone of fear and horror in articles about the 'overtaking' of education by girls always sounds to me like desperate conservatism recoiling from inevitable change. The 'Crisis of masculinity' is as much about economic change as it is about the loss of a 'role' for men (did Yorkshire miners and Surrey landowners really once have comparable 'roles', now simultaneously disintegrating?). And surely it is vital to distinguish between the experience of empowered and disempowered men. The highest echelons of global power- and British institutions - remain entirely male-dominated and in 'elite' institutions like the Oxbridge universities, men still receive far better results than women. However, I recently heard (can't remember the ref) that 80% of black males leaving London schools are without ANY qualifications whatever. Men appear to be inhabiting the economic extremes. I personally think that the socialising/acculturation of males has not changed at the same pace as economic demands (particularly the requirement for dual incomes in order to afford housing/consume an increasing number of 'necessary' products)have . Men are still being taught- by media, families, all social structures-that personal power, dominance, an unemotional sexuality and even violence are their most desirable characteristics. But generally, they no longer receive economic rewards for behaving this way. I think it is significant that economically disadvantaged men are the most likely to adopt machismo and violence, in order to enforce the 'right' to personal dominance their world seems to promise them.

It would be nice to think that this feted generation of ubergirls will irresistibly strike through to the corridors of power. However, female performance has been improving for several decades, but the pay gap and ratio of female part time to full time workers has barely changed since the 1970s. I think that the point at which women 'drop out' has become a later one- having kids. There is still no support for shared parenting, as men are still acculturated to expect an uninterrupted career. Childcare is still an almost totally feminised realm however much more dads are encouraged to take 'responsibility' for their kids for 2 weeks 'paternity leave' and at weekends. My gloomy prediction is that these high-achieving women will continue to face the career-woman's choice between childlessness and a frantic, compromised career-home 'balance'. Until male identity in this culture incorporates positive images of nurturing and domesticity, the ubergirls who have been brought up so nicely to deal with everything and 'multi-task' will find themselves multi-tasked into exhaustion and a lot of them will give up work.

I think there is scope here for a girl-based discussion about the socialisation of 'good girls'... and how they may be becoming perfect fodder for the demanding and unrewarding flexible labour economy, while upper and middleclass males who can afford to 'keep' a wife and children continue to dominate top political and industrial positions.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply