Some of the arguments being made for women are that they are now a majority of the work force, they get more college degrees, women under 30 make more money than men under 30,women are better leaders and are less likely to be corrupted. These are not very valid arguments in my opinion because it does not show that men are finished. So what if women are improving in all these things? It only shows that they are catching up to men not overtaking them. I believe that women should be at these standards but are only now coming to them. Women still don't occupy many of the harder jobs such as construction work, military, or any occupation where danger is involved. These stats only show that women are catching up to men intellectually but not taking them over. As the other side says, when men are finished, they roll over and go to sleep. LOOOL. Although more women do the voting nowadays, men are still a majority of the leaders being elected. Women do not hold many seats in congress and are in fact losing seats. You can make the argument that women are excelling in many fields but not the same can be said when you bring up the fields of mathematics and computer science. The number of women in these fields are actually dropping. Maybe it's too difficult for them? As a result of male dominance in these fields, men are taking over patent offices where there influx of new inventions and creative ideas. Men are not worried about a female takeover just because they are improving. Men are ultimately worried about taking out other male competition. Until women can pose a bigger threat to the male thrown, I honestly cannot see men being finished and women taking over.
The social gender dynamics of America is shifting. Radically at that. Working women are now a normal thing. Women are now a majority in college, work, and professional schools. However, women and men test about about the same in standardized tests. Shouldn't they be performing at the same levels?
On an institutional level, women are privileged. Affirmative action brought the most benefits to white women; in addition, there are a huge number of programs, such as Girls Who Code, that benefit women who pursue higher education, especially in STEM.
In addition, I hate all these generalizations about both men and women. By actually defining personality/traits as masculine and feminine, one actually limits the roles for both genders. Leadership, still, is seen as a "male" thing, and if a women is a leader, she's usually seen as a bitch or "overbearing." In addition, men are becoming more conscious of their looks? Only men? I don't think the 1940s had women just covering the boobs and vagina in photos. In addition, hairlessness is becoming fashionable among men. Note the becoming. If the sexiest man in the world is hairy, wouldn't that be the beauty/attractiveness standard? The sexiest man in the world is not a sexy man but the sexiness. Obviously, he would exemplify attractiveness in that era not be an average of the men of the time.
While I don't agree with using blue collar jobs as the "ideal jobs" of our society. Perhaps I'm biased because I go to an "elite" school, but none of my friends really want to grow up and become a blue collar anything.
However, I agree with WAW phenomenon. Hilary Clinton was the secretary of the state, yet whenever the US messes up, many sigh and say "If women ran the world..."
They do, but that doesn't change much. Women, men, and just people in power, especially political power, have a lot of the same traits. They're ambitious (or else they wouldn't have rose to that position); they're smart; and they hold their country as a top priority. More generally, they value themselves over others. That's great! That means they'll work in our best interest. But our best interest isn't necessarily the best as Russia's or China's. Conflict will never end. Not as a result of gender but of geography. The internet doesn't remove mountains nor drain oceans. While we have become more interconnected, we cannot ignore the thing that stares at us outside our window: the outside.
Beyond everything, generalization is bad. Black people are stupid and thugs. Why can't I say that? Nearly half of black men are arrested at age 23. A fifth of black women are also arrested by age 23. Blacks consistently score lower on standardized testing, including the LSAT, which actually better predicts their performance in law school than other races, which means it is not racist.
So, why can't I say that? Simple. Humans are not statistics. Your genitalia doesn't determine whether or not you'll be corrupt as a police officer. You do.
I can cherrypicks hundreds of stupid, violent people. I can also do that but with black persons only.
As people, we have the innate capacity to overcome barriers and boundaries. By limiting us by our birth, we're held back and ultimately limited to being humans--not people.
After hearing the debate, my position still remains the same. Men are not finished. One of the main problems I found with the entire debate was that it was not clearly defined what "men are finished" means. As a result, Hanna was able to completely redefine this statement into that men are no longer dominant, therefore men are finished, which I found to be absurd. Christina made a good point when she said that the opposite of male dominance is not female dominance, it is mutuality (which I wholeheartedly agree with.) Dan also seems to rely on seemingly arbitrary female generalizations to support his argument. For example, he says that the only three reasons females have not taken over men is because of the responsibility of childcare, their lack of confidence compared to men, and sexism. He claims that when the latter two end, so will men. That women lack the confidence of men seems completely random and I have no idea where he could have come up with this statistic. He makes it seem as if soon everyone will suddenly see the "truth" that women are almighty and powerful and that women will soon start taking over all the corporations around the world. David Zinczenko makes a valid point when he says that the pace that women are beginning to catch up to men is slow. Women perform 2/3 of world's work and a fraction of world's income. Men own 99% of world's property and own 92% of its sovereign nations. It is still men who make up dangerous jobs. Yet, I did find some of his points to be a bit absurd as well. For example, he said that while women are capable of heroic actions, we are hardwired as a species to count on the comforts of masculine leadership. I don't think that there is any evidence for this. In fact, I feel that this "masculine leadership" is an ideology that we have created, not something that we are born with. He also attempts to go against the claim that women are taking over because more are graduating by listing rich, successful men such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. He even sardonically calls them "poor non-degree holding men who are too busy becoming billionaires." However, I did not think that this was a very good argument because obviously these few men do not account for all men and there are women who make it big as well.
All in all, I thought that Christina made the best point when she said that there is an in-between. We are arriving toward equality, not female nor male dominance.
Some of the arguments being made for women are that they are now a majority of the work force, they get more college degrees, women under 30 make more money than men under 30,women are better leaders and are less likely to be corrupted. These are not very valid arguments in my opinion because it does not show that men are finished. So what if women are improving in all these things? It only shows that they are catching up to men not overtaking them. I believe that women should be at these standards but are only now coming to them. Women still don't occupy many of the harder jobs such as construction work, military, or any occupation where danger is involved. These stats only show that women are catching up to men intellectually but not taking them over. As the other side says, when men are finished, they roll over and go to sleep. LOOOL. Although more women do the voting nowadays, men are still a majority of the leaders being elected. Women do not hold many seats in congress and are in fact losing seats. You can make the argument that women are excelling in many fields but not the same can be said when you bring up the fields of mathematics and computer science. The number of women in these fields are actually dropping. Maybe it's too difficult for them? As a result of male dominance in these fields, men are taking over patent offices where there influx of new inventions and creative ideas. Men are not worried about a female takeover just because they are improving. Men are ultimately worried about taking out other male competition. Until women can pose a bigger threat to the male thrown, I honestly cannot see men being finished and women taking over.
ReplyDeleteThe social gender dynamics of America is shifting. Radically at that. Working women are now a normal thing. Women are now a majority in college, work, and professional schools. However, women and men test about about the same in standardized tests.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't they be performing at the same levels?
On an institutional level, women are privileged. Affirmative action brought the most benefits to white women; in addition, there are a huge number of programs, such as Girls Who Code, that benefit women who pursue higher education, especially in STEM.
In addition, I hate all these generalizations about both men and women. By actually defining personality/traits as masculine and feminine, one actually limits the roles for both genders. Leadership, still, is seen as a "male" thing, and if a women is a leader, she's usually seen as a bitch or "overbearing."
In addition, men are becoming more conscious of their looks? Only men?
I don't think the 1940s had women just covering the boobs and vagina in photos. In addition, hairlessness is becoming fashionable among men. Note the becoming. If the sexiest man in the world is hairy, wouldn't that be the beauty/attractiveness standard? The sexiest man in the world is not a sexy man but the sexiness. Obviously, he would exemplify attractiveness in that era not be an average of the men of the time.
While I don't agree with using blue collar jobs as the "ideal jobs" of our society. Perhaps I'm biased because I go to an "elite" school, but none of my friends really want to grow up and become a blue collar anything.
However, I agree with WAW phenomenon. Hilary Clinton was the secretary of the state, yet whenever the US messes up, many sigh and say "If women ran the world..."
They do, but that doesn't change much. Women, men, and just people in power, especially political power, have a lot of the same traits. They're ambitious (or else they wouldn't have rose to that position); they're smart; and they hold their country as a top priority. More generally, they value themselves over others. That's great! That means they'll work in our best interest. But our best interest isn't necessarily the best as Russia's or China's. Conflict will never end. Not as a result of gender but of geography. The internet doesn't remove mountains nor drain oceans. While we have become more interconnected, we cannot ignore the thing that stares at us outside our window: the outside.
Beyond everything, generalization is bad.
Black people are stupid and thugs. Why can't I say that? Nearly half of black men are arrested at age 23. A fifth of black women are also arrested by age 23. Blacks consistently score lower on standardized testing, including the LSAT, which actually better predicts their performance in law school than other races, which means it is not racist.
So, why can't I say that?
Simple. Humans are not statistics. Your genitalia doesn't determine whether or not you'll be corrupt as a police officer. You do.
I can cherrypicks hundreds of stupid, violent people. I can also do that but with black persons only.
As people, we have the innate capacity to overcome barriers and boundaries. By limiting us by our birth, we're held back and ultimately limited to being humans--not people.
After hearing the debate, my position still remains the same. Men are not finished. One of the main problems I found with the entire debate was that it was not clearly defined what "men are finished" means. As a result, Hanna was able to completely redefine this statement into that men are no longer dominant, therefore men are finished, which I found to be absurd. Christina made a good point when she said that the opposite of male dominance is not female dominance, it is mutuality (which I wholeheartedly agree with.)
ReplyDeleteDan also seems to rely on seemingly arbitrary female generalizations to support his argument. For example, he says that the only three reasons females have not taken over men is because of the responsibility of childcare, their lack of confidence compared to men, and sexism. He claims that when the latter two end, so will men. That women lack the confidence of men seems completely random and I have no idea where he could have come up with this statistic. He makes it seem as if soon everyone will suddenly see the "truth" that women are almighty and powerful and that women will soon start taking over all the corporations around the world.
David Zinczenko makes a valid point when he says that the pace that women are beginning to catch up to men is slow. Women perform 2/3 of world's work and a fraction of world's income. Men own 99% of world's property and own 92% of its sovereign nations. It is still men who make up dangerous jobs. Yet, I did find some of his points to be a bit absurd as well. For example, he said that while women are capable of heroic actions, we are hardwired as a species to count on the comforts of masculine leadership. I don't think that there is any evidence for this. In fact, I feel that this "masculine leadership" is an ideology that we have created, not something that we are born with. He also attempts to go against the claim that women are taking over because more are graduating by listing rich, successful men such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. He even sardonically calls them "poor non-degree holding men who are too busy becoming billionaires." However, I did not think that this was a very good argument because obviously these few men do not account for all men and there are women who make it big as well.
All in all, I thought that Christina made the best point when she said that there is an in-between. We are arriving toward equality, not female nor male dominance.