I don't have a source for this, but I remember someone telling me that when men start to move into a traditionally "female" profession, they earn more money than their female counterparts and make it harder for females to get hired. She cited the fields of nursing and daycare as examples.

Reverse glass ceiling? I call BS. Studies have actually shown that men have an ADVANTAGE in traditionally female jobs, such as in nursing or as elementary school teachers, because administrators are looking to get more men into those positions thus creating another barrier for women to break through.

If he's got clients like Armani, he can quit his whining.

Yes, it's well documented that being a man is an advantage in nursing. Men are paid more and are overrepresented in the high-wage subgroups like nurse-anesthetists. Google "glass escalator." What an asshat indeed!

Unree has it..."glass elevator" is the term. I wish I could find the essay I read on the subject, it's in one of my undergrad Comm. books.

To comment on that Warren Farrel guy, any book with a title like "The Liberated Man" ought to be about Nelson Mandela or something.

These guys sound like my current boyfriend who gets his hair cut at my hair place, where it's predominantly female. He feels "a little uncomfortable" there, he said. Big deal! They actually give me better treatment than me sometimes (gee, I wonder why?). The guys in the so-called "female" professions sound similarly "mistreated" --simply because there are more females present than males. Uh, guys -- that's not oppression, OK?

Un-freaking-believable!!

As other commenters have already mentioned, the proper term for what men experience in female dominated professions is the "glass escalator"

There's tons of work on this - Christine Williams has made a whole career out of it. Here is

http://www.jstor.org/view/00377791/sp030006/03x0034h/0

one study that is publicly available. It's a little old, but it lays out the basic argument and some evidence. There's tons more if you're interested.

I think that's one of the studies I was thinking about, brklyngrl. Thanks for the link.

Riiiiiight...and that's why so many traditionally female female careers are so closely controlled by traditionally male supervisors, I suppose? (We couldn't ever let nurses give patients medicine without running it by a [traditionally male] doctor! God forbid the ladies educate our children without being watched by a [traditionally male] principal!

Just to second what others have said - when I was looking for roles in publishing, which is female dominated at least at the lower levels, I was told that as a woman I would have to start as a receptionist (even with an excellent degree), while men would start as editorial assistants. It seemed that this was widely known and accepted.

This is completely false. Not only is it well documented that males in nursing make more and advance more rapidly than women, there is a wholesale effort to attract them, recognize them, and make them feel at home (Male RN magazine, anyone?) At nursing conferences, we are often asked to applaud the male nurses in attendance. I defy you to find any traditionally male field that treats the female "pioneers" in this manner. I have no statistics on teaching, but it sure seems like the administrators and principals in our school district are at least 80% male. Not to mention that female-dominated fields like nursing, teaching, and social work have lower rate of academic pay at universities than, say, math and science, traditionally male dominated fields. Also, despite over 51% of med students being female, a tiny percentage of med school faculty are women. Reverse glass ceiling my ass.

I came here to cry bullshit, but you've all done it for me already. I am a librarian and I see this everywhere I've worked. All of the librarians and most of the paraprofessionals are women, while the library directors and supervisors are all men.

The phrase "reverse glass ceiling" gives me the vision of a bunch of men looking down and wishing they could get in on a race to the bottom.

Sociologist Christine Williams has done some research in this area. Warren Farrell is not quite the expert he professes to be. In fact, men who enter professions traditionally dominated by women experience what has come to be termed the "glass escalator," rising to the top faster than many of the women in those professions. I'm so glad that Feministinging is addressing this. I think a post from Williams' work would be great!

I agree with Xana - how could ANYbody who's featured in a major trade magazine and who counts Giorgio Armani among his clients seriously think he's not respected in his industry?

Hmm . . . this article pissed me off quite a bit more than it seems to have pissed off Vanessa. Personally, I've seen this kind of obvious bullshit take over real discussion enough times to be genuinely concerned and angry.

The article pissed me off plenty, Cara. After all, that's why I wrote about it :)

Well, yes, clearly. On a comparison scale, though, you might be "really annoyed" while I'm "smashing things in with a baseball bat." Admittedly, your posts are generally a lot more levelheaded than mine. See how you manged to get through this post without saying "fuck" even once? :)

oh my god that article is ridiculous...*sigh*

You know what is horribly funny, that even when I waitressed and worked in the service industry, the only supervisor and management positions were held by men. i think i had one female boss in all my years of waitressing...the male waitors always got promoted while the female waitresses always got pissed on.. have you ever seen that movie "Waiting" ?! It happen to a chick in that movie and I totally sympathized with her..

My cousin is a murse (male nurse) in training. Because of his male-ness, he's getting affirmative action type advantages when it comes to getting into school. He might get a little shit out of other guys "haha, Mr. Nurse man," but ultimately, I can't say he's disadvantaged in his career choice.

Trust me, it's been quite a struggle to withhold my potty mouth.

Isn't Warren Farrel the guy who advocated the incest of girls in the 70s, not to mention admitting to the sexual pressure girls and women face in comparison to men, during a Penthouse interview? Left it alone for a few decades and now claims EVERYBODY at Penthouse is lying or its a typo or its a misprint or all at once and that he actually said any number of different things of which he cannot decide on? And he and many other MRAs go NUTS with threats of litigation when you bring up this fact?

Yeah. I think thats him. Still creepy as ever.

THE ARTICLE: "Men don't because they feel they need to take on the responsibility of providing for the family, and the way they earn love is to earn money."

Maybe this goes without saying, but women, more than men, are treated like sex objects, and feel strain when they fail to live up to what they think men find attractive.

Men, more than women, are treated like work objects, and feel strain when they fail to live up to what they think women expect of them in the breadwinner role.

I definitely think some men feel strain when they feel they fail to meet up with their perceived social roles. For many men, that means sticking with a job they hate because of the pressure they feel to be the "provider" or a "real man".

While Vanessa's point that many women have to work in a dead end job rather than in a job they find fulfilling, I think it is fair to say that in many middle-class and upper-class families the expectation is that men must work and provide the major source of income, which can lead to more flexibility in terms of what job women pursue.

I certainly agree that in some female-dominated fields that some men rise faster.

On the other hand, I think it is always hard to be in a situation where you are the minority. This includes when you are the only black person in a job where everyone is white, when you are the only white person in a job where everyone in black, when you are the only male in job full of females, when you are the only female in a job full of males, when you are the only disabled one, the only latina, the only goth, etc.

Even if no one actually treats you differently, just being aware that you are different from the majority group can make you more self-conscious. Some people respond to this by digging in their heels and setting out to prove their worth. Other people feel inhibited.

I know in my field that there are times where I might the only male at meeting of 10, and typically in the minority. Sometimes this works to my advantage - it's easier to command attention and have your voice heard sometimes. Other times, however, there can be an intimidation factor. Especially sometimes the conversation style is just different when it's 9 women and 1 man, and it can be difficult to mimic that style or it stands out as awkward when you try.

While Vanessa's point that many women have to work in a dead end job rather than in a job they find fulfilling...

I don't think that's what Vanessa's point was.

I think it is fair to say that in many middle-class and upper-class families the expectation is that men must work and provide the major source of income...

I don't think anyone's saying that isn't true.

...which can lead to more flexibility in terms of what job women pursue.

I think it more often leads to the expectation that women not pursue jobs. Or that the jobs she pursues should be pink-collar. Not so much with the flexibility.

I think the point was more, "That Warren guy is totally off-point," and "Boo-hoo, men feel like they're treated with disrespect for wanting to do 'girly' jobs," and "How much complaining can there be when they advance faster than women is said 'girly' jobs."

I had read this article also and I think I puked in my mouth a little. I am in the field of Counselor Education (as a student), and counselors and counselor educators are much more likely to be women. In addition, counseling psychologists, who also get doctorates with a slightly different academic track, are preferred in counseling programs to teach, in that they make more money, are preferred in interviews, etc. Though my field is looking for diversity, many people take that to mean that we need more men. More men are in counseling psychology than counselor education, and this makes sense when you see the wage gap.
I do want to say that I am in love with this site. I have seen a lot of feminist sites over the years, and I have been very dissappointed with some of the discussions. It is great that there are people acknowledging that sexism does affect men negatively, but that are able to put it in its proper perspective (i.e. someone said it best with saying "that is not oppression!"). Great to read the posts from all of the amazing women on here. You rock!
I moved to the deep south to go to school 3 1/2 years ago, and I have had so many insanely sexist experiences that were not as common living in the mid-west, where I lived previously. It has been a struggle living here (I am hopefuly done this year). I just wish that I had learned about this site back when I first moved here.
My first contact with other "feminists" in Alabama was with an Auburn's Women's group (an undergrad feminist group). I know that the group were young and inexperienced, but I was so dissappointed with the meeting. One thing that happened there was that we were ordering t-shirts and needed to put down our sizes. I asked the question "Are they men's or women's sizes?" An officer of the organization replied, "You know, regular sizes." I responded, "Are you kidding me? Did you just say that?"
Anyway, my point is...it is great to connect with other women in a meaningful way.

kissmypineapple said:"I think the point was more, "That Warren guy is totally off-point," and "Boo-hoo, men feel like they're treated with disrespect for wanting to do 'girly' jobs," and "How much complaining can there be when they advance faster than women is said 'girly' jobs."

righto.

UCLA said: "men must work and provide the major source of income, which can lead to more flexibility in terms of what job women pursue."

thats just silly and actually pretty damn offensive.

Oh Kissmypineapple, I like your name!

UCLA said: "men must work and provide the major source of income, which can lead to more flexibility in terms of what job women pursue."

"thats just silly and actually pretty damn offensive."

Why? It made sense to me when I wrote it, but that of course doesn't mean it wasn't silly.

It seems pretty clear men's social role has been breadwinner and that women's role has been more of helper/caretaker. So I am assuming that part wasn't silly or offensive.

Perhaps the part you thought was silly was that in upper class families that women might have more flexibility in job options because their husbands are socially required to work while they are not?

I well admit I could be wrong on that, it's been my impression.

"I think it more often leads to the expectation that women not pursue jobs. Or that the jobs she pursues should be pink-collar. Not so much with the flexibility."

That could well be true. I'm basing my opinion off some woman I know who have partners that make a good deal of money.

For example, one of my friends has a partner who works in a law firm, which allowed her to give up her job at Disney to go to grad school in psychology (a lower paying job but one that fit her interests better). With my parents, my dad has had the same job for 30 years while my mom has tried out a variety of careers based on her interests in helping careers(i.e., teacher, physical therapist). The fact that my dad had a stable job even if it wasn't the best one for his health gave her that freedom.

Of course, I have no information on how widespread that sort of things is, only personal experience. That was what I referring to when I said "I think it is fair to say that in many middle-class and upper-class families the expectation is that men must work and provide the major source of income, which can lead to more flexibility in terms of what job women pursue."

Perhaps "many" was an overstatement.

UCLA: It is offensive because who put the structures in place that made men the "breadwinner" and women the "caretaker".

I'm so glad that men are the "major source of income" thus creating a lovely niche for us women to take a lower wage job ("flexibility") simply because it's assumed we'll have some well-paid man in the background. I'm single. I'm queer. And I don't need a man's income supporting me. I need an equally paid wage for my job so that I can support MYSELF.

I would also like to point out how those comments were extremely heterosexist.

"While Vanessa's point that many women have to work in a dead end job rather than in a job they find fulfilling, I think it is fair to say that in many middle-class and upper-class families the expectation is that men must work and provide the major source of income, which can lead to more flexibility in terms of what job women pursue."

UCLA, I don't see how that pretains to the discussion at all and why you said it... !? it's silly. First off, having flexibility in the workplace of jobs you would like to be involved in has nothing to do with the lack of opportunity to move up in your career.

I don't understand where your coming from with this, "oh well upper class ladies have more opportunity to choose their work". What are you implying. Because one implication doesn't look very good....

For many years I worked in secondary education. I worked under both predominantly male and predominantly female administrations. Education, like any industry, is overburdened with conflicting egos and petty politics.

Yet, in my experience, I found these annoyances less of a problem under the predominantly female administrations that I worked under. It was for this reason that I remained at a women's high school for 15 years. I'm wary of generalizing from my limited experience, but that is what I observed.

As for the "glass escalator", I had zero interest in administration, so I never had the chance to ride that conveyance in the women's high school I worked at. Leaving the classroom is how one is promoted in secondary education and I preferred working with kids over managing adults.

I have no doubt that the glass escalator exists and that its unfairness is as widespread as others have noted here.

It never ceases to amaze me how many insidious and malaciously creative ways that patriarchy manifests itself.

There is actually a term referred to as the glass elevator, because men in traditionally female professions have a tendency to be more respected in those positions, make more money and get promoted faster then their female counterparts. Also studies have shown even when men and women have the same level of education and are in the same positions, regardless of it being male or female dominated men make between 10-25% more money then women.

Let me guess: These guys get teased by their troglodytic buddies at the Thursday night poker game for doing a "chick job", so they feel the need to pump it up into some massive social evil that is really all the fault of women in that field.

FROG QUEEN: UCLA, I don't see how that pretains to the discussion at all and why you said it... !?"

The original author's point (Farrell) was that men feel obligated to work because of their social roles. This statement rang true to me.

He also then stated that women enter some lower paying professions (e.g., nursing) because they find these fulfilling.

Vanessa's response to this was to point out that not all women have the "luxury" of having wealthy partners - some women enter these lower paying jobs for other reasons.

This rang true to me as well, but I thought it didn't give full credence to the idea that some upper middle-class/upper class women do actually have this greater flexibility to choose a career they find fulfilling rather than simply taking a job out of financial necessity, because the expectation is that their husband will provide the main salary.

Hence the reason I pointed that out, and hence the reason it directly relates to the thread.

I used to work a group home for adults with special needs. It was uncommon for men to work at these homes (although a lot of men worked in the adminstrative part of the company). My husband began working there 2 years after me. We both worked the night shift, splitting the nights between us. He started out at 10 cents more an hour than I was making at the time! They gave him a shift deferential (something my supervisor had been fighting to get for me for a year, I never got it) and he started at above the normal rate. He had ZERO experience in this field. Now, this was ok with me because both of our incomes are pooled to support our home/lifestyle. Had that been a random man I was not living with...I don't know what I would have done.

We now work in different fields and I make quite a bit more than him. Oddly, my job is considered "pink collar" (secretary) and his "blue collar" (factory work). Could that be any more stereotypical (except for me making more that him)? Gak!

UCLA, oh jees sorry i thought you were making a point... my mistake.

XANA "I'm so glad that men are the "major source of income" thus creating a lovely niche for us women to take a lower wage job ("flexibility") simply because it's assumed we'll have some well-paid man in the background. I'm single. I'm queer. And I don't need a man's income supporting me. I need an equally paid wage for my job so that I can support MYSELF.

I would also like to point out how those comments were extremely heterosexist."

My statement was certainly not heterosexist. Pointing out that males have traditionally had the breadwinner role, and that this has ill effects on both men and women, is not heterosexist. Rather, it is a description of the norm that has been operating (and is one of the main issues feminists and others critique).

Second, your post is supportive of what I was saying. Lesbian women have higher incomes than heterosexual women. One proposed reason for this is that in contrast to many heterosexual women who have the expectation that their partners will be the sole or primary source of income, lesbian do not have that expectation, which raises the perceived importance of having a well-paying career.

In contrast, because some heterosexual women expect that their partners will have a well-paying career, this allows some women to pursue a career that is less financially lucrative but is more suited to their personal interests.

FROG QUEEN "I don't understand where your coming from with this, "oh well upper class ladies have more opportunity to choose their work". What are you implying. Because one implication doesn't look very good...."

I was implying that it could explain situations like this: "For example, one of my friends has a partner who works in a law firm, which allowed her to give up her job at Disney to go to grad school in psychology (a lower paying job but one that fit her interests better)."

FROGQUEEN: "UCLA, oh jees sorry i thought you were making a point... my mistake."

No worries! Apologies accepted.

"First off, having flexibility in the workplace of jobs you would like to be involved in has nothing to do with the lack of opportunity to move up in your career. "

Oh, I agree. I was commenting on the first of the two quotes in the article posted, which focuses on preferences for career.

In a separate post, I commented on the glass elevator concept (see 12:37pm) which relates to the second quote, which is certainly a very real phenomenon.

UCLA, had you considered that maybe it's easier for you to get a word in in meetings because your voice is deeper and louder than those around you? 'Cause when I was working in a decidedly male-dominated field (law), there was nothing about my "unique" female-ness that was going to get my voice heard in a meeting. It'd get me noticed, for sure, but it wouldn't get my voice heard.

"UCLA, had you considered that maybe it's easier for you to get a word in in meetings because your voice is deeper and louder than those around you?"

Yes, I think voice, maleness, body size, minority opinion, personality, all contribute. (I wasn't suggesting otherwise - I was implying that in some situations maleness can be an advantage even when one is a minority, but other times it can be liability).

You know what gets me every time? In the rare crevices that men encounter resistance or difficulty making their way in life, feminists and women in general are usually openly blamed for it.

But who do they blame when, in the ubiquitous positions women have enormous difficulty reaching, we come up against resistance and difficulty?

Why, women of course.

Women=humanity's scapegoat.

UCLAbodyimage said: "Maybe this goes without saying, but women, more than men, are treated like sex objects..."

Yup. And that's why my male friend can't get a job as a secretary. He has found that (male) employers are looking for something to look at, and female employers are (rightly) afraid he'll get promoted over them.

It is offensive because who put the structures in place that made men the "breadwinner" and women the "caretaker".

Xana, I know that the consensus here is that a vast conspiracy named "the patriarchy" is responsible for everything bad that's ever happened, ever -- but it's it more fair to say those structures were put in place by nature? In an agrarian or hunter-gatherer economy, or one based on manual labor, it seems to be to be more natural to have a division of labor where the physically stronger person in the relationship does the work that requires more physical strength.

Now of course we have an economy that is based on brainpower, so any those traditional gender roles are outmoded, but still with us. I think that's what UCLA was getting at.

Yup. And that's why my male friend can't get a job as a secretary. He has found that (male) employers are looking for something to look at...

I call bullshit. That is an old, ridiculous stereotype. While I am sure it happens, it's not that prevalent. Especially since sexual harassment is not ok anymore.

and female employers are (rightly) afraid he'll get promoted over them...

No secretary is going to be promoted over their boss. Secretaries generally don't have more than an Associate’s, if that (Bachelor's secretaries are very rare). I have 4 bosses and they all have Master's degrees...a man in my position would *never* get promoted over them - he wouldn't have the experience or education to do the job (or he wouldn't be a secretary to begin with). I think you are thinking of an entry-level position, possibly an assistant, with chance of advancement for someone who already has an advanced degree...not a secretary.

Signed,
A secretary

Also, in my experience, my female bosses think a male secretary is like a novelty...it's cool, it's cute. Although, I'm not sure that's better than being eyeballed by your boss because they think you will take their job.

I am so sick of the "but it's natural!" argument. *sigh*

Xana, I know that the consensus here is that a vast conspiracy named "the patriarchy" is responsible for everything bad that's ever happened, ever -- but it's it more fair to say those structures were put in place by nature? In an agrarian or hunter-gatherer economy, or one based on manual labor, it seems to be to be more natural to have a division of labor where the physically stronger person in the relationship does the work that requires more physical strength.

OK, do most people who talk about hunter-gatherer societies have a mental image of men out hunting and women picking berries with kids on their back?

Let's actually break down the workload: women have babies, raise babies, gather fruit and grains, fish, hunt small game, cook for everyone, and (possibly) clean up after everyone.

Men hunt large game and fight with each other. Hmm.

Also, the physical strength point? I would think that division of labour is based more on not putting the child-rearing sex at risk - most large game hunting in primitive societies involves a large group of men overwhelming the animal by force of numbers (sometimes with the women helping scare the animals into an area where the men can kill them). Not entirely strength-based.

"Not to mention that female-dominated fields like nursing, teaching, and social work have lower rate of academic pay at universities than, say, math and science, traditionally male dominated fields."

The impression I got is that it's more like "Not to mention that traditionally fields with lower rates of academic pay like nursing, teaching, and social work were allowed to become female-dominated while math and science stayed male dominated"...

"I definitely think some men feel strain when they feel they fail to meet up with their perceived social roles. For many men, that means sticking with a job they hate because of the pressure they feel to be the 'provider' or a 'real man'."

As if a percieved social role is the only source of that strain? Many men and women stick with doing work they hate (and sure the work it takes to stay a housewife instead of getting dumped can count here!) because of the pressure they feel to "eat enough food" and "have safe shelter."

"No secretary is going to be promoted over their boss. Secretaries generally don't have more than an Associate’s, if that (Bachelor's secretaries are very rare)."

What about temps? Aren't some secretaries college graduates who work through temp agencies while trying to find jobs that do require their degrees? I once met a secretary with a master's degree.

I once met a secretary with a master's degree.

Again, a Master's degree secretary, very rare. And, working to pay your way through college as temp is not the same thing...temps don't generally get promoted over the supervisors. I am talking about a lifetime career as a "secretary" not an entry-level position or a temporary job.

I apologize for the wording of my first post...it was very rude and I should have taken time to word it better.

It certainly was heterosexist. You continue to speak in terms of heterosexual partnerships and continue to make generalizations about women in those relationships by using phrases such as "some women expect". Yes, and some women like Oprah and others don't. Your point? I need the hard evidence and not your conjecture.

From the studies I can find, lesbian/bisexual women make 11% more than heterosexual women...which is not a huge difference.

And did someone just bring up the nature debate? What am I in? Some 101 Communications class?

MINA: "As if a percieved social role is the only source of that strain? Many men and women stick with doing work they hate (and sure the work it takes to stay a housewife instead of getting dumped can count here!) because of the pressure they feel to "eat enough food" and "have safe shelter."

I don't think anyone ever claimed that a person's only motivation in life is to avoid strain produced by perceived failure to match gender ideals.

It is an important motivation and experience that causes a great deal of stress. I don't think that acknowledging this diminishes the other challenges people face or the other motivations that also fuel their choices (e.g., need for food and shelter) and motivations people face.

Fenriswolf - Well, sure. Men's and women's roles were different in hunter/gatherer times, and they were different in agrian times. Farming was actually really, really hard work until advanced tools started making it (somewhat) easier in the 1800s. And running a household was really hard, too (but a different type of hard) until we had stuff like refrigerators and washing machines and vacuum cleaners and electricity.

Anyway. I worked as a temp legal secretary for over a year in various jobs around Boston after college. Did not feel I was treated any better or any worse than the women. And I can't possibly imagine a secretary (male or female) being promoted over his or her boss.

"I definitely think some men feel strain when they feel they fail to meet up with their perceived social roles. For many men, that means sticking with a job they hate because of the pressure they feel to be the 'provider' or a 'real man'. "

But the [male = breadwinner] social pressure is not the same as institutionalized discrimination against women. No one's going to deny a man a job because he *should* be earning more or have a more prestigious role. It's still a CHOICE to "stick with jobs they hate" in order to meet expectations, whereas women, with all their supposed "flexibility," won't have many of the same choices a man would.

Fenriswolf - Well, sure. Men's and women's roles were different in hunter/gatherer times, and they were different in agrian times. Farming was actually really, really hard work until advanced tools started making it (somewhat) easier in the 1800s. And running a household was really hard, too (but a different type of hard) until we had stuff like refrigerators and washing machines and vacuum cleaners and electricity.

Then what's your point? I was not the one to bring up the "men naturally do this, women do that" argument

"But the [male = breadwinner] social pressure is not the same as institutionalized discrimination against women."

For starters, the "you should work to earn a living" pressure doesn't try to suppress one's survival instincts the way the "you shouldn't try to earn a living" pressure does...

I'm sorry, I didn't even get to read the rest of the article. I was too busy laughing at,

"Is there such a thing as a reverse glass ceiling for men?"

Have these guys been inside a primary school before? Almost all the upper echelon are men. In fact, you're far more likely to find a man administrating in a primary school than actually teaching in one. And the lower the grade, the more sasquatchian the male teachers become. It's more like a glass floor.

Fenriswolf, my point is that the gender roles of men=breadwinner/women=caregiver weren't the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but rather were something appropriate to a time when most jobs revolved around physical labor.

Now that they don't, and either party can pretty easily be the breadwinner, of course those gender roles are dated. But both men and women do still continue to define themselves in those ways. Whether that's because of "socialization" or those roles are hard-wired into our brains by evolution is an interesting question.

No one's going to deny a man a job because he *should* be earning more or have a more prestigious role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overqualified

Fenriswolf, my point is that the gender roles of men=breadwinner/women=caregiver weren't the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but rather were something appropriate to a time when most jobs revolved around physical labor.

Mmm, yes and no. Makes more sense than what I thought you meant. Why have I been misunderstanding people so much recently? Gah

Sorry lol

I get really tired of the hunter/gatherer thing. We have almost no proof that labor was divided that way. Yes, I imagine it would be difficult to take down a freaking mammoth if you have a small child in tow, but, again we have no proof that there weren't other social structures in place that allowed women to hunt large animals or that men didn't gather or partake in some form of agriculture. And if these roles aren't relevant anymore, why do people bring them up?

And, scare quotes? Around the word socialization? Really?

Also, feminists don't sit around freaking out about this "vast right-wing conspiracy," the patriarchy. It's not a conspiracy. It is a system. It did not come to be because of a bunch of conservative men plotted it. It was born from a thirst for power and fear of anything that threatened that power. It very nearly perpetuates itself. There aren't dark smoky rooms where men plot the next move of the patriarchy. Acting like we're all paranoid is arrogant. Although what else would I expect from a troll?

Re "Overqualified":
If a man is considered to be overqualified simply because he is male, then it's comparable to a woman being denied a job b/c she's female. (However, I think when people talk about being rejected because they're overqualified, there's usually more going on that just gender discrimination.)

But the issue of being disqualified because one's "overqualified" is separate from that of men feeling personally obliged to pursue certain careers, which is the point I was responding to.

I get so sick of people ignoring how women have been kept out of well-paying jobs so they (the defenders of male privilege to whine) can whine about how those poor men are obligated to support those lucky women. Next thing you know they'll be trotting out the cliche about how women aren't in combat. The unspoken other half of that phrase is how therefore women don't deserve as many rights as men because they don't have as many obligations. Those male obligations---higher paying jobs----are accepted by men because they grant men more power. UCLAbodyimage, you're missing out on quite a lot.

UCLA body image, you're ignoring who set up those well-playing jobs for men and denied them to women. It's not like Warren Farrell has a history of denying stuff like that to twist it--as you're trying to do---into a story of male obligations and alleged female advantages. What next? Using Farrell's standard whine that women don't serve in combat? (The standard unspoken second half of statements like that---or "Women have more flexibility because men have obligations"---is that women don't need those pesky equal rights because they have privileges.

Lesbian women have higher incomes than heterosexual women. One proposed reason for this is that in contrast to many heterosexual women who have the expectation that their partners will be the sole or primary source of income, lesbian do not have that expectation, which raises the perceived importance of having a well-paying career.

The explanation I heard had to deal with childcare. Basically, lesbians are less likely to have children, and if they do have children, the responsibility of that child's care is more evenly divided rather than just foisted on them.

Um, I've actually looked at median pay charts at the Department of Labor website, and even with KINDERGARTEN TEACHING, men make more median pay than women do even though they are WAY outnumbered.

Finding that out was enough for me. "Reverse glass ceiling," my big ole butt. It's like "reverse racism" or something.

kissmypineapple, this whole "troll" accusation is very tiresome. Seriously, if you think I'm not arguing in good faith, then please, just ignore me.

And even forget about the whole hunter/gatherer thing. Just look at the last 2000 years or so of recorded history. Most jobs until very recently required a lot of physical labor and physical stamina. If someone's gotta till the field, it makes sense to me that the male would do it.

Physical stamina? Physical labor? Yeah, show me the peasant women who didn't do that shit every day of their lives.

You sound like Farrell himself. You ARE aware that the majority of women weren't dewy white maidens on fainting couches, right? If you're not, wise up immediately.

I'm sure the troll accusation is about as tiresome for you as your ridiculous arguments are for me. And, I really tried to ignore you, but, like a bad penny, you just keep turning up. So if I see something that I think is not argued in good faith, I'm not going to sit back and let it stand unchallenged. And until you prove that you are anything more than a troll, I will continue to treat you as such.

Ginmar - Sigh. I'm sure that most women 200, 300 years ago worked much harder than I do (or anyone else here). But the kind of labor they performed would have been different than that the men did.

It's also worth noting that before breast pumps and refrigeration, it would have been much harder for the men to assume a caregiver role while the women did the breadwinning. And of course women spent much more time pregnant, since infant mortality was so high.

kissmypineapple - well, I don't feel accusations against me add very much to the discussion here. If a "troll" is someone who tries to derail a thread, then you're it, not me. So maybe *I* will ignore *you*.

Interesting how *management* in education is predominantly male, and how, reverse glass ceiling or not, teachers make less than individuals with comparable amounts of education.

But let's ignore all that and make the whole thing about how men are disadvantaged.

Fecking hell. I give up. this is so stupid it hurts.

Alaric, try reading before you start having rediculous opinions. You're wrong and you just wasted five seconds of my time. Sheesh.

Well, if it's any consolation, I think your opinions are "rediculous" too.

Women have always worked hard, at all times, sometimes carrying their nursing infants with them. I guess you've never heard of this thing called slavery or discrimination? Sheesh. Try remedying that ignorance before you yap about a subject.

Umm, try reading what I say and understand what I'm talking about before doing your own yapping.

Some stuff I've read suggests that different gender results in work progress have both a "real" and a "discriminatory" aspect.

In other words: more women than men are responsible for childcare. Their availability, time off, and/or need for flexibility are "real" aspects which (even if illegal) are likely to have an effect on their promotions in addition to the "usual" discrimination.

Just because a man works in a female-dominated field doesn't mean that he isn't in a traditional gender role otherwise. So if he (like most men) is not responsible for primary childcare, or is not expected to take days off work when little Bobby gets head lice and needs to stay home... then that has an actual effect on his work.

This may be a partial explanation of the male-in-a-female-field issue. Obviously they still get the discrimination bonuses as well. But statistically speaking they're more likely to have other qualities that their employer might like. the fact that considering those qualities is often illegal probably doesn't matter much I think.

And because society is what it is, the chances are that the women in said field will have those other conflicting priorities. Again, the cmoparison may be illegal, but it surely happens anyway.

Sailorman: This is completely conjecture, so forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I'm not sure that women having other priorities necessarily has an actual effect on her work. I would see that as part of the discriminatory issue, wherein an employer assumes that it will affect the quality of her work.

Also, I know you were offering up an explanation, not condoning said conditions, so I don't want this to be seen as a challenge to your post, but it did made me think of something a friend recently said about how society is vs how it ought to be. She was saying that it's all well and good to say that women ought to be able to do x,y, or z without judgement, etc., but that's not how our society is, so they can't. I understand how some women feel safer or more comfortable playing by the patriarchy rules, but the fact that this discrimination exists or that these real or imagined effects on the work of women b/c the primary caregiver role is forced on them is all the more reason to break the system, not shrug and say, oh well.

kissmypineapple said -

"Acting like we're all paranoid is arrogant."

That's true dear.

You might also consider that acting like we're all arrogant IS paranoid.

(Newbie, thought I'd keep it brief.)

Luv the site. Very funny, mostly.

ShelbyWoo: Call bullshit all you like. It's pretty clear what's going on. Rare != impossible.

He is well educated, and is "overqualified" for many of the jobs he's applied for. And it is very clear to him (and me) that he's not been hired because of being male.

Thing is, I'm agreeing that this is NOT the norm, this is the rare, odd case, and that this is because the bosses are looking for women to look at. He figures he'd have the same problem if he were female, but fat.

Wow!

I lasted over 30-minutes before the feminazi censors started to curtail my posts!

If you even get to read this, let me just say---

every woman has a right to think, become powerful, and live her life to the fullest.

Unfortunately, the moderators here believe you are all intellectual infants -- and require that some ideas you might be exposed to must be outlawed.

The tyranny of tolerance indeed!

(Thanks for reviewing this comments mods-- before BANNING it! Proving my point.)

Oh, and before I am virtually eviscerated, obviously it is not my patriarchal right to "give" women "the right to think, become powerful, and live her life..."

This site is the very best venue for men -- who no longer care about what women think -- to post their sentiments.

You know... simulating emotional intelligence and womenz ways of knowing?

If you wish, dismiss me as a troll.

But if you believe you have something to learn from your simple-minded and weak adversary, then you might indulge me before the inevitable banning.

So, I'll just ask all you girls the ultimate question.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU WANT?

NTTAW: Well, hello there. First, there's always a warning for first time posters (especially if they post several times in a row withing a certain time period) that the moderators may screen your post before it is allowed. That doesn't actually mean your post is going to be screened, or that you're being censored. But "feminazi" is not a good way to go about not being banned. Just a tip.

Secondly, my "acting as though we are paranoid..." was directed at one person in particular, not at all men. I would encourage you to look around before you make assumptions. Most posters here are actually pretty big fans of men, just not the ones who reveal themselves not to be fans of women. I don't think I've encountered many posters who immediately brand men as their "simple minded and weak adversaries," but, you really seem to be on your way.

Why would you want to post if you no longer care what women think? Seems like a waste of time on your part. Surely you've got more interesting and fulfilling things to do.

The Boston Globe and columnist Maura Welch don't welcome NTTAW's rants on the Business Filter blog (see http://www.boston.com/business/blog/filter/ ) either. Is this censorship and tyranny too...?

Sorry kissmy....

Since boyhood, I have always been deficient in attending to women's "warnings."

They never seemed to matter much.

Guess that's called flirting-impaired.

As Freud confessed upon his death bed, it's never a waste of time to try to figure out what women think.

Though it may be tragic.

Actually, there is a lot of funny stuff on this site, and anybody's sister who is contemplating being a stripper or a feminist professor should read everything in detail.

As a guy, I was a little bit thrown off by the whole piece.

Maybe I'm out of touch because I'm not in a female dominated feild (I'm an athlete), but I have friends who have moved into these fields and have not complained about any sort of discrimination or scoffing about them doing what they love to do.

I'm definitely anti-Warren Farrell, and the fact that people still think the way he does just illustrates that upper-middle class white man are so longing for something to complain about.

"Glass cieling" is, as has already been mentioned, definitely the wrong term for the whole thing. I guess "glass floor" or "glass walls" don't get the same reaction.

It's hard for me to understand what Clifford has to complain about, but I guess some people are just attention junkies. Not to say he isn't great at what he does, but I've always figured that being good at what you do is more important that other people thinking you're good at what you do. But that's just me.

The thing, though, that upset me the most, was this little bit:

"Women enter into those areas because they are the most fulfilling...Men don't because they feel they need to take on the responsibility of providing for the family, and the way they earn love is to earn money."

The implication that women only enter it for personal means is screwed.

What about Ayn Rand?

Then there's the implication about men only entering fields for money. If I wanted to make money, I'd have gone to law school or become an accountant. Instead, I'm doing what I love because I love to do it, as are all of the other guys I know.

The biggest problem, though, is that "the way men earn love is to earn money." I come from a family where my mother was the bread winner. It didn't make her love my dad any less (at least as far as I know), and if women only loved me because of money, then I would be a very lonely guy. (if that were the case, I'd blame the glass cieling too, I guess)

Anyway, that's just my side of the story.

The problem with you, Alaric, isn't that you're misunderstood. It's that you're understood all too well. You displayed your ignorance of women's history and got nailed for it. Deal with it. Buh bye.

men definitely make more money than women. Women should not just settle on a low paying job because they are happy and their husband makes all the money. this is not right at all.
cruises travel information
vacation rentals information
cruising sailing information
world travel videos