The side effects of the decline of men

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, and it is not just about male wage stagnation:

The researchers Guido Matias Cortes, Nir Jaimovich and Henry E. Siu split jobs into categories, with “cognitive” occupations relying on brain power corresponding closely to what many call white-collar jobs. Their worrying result for men is this: In 1980, 66 percent of college-educated men worked in these cognitive occupations. By 2000, that had fallen to 63 percent. Those three percentage points may not sound like a major change, but that’s over a 20-year period when the American economy became wealthier and more Americans became educated. Men also grew older as a group during this time, which should have propelled them into more white-collar jobs. Relative to those expectations of improvement, the retrogression is startling.

…One possible reason for this shift is that more jobs demand good social skills. The data show that the growing demand for social skills, as measured by job characteristics and employment ads, has matched where women have gained relative to men in the workplace. The researchers suggest the scientific evidence shows that women have on average stronger skills in empathy, communication, emotion recognition and verbal expression, and corporate America is valuing those qualities all the more.

There is much more at the link.

Comments

The researchers suggest the scientific evidence shows that women have on average stronger skills in empathy, communication, emotion recognition and verbal expression, and corporate America is valuing those qualities all the more.

I suspect this is not actually true. Or rather what they have discovered is that more corporations are requiring all employees to bend the knee to the Human Resources Department. They say it is empathy etc but what they mean is compliance to the Soft Totalitarianism of the HR girls.

So it is no surprise that women are becoming more dominant as any man with any pride or self-respect looks for work elsewhere.

This is not good for the American economy. Any company that is dominated by the HR people will fail.

The economy has been and will continue moving towards more services. These social skills where women are stronger, on average, which is not up for debate, are obviously more helpful in service-focused jobs. Companies have a clear incentive to prefer people with those skills for these types of jobs. It's not really complicated, despite your "muh totalitarian HR girls" comment.

Of course it is up for debate. Yes, I am sure that more old people will need someone to bring their dinner and wipe their bottoms. Not all that cognitively challenging. The fact is the real progress in society is happening wherever a very small number of very smart young men are. Mainly White young men too. It was not women in the service industry that created Silicon Valley. Or pretty much anything really.

Companies will thrive if they make a comfortable environment for those bright young men. HR Departments are structurally hostile to those young men. So companies will die as the power of HR grows.

"Mainly White young men too."

Asian becomes white?

They are honorary whites because in the US only Black/White really matters.

That's not really it. They just keep quiet because they make more money so they let white people take the credit. For now.
You ever noticed how the Asian guys at the office are the quiet ones who keep to themselves? That's because they're bottling up all their rage - they probably have a Katana in the basement that they hone every night before bedtime, plotting their eventual takeover.

It is exactly what I have been saying! The Red Chinese and savage Japanese are biding their time to strike.

You realize that a ton of those Silicon Valley jobs are actually services, right? It's not all programmers. You need to take a broader view of services jobs -- it's not just caregivers and retail.

And the point remains, the service economy is already the the large majority of GDP and that is where the growth will be. It's not controversial. Companies are self interested and responsible to shareholders. So if they hire women in HR or move toward hiring more people with strong social skills it is because that is what is making them money. Not sure how that fits into your White Men narrative, but it's just the way things are.

I don't believe that employees act perfectly rational on behalf of the company. I've seen plenty of bad decisions made that harm companies. I doubt HR departments have some sort of immunity against bad decisions.

True, but to Jan's point, the HR department can't get away with making obviously poor hires forever at a successful company. Either they'll be replaced or the company will loose its edge.

Google, Apple and the rest of the high tech industry puts a lot of effort into the narrative that everyone is exactly equal. But they certainly aren't hiring a proportional number of female engineers (51%).

JWatts, unless you work at one of those companies you really shouldn’t say anything about their hiring practices.

Even if you do work at those companies, unless you are in a hiring position you shouldn’t say anything.

Finally, if you are in a hiring position you damn well better keep your mouth shut if you want to keep your job.

Well, it's not all about services either.
Businesses like people who can work well with others, regardless of what job they are in. They don't like dealing with personality conflicts.
I don't get the deal with HR either, I don't really interact with them all that much, so it's hard to feel like they are being "totalitarian". Maybe once a year I talk to an HR person during the benefits enrollment period. Whatever.

Has anyone here actually ever experienced HR overruling a managers judgement about what candidates to hire? Wherever I've worked, candidates are selected and interviewed by the manager they will work directly under, and the manager makes the call. The HR department at best filters resumes and forwards a short list to the manager. There's definitely room for bias and incompetence there, but it's hard to describe that as oppressive interference.

I have never worked anywhere where the HR people do the actual hiring. To be sure they filter incoming resumes, process new-hire paperwork, and do things like background checks, but the actual hiring decisions are made by department managers.

Ron February 15, 2018 at 9:19 am

I don’t believe that employees act perfectly rational on behalf of the company.

Of course the women who work in HR departments act entirely rationally on behalf of the women who work in HR departments. It is a little hard for companies to align that with what the company wants, but it is possible.

10 JWatts February 15, 2018 at 9:44 am

True, but to Jan’s point, the HR department can’t get away with making obviously poor hires forever at a successful company. Either they’ll be replaced or the company will loose its edge.

How is General Motors doing? As companies get older, they get HR departments. I am not sure that is working well for them. As you say much of Silicon Valley talks to the Left but hires to the Right.

12 Hazel Meade February 15, 2018 at 11:42 am

Well, it’s not all about services either. Businesses like people who can work well with others, regardless of what job they are in. They don’t like dealing with personality conflicts.

No - middle managers do not like those things. Business love people who produce. Even if they are a nightmare to work with. But the company's goals and the middle manager/HR department goals are not the same. It is easier for everyone not responsible for dividends to get rid of people who are smart but not good with others. Mediocrity is the aim of the HR Department. All too often achieved as well.

I don’t get the deal with HR either

Let's see, Female, Immigrant, leftist. Yes I can see why you would not deal with them very much.

> Companies will thrive if they make a comfortable environment for those bright young men.

"Young" ......

The managerial class has very effectively created a zeitgeist where these bright young men believe that wasting their youth as well-paid round-the-clock programming drones is some pinnacle of self-actualization ("we're changing the world with our ad-matching algorithms").

By the time they reach their late 30s they are no longer so gullible and also decreasing employable.

The only way that most people become less employable with age (outside of actual disabilities) is the fact that their salary expectations tend to grow.

Jon Fraz you obviously do not get the SV mindset.

According to a Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon University who fancies himself as a guru to the SV management elite:

The young understand new technologies better than the old do, and are like a clean slate: They will rapidly learn the latest coding methods and techniques, and they don’t carry any “technology baggage.” The older worker likely has a family and needs to leave the office by 6 p.m. The young can easily pull all-nighters.

Of course, this approach relies on the gullibiilty of the younger engineers - most of whom will not get rich from programming and most of whom will age and discover that they threw away their youth getting some VCs rich and have little to show for it.

Dirty Harry got it right . . . over 40 years ago!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRTVNbvPU4w

These social skills where women are stronger, on average, which is not up for debate,

The correct kind of sexism is not only politically correct, but isn't even up for debate. Once in a while try to meditate on how you would feel if similar comments are made about a large group of people whose cause you advocate.

>[women] are obviously more helpful

Jan's blatant sexism, on full display for all.

It's OK though! Because reasons!

One wonders with all the advantages women bring to companies why there is such a push to create quotas and special treatment for the women. It almost makes you think some of this data and beliefs are totally made up. And of course we all know that the superiority of women when it comes to social skills and empathy are not up for debate (so don't you dare disagree) because women are so much better or something, what we can't seem to correlate is why women can't seem to get along with other women and when asked women would prefer to work for a man rather than work for another woman. Or why offices with mostly women devolve into clutches of rumor mongering harpies whose tiffs have to constantly be solved by the boss who is often some dumb male.

How dare you!

People are different everywhere, but IMO a good mix of men and women is helpful for team cohesion.
Men can get overly competitive as well. I've had experiences with both guys trying to be all alpha male and dominate the office, and the queen harpy gossip queen going all "mean girls" on everyone. Get a good mix and it cuts down on both types of behavior.

I've had a woman boss who was a total [rhymes with witch] and a woman boss who was the Best Boss in the World. I've also had a male boss who was such a clueless idiot we thought he somehow escaped from a Dilbert cartoon, and a male boss (OK, he was gay) who was low-key, quite competent and a lot of fun. People are people and while there's a bit of a style difference overall between men and women in managerial positions, both sexes have their share of inept dunderheads who should not allowed to manage a tea party, and of brilliant wonderful people.

"These social skills where women are stronger, on average, which is not up for debate"

Scientific sexism?

SMFS: CEOs must be stupid by supporting HR girls, otherwise efficiency and profits would be higher. So, are you implying that the market is failing by hiring women? That should be very easy to prove, percentage of women in the company Vs quarterly profits. I wonder why no one has made this plot before.

Gee Axa you must be right: this is a free market economy, after all! Capitalism with American characteristics.

But high quarterly profits might cause more frivolous spending on ostentatiously "diverse" workplaces, the same way that the top corporations all have beautiful buildings and stuff.

You would actually do better looking at corporations that are barely above the red and doing anything they can to stay afloat. Small and mid-sized independent oil companies come to mind, but that's just the industry I know best.

CEOs must be stupid by supporting HR girls, otherwise efficiency and profits would be higher. So, are you implying that the market is failing by hiring women?

Google makes no attempt to live the values it claims to support. It does not listen to the girls in HR. I am willing to bet that General Motors does though.

Tyler's premise is that men are declining because the market is becoming more woman-favorable for basically 'exogenous' reasons, and men just need to suck it up and deal with it. This is a totally unsatisfying premise.

We just had a presidential election in which the left's platform devolved into something like "women are oppressed and the reason is men." It caught fire and Clinton was essentially forced into this position by voters. If women are in a favorable market position, *why* are they protesting? The market will choose them anyway.

The non-economic social sciences have effectively pushed an anti-male agenda for the past 30+ years. (Men are at the top of power hierarchies, and power hierarchies are bad). What effect has this had? For each economics paper like the one cited, there have been 10000 anti-male social theory papers.

I do not think +3% and -4% explain much of what we are seeing.

If you think that women are the enemy of men, you're destined to not have a very happy romantic life.

LOL understatement of the week. These guys are already right there. The resentment just oozes from them. They aren't happy about anything, even Trump being president hasn't stopped their feels about mean old liberals and women and darkies.

You really know a lot about "these guys." It's not idle slander at all, it's insight....

Yes, agreed.

+1

Although My hypothesis would be that the causality is backwards.

Their lack of success with women is the driving cause of their nonsense.

Similar to Afghanistan where Taliban recruitment is due to their lack of ability to secure a wife.

Their political beliefs are driven by their personal lives. Resentment bleeds out into politics. Politics of resentment and failure.

Just my hypothesis.

I'm willing to entertain that idea, but does it also apply to the people animating the MeToo movement? Is it just about personal grievance with them?

If you think that women are the enemy of men, you’re destined to not have a very happy romantic life.

Very few of those people tweeting MeToo seem very happy to me. But there you go. You may not be interested in the zeitgeist but the zeitgeist is very interested in you. In the end it takes two to make peace.

> In 1980, 66 percent of college-educated men worked in these cognitive occupations. By 2000, that had fallen to 63 percent.

Doesn't this have more to do with the expansion of college to lower rungs of the cognitive ladder. Based on test scores the newly minted college graduate in 1975 averaged about a 115 IQ. Today that number is somewhere around 105. A college degree means a lot less than it used to.

This is it exactly. See this error made in journals too often.

In 1980, 14% of all men had a college degree and a cognitive job. In 2000, 18% of all men had a college degree and a cognitive job.

Good analysis, here is the data:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/

The title should have been "The decline of college".

Yep, good point. I know of a guy who, despite not being very bright, got himself a degree in criminal justice. He wound up working as a security guard. There's a lot more of those kinds of degree programs and people going through them than there used to be.

Excellent catch. And yet, totally beside the point, because "politics is not about policy" and all that jazz.

Right. And: "... and more Americans became educated".
They got the logic backwards on this one. More educated people means a smaller percentage of them are required to fill the jobs where that education is required.

+1, there are a lot of positions that "require" a college degree for HR reasons that didn't in the past. Construction management is a booming degree field.

Griggs vs. Duke Power had done a tremendous amount of damage.

I am inclined to think this way as well, but I think at the same time Tyler might be spotting a mood. Heck, you see the mood elsewhere on this page.

If it wasn't for those wimin in hr!

"1975 averaged about a 115 IQ. Today that number is somewhere around 105. A college degree means a lot less than it used to."

Where do those numbers come from?

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/04/average-iq-of-college-graduates-by.html

In other words, they are invented.

I like Tyler’s writing 80% of the time - it’s rational and and researched - but the 20% I don’t like usually comes from a lazy assumption. For example:

“So let's tie this back into some current social trends. President Donald Trump has consistently appealed to white male resentment.”

How so? Sure, he tapped into populist unrest but where did he highlight the race or gender of this resentment? I remember he made a direct appeal to black voters (“what do you have to lose) but as someone who finds Trump’s personality pretty annoying I can’t recall anything specifically racial or sexist about his campaign.

According to polls his share of the black and Hispanic vote exceeded Romney’s, and recent polls suggest this support has doubled since the election.

Trump swam in very liberal NY circles for decades and has worked with thousands of people for decades. Where is the evidence for this racial animus?

It doesn’t exist. It’s lazy to assert otherwise.

'I can’t recall anything specifically racial or sexist about his campaign'

Well, there was this guy. Just an introduction - 'Donald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski recently skidded into the public eye when he was accused of roughly grabbing Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. While both Trump and Lewandowski have denied the incident, some of Trump's staff as well as former colleagues of Lewandowski say the behavior isn't so out-of-line with the man they know.

According to over 20 sources who spoke with Politico, Lewandowski has a history of being hotheaded, lewd about female journalists, and often profane when laying into co-workers who challenge his authority. His behavior is cited by some as being entirely unprofessional and inappropriate: While working for the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity advocacy network, Lewandowski once threatened to "blow up" the car of the organization's chief financial officer due to a late expense reimbursement check.' http://theweek.com/speedreads/612769/colleagues-trump-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-call-lewd-hotheaded-unprofessional

Leftist rag does a hatchet job on a political opponent they loathe relying on 20 unnamed anonymous sources?

Yeah right.

Do you even bother in the slightest to check your errors? 'The Week is a weekly British news magazine founded in 1995 which has also published a US edition since 2001 and a children's edition in the UK since 2015. Between 2008 and 2012 it also published an Australian edition.

----------------------------------------------

The Week was founded in the United Kingdom by Jolyon Connell (formerly of the right-of-centre Sunday Telegraph) in 1995. In April 2001, the magazine began publishing an American edition; and an Australian edition followed in October 2008. Dennis Publishing founded by Felix Dennis publishes the UK edition and, until 2012, published the Australian edition. The Week Publications publishes the US edition.

-----------------------------------------------

The various editions of the magazine provide perspectives on the week's current events and other news, as well as editorial commentary from global media, with the intent to provide readers with multiple political viewpoints. In addition to the above, the magazine covers a broad range of topics, including science, technology, health, the media, business and the arts.

-----------------------------------------------

In September 2007, the magazine's U.S. edition launched a daily website. Edited by Ben Frumin, the daily website carries the mission of the print magazine to the Internet, but also publishes original commentary from writers including David Frum, Robert Shrum, Will Wilkinson, Daniel Larison, and Brad DeLong.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Week

Frum is famous for his previous work writing speeches for the famously hard left George W. Bush, by the way. And Will Wilkinson has worked at two extremist socialist places, the Cato Institute and the Mercatus Center.

And just in case you were refenecing Politico, here is how hard left it is - 'In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt".In contrast, in 2011 politically conservative The Daily Caller declaimed Politico as having a pronounced liberal bias.

Despite these accusations, a 2012 study found that the percentage of Politico readers that identify as Democrats – 29% – is the same as the percentage that identifies as Republicans. As of 2017, the largely crowd-sourced analysis engines AllSides rates Politico as "Center" in terms of bias.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico

Here is the Media Bias / Fact Check analysis:

"Politico LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources. "

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=politico

"As of 2017, the largely crowd-sourced analysis engines AllSides rates Politico as “Center” in terms of bias.’"

Also, this is bullshit. You are using Wiki for a source instead of actually going to the source. Wiki is fine for technical details, but never trustworthy for anything political.

"Politico media bias rating is Lean Left."
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias

'You are using Wiki for a source instead of actually going to the source. '

You do know there is a 3 link limit on posts here, right? Do note that the passage above has four sources. (Though it is true that even wikipedia can be blocked here, as discovered when linking to Linda Lovelace - the filtering here is fascinatingly eclectic, to be honest.)

And the point of the wikipedia cite was to show the range of opinions (over time) concerning Politico, from being Republican biased according to a 'leftist' source, Democratic biased according to a 'rightist' source, and completely balanced according to web site visitor party affiliation. Somehow, that point seems to have been completely missed. Clearly my fault, of course, for not being explicit that it seems Politico's political orientation seems dependent on the political orientation of the person looking at it.

And center left is not 'leftist' by any reasonable definition.

"And center left is not ‘leftist’ by any reasonable definition."

{facepalm}

'And center left is not ‘leftist’ by any reasonable definition.'

Mea culpa - I live in a country where the main conservative parties look like center left to 'leftist' in American terms, the SPD looks like leftists to hard left, and the actual leftist party is proudly called 'The Left,' and holds the SPD in contempt for its lack of leftist rigor. I keep forgetting that in America, the 'leftist' Democrats at best roughly follow the same political positions as the 'conservative' German parties.

Basically, at this point, the idea that the Democrats (and strangely enough, the only nationally known politician in the U.S. who might be considered somewhat center left in German terms does not even consider himself a Democrat) are 'leftists' is hard for me to grasp without thinking such a perspective simply reveals just how insular the U.S. has grown over the last generation. And how rigid the partisan divide has become between two parties that are not that easy to tell apart on a right / left spectrum in terms that Australians or Britons would understand. Because in those two countries also, the conservative parties are leftists in American terms - because apparently, that is the same as center left.

Maybe you should meet a real leftist some time? When Politico starts advocating for the sort of things that the Linke do, what are you going to call them - communist hardliners? Because that is what the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany are considered - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_Party_of_Germany

(And enjoy reading about what everyone Germany would consider an example of an extreme leftist party - 'The MLPD advocates for the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, overthrowing current capitalist relations of production and replacing them with a new social order of socialist orientation. It sees this as a transitional stage to the creation of a classless, communist society. In doing so, it refers to the theory and practice of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. It rejects the terms "Stalinism" and "Maoism" as anti-communist fighting terms that divide the Marxist-Leninist movement. Whilst criticizing particular aspects of the political works of Stalin and Mao, MLPD openly defends those works, standing in contrast to most left-wing groups in Germany.')

Maybe you should learn context?

If I'm talking about incomes in the US, Mississippi is pretty poor. If I'm talking about incomes in the US and Mississippi, then Mississippi is richer than Germany on a USD basis.

But I'm not going to prattle on about how poor Germans are when we're discussing the US. Because it's out of context.

Obama called a family member "a typical white person." I'm pretty sure calling someone "a typical black person" would be considered racist.

One way of looking at the male decline is that men are going on strike.

In my case, I'm rapidly devolving from adolescent to senescent.

In other news, the in-decline US Army is contemplating ending the hand grenade throwing basic training component. Some think it's because recruits aren't sufficiently strong. It also could be that throwing cannot be taught if the trainee didn't grow up throwing baseballs, footballs, etc. Of course, soldiers can learn the skill at infantry AIT.

Of course, racism consists of anything the resistance dislikes such as promising to restore representative republican government and the rule of law; promising to decrease onerous regulations; promising to reduce taxes; promising to nominate rational, Constitution-supporting federal judges; . . .

Conceding that the president is not a model citizen, I tend to agree with Chip that Tyler's hypothesis here that a modest decline in white collar employment among white men over several explains Trump is...not well supported in my opinion. Lots of stuff has changed in the last 30 years; a clever person could tie any of it into The Rise of Trump with a little post hoc fallibility tossed in.

One thing that always gets lost in discussions of Trump's racism is the nature of it. It seems like both sides are debating whether he's like, a member of the KKK or a full-fledged believer in white supremacy - he's not, and that's the wrong conversation to have. But that doesn't mean he's not racist, and it doesn't mean his racism doesn't matter.

Trump, basically, is a racist the way that your ornery uncle is a racist. He has lots of unexamined prejudices, which he fervently believes in with little thought. And he has no hesitation about vocalizing them, because he has no verbal filter. But he's perfectly capable of being polite towards individuals of different ethnic groups, and he can make excuses for Charlottesville and condemn white supremacy at the same time because he experiences no cognitive dissonance about this stuff - because he doesn't think about it. Trump is all ego, instinct, and reaction. There's simply no 'there' there.

I'm not making excuses for his behavior or his statements, both of which I think are abhorrent. But he's not a white supremacist; he's a run-of-the-mill prejudiced old guy. He also craves attention and is utterly incapable of self-examination. Put those things together and this is what you get.

" But he’s not a white supremacist; he’s a run-of-the-mill prejudiced old guy. "

+1, that seems like a reasonable take.

Trump is a deeply unpleasant person but I don't think he is even a run-of-the-mill prejudiced old guy. He is just not big on the pious hypocritical leftist pieties the rest of us are taught as part of being a nice person. He says what he thinks. And what he says is so rarely racist that he can't actually be that much of a racist. If he thought Blacks were stupid what would stop him saying it?

The accusations of racism are mostly invented hysteria by the usual Bed Wetters.

"How so? Sure, he tapped into populist unrest but where did he highlight the race or gender of this resentment? I remember he made a direct appeal to black voters (“what do you have to lose) but as someone who finds Trump’s personality pretty annoying I can’t recall anything specifically racial or sexist about his campaign"

You might want to reconsider that, Chip. Think about a white guy, with a history (birther, central park five), pausing his campaign to say "what do you (apart from me) have to lose?"

What you want is more "we" can work together to improve "our" inner cities, etc.

How so? Sure, he tapped into populist unrest but where did he highlight the race or gender of this resentment?

Trump and his cronies have consistently pushed the 'forgotten man' narrative, coal miners, rural Americans, places devastated by opiods, anti-elitism. The narrative was and is overwhelmingly white, male and resentful. True Trump has never said he didn't want non-whites to vote for him. Then again the Democratic party also doesn't say they don't want white male votes either. If you're not seeing the political divisions and insisting on only accepting explicit articulation of themes I think you're being willfully ignorant.

The working class is still majority white, so appealing to it will mean having a largely white audience. The increasing discomfort Democrats have with this fact is why they're running into trouble with appearing sincere to the hard hat crowd.

"President Donald Trump has consistently appealed to white male resentment.”

This is a sad association-ploy. Trump, being one of two choices, was supported by those with while male resentment, so that defines him. Rather than applying a bit of critical thought which would reveal that those with white male resentment, faced with a binary choice, chose to support Trump over the candidate promoting herself as the "Great Female Hope" candidate.

To me this is beneath Cowen. One assumes he felt the hot breath of the uni feminist studies on his neck as he took up such poor rhetoric.

oy vey, here we go again. this is a sad attempt at revisionism. no evidence of racism? no federal decision that he was discriminating against blacks in his buildings? come on kiddo. your russian mustache is showing. back to asia ruskie.

Maybe we should ask Tyler if Tyrone has any children?

Ha. Rake someone over the coals for bigoted xenophobia but then trash Russians.

"The researchers suggest the scientific evidence shows that women have on average stronger skills in empathy, communication, emotion recognition and verbal expression

But try suggesting that men have on average stronger reasoning skills...

They are coming to Damore Tyler (or we could call it Watsoning). Any time now.

Call it Summers-ing

If the empathy, etc hypothesis is correct then employment should fall faster among subgroups with identified cognitive style issues. Autism etc. Modern workplace should be less diverse here. Is it?

I doubt this will reflect skills as such (can x do y?), but possibly preferences (does x want to do y?).

1) If college-educated men are having more difficulty than women in finding "cognitive jobs", then does that mean we need legislation to mandate "equal job placement for equal education"? If your answer is no, then please apply your rationale to the issue of "equal pay for equal work". If your answer is yes, then please move to Lake Wobegon where both men and women are disadvantaged by their gender.

2) If residents of the nation Womanistan have an absolute advantage in jobs requiring "social skills" and also have a comparative advantage as evidenced by their gains relative to residents of Manistan, then would we expect Womanistanians to have higher, lower, or equal representation relative to Manistanians in jobs that don't require social skills --- such as computer programmers and many other tech jobs? Note, your answer should not depend on whether Womanistanians have an absolute advantage or disadvantage in jobs that don't require social skills.

"In 1980, 66 percent of college-educated men worked in these cognitive occupations. By 2000, that had fallen to 63 percent."

What is the evolution of the share of women who work in these "cognitive occupations"? Could be simply that there is an explosion of credentialism and/or of useless degress and, today, there are many men AND women woth college degreees but working in jobs apparently "non-cognitive"?

Ups, "a higher percentage of women moved into such cognitive jobs, with that number rising 4.6 percentage points from 1980 to 2000, up to 58.8 percent." - my theory is refuted.

A form of the Althouse rule: If an observation portrays women as doing better, it is due to women being intrinsically better than men, while if men do better it is necessarily because of societal conditioning.

For instance, here is a hypothesis that isn't even considered:

1. Regarding one of the main claims of the post, may it is patriarchy that conditions us to believe that women are more sociable?

Here is a probably more relevant point:

2. The diversity efforts in white-collar jobs seek to compensate for self-selection in those professions, such as those of surgeons or software, where men dominate. While, as Scott Alexander writes, "Meanwhile, men make up only 10% of nurses, only 20% of new veterinarians, only 25% of new psychologists, about 25% of new paediatricians, about 26% of forensic scientists, about 28% of medical managers, and 42% of new biologists."

Note that there is very little effort, if any, to address these imbalances.

These would have been obvious questions on which several papers would have been written, had the shoe been on other foot.

But ultimately, most people consider men to be expendable, and men as a group are happy with it, so they probably deserve it.

Sample the ending note of Tyler's article, which I bet hardly any commenter will protest: "Unfortunately for the rest of us, men are not always accepting this relative decline with grace."

The End of Men - what are they good for besides boorish behavior. I liked this Upshot column about women and sex and children: they are having less of both, and for good reason: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility-is-falling-short-of-what-women-want.html

They are having fewer children than they say that they want (gotta wonder about revealed preference), but are they having less sex than they want? I assume as always men are having far less sex than they want.

What percentage of "cognitive occupations" involve bureaucratic "fill in the blanks" duties? The decision-making of lady HR specialists involves following government regulations so the cognitive part must be basic literacy, as it is with so many orthographic conceptualist occupations. Oddly, there seems to still be dearth of femininity among the ranks of machinists, pipefitters, surveyors, refrigeration technicians and other "unskilled" trades, evidently because these jobs can be done successfully by the stupid.

Women have gained status claiming they are no different from men, only discriminated against. Now they have status, and just about everything has become distinctly more female... and this is just getting started.

What have women done with their status? It's hard to tell past the media reporting, but... Mostly I see stories in which women extract surplus from existing successful entities, often via social pressure. E.g. they demand norms such as "Do not interrupt each other in meetings" which are best for them, calling the existing male norm 'patriarchal' or 'misogynist.' This is clearly harmful to men, who created effective (for them) norms behind existing successful institutions.

The extent to which defending against attacks of 'partiarchy' etc. is still the underlying reason to hire women is an extremely bad sign. I rarely see women make a positive case for hiring women. It is all contra-negative. There are now female CEOs of male-founded companies. Where are the women starting society-changing companies of their own?

Well, there's Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos.

I chuckled at the good job implicit definition.

Ideally, all jobs should be good and the difference should only be between higher and lower paying jobs. In the real world we need a lot of blue collars to get things done. What's the point of upholding "white-collar jobs are a significant determinant of status" if blue collars will always exist?

Perhaps the answer is in making their jobs less shitty, some recognition, some......status? I know this is an alien idea. Even Tyler, the college professor, thinks blue collars are bad jobs. If not, why worry about those 3% of men who have lower income but anyway a good dignified job?

Again, Tyler jumps to "Why are men defective" without considering "Why is society no longer getting the most out of men"? Here on MR we've seen evidence that university hiring committees discriminate against men with equal qualifications and that men would do better, not worse, with a gender-blind selection process. How widespread is this tendency? Nobody really knows, do they? Also since 1980, are the K12 and higher-education systems more or less encouraging to men preparing for cognitive jobs? And is corporate hiring more or less controlled by (female dominated) HR departments? Another possibility -- in contrast to women, men tend to prefer jobs that offer independence and will seek more risk for more possible upside. Has society changed since 1980 in ways that are more compatible with male or female preferences? Certainly in medicine, for example, independent private practices have been dying for decades (except in a few self-pay specialties such as plastic surgery). The same is true in pharmacy -- in 1980, there were many independent, pharmacist-owned businesses, whereas now there are practically none. And it's the same story again in veterinary medicine -- most vets now are W2 employees of large chains. And, in the same time, both of those fields have flipped from predominantly male to predominantly female -- I doubt that's a coincidence.

Finally, consider history. Men have been working together effectively in teams for millennia. That includes armies, obviously, but also all great (and small) building and public works projects and for-profit enterprises. We live in a world invented, designed, and built almost entirely by teams of men working together. Women have little history of organization or teamwork of this type and have only been integrated in numbers into formerly male organizations during the past half century or so. Doesn't it strain credulity to propose that men simply don't have the necessary inherent social capacities for effective teamwork -- that evolution has somehow ill-suited men for the kinds of social organizations they've been involved in since the dawn of time?

If the market truly prefers women, it is hard to understand the nature and tone of the political women's movement today.

BINGO!

Age heterogeneity? A 60 year old woman may have a different vision of the world than a 20 year old one. Since politics are driven mostly by older women, they may be acting based on all their years of experience, not only in the last 10-15. Perhaps that kind of discourse will die when older women die, and younger women will be more relaxed.

"Perhaps that kind of discourse will die when older women die, and younger women will be more relaxed."

Yes, "Science advances one funeral at a time - Max Planck"

I'm pretty sure older women are not driving Third Wave Feminism; it's hard to see a world where this could be true.

Generally Tyler's theory that loss of status leads to anger is very sketchy. I know the son of a famous artist, children of rich bankers, all of whom are unlikely to reclaim the status of their parents. Regression to the mean. They're losing status. Are they systematically more angry about the world than people of equivalent status who are upwardly mobile, born into poor backgrounds, made their own way in the world and are doing better than their parents? Fuck no.

And, in general, men are not angrier than women, on the whole - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/chill-pill/201505/are-men-angrier-women. Women are, if anything, just more emotional and more conscious of emotion generally, in all senses, and men are just less emotional or at least less likely to express emotions, in all senses. (You could say men are more skilled in controlling emotion, but I think that would be a highly biased point of view). For anyone to think otherwise you would never have had to of either a) met or b) actually listened properly to any woman speak.

Or the men's right's movement. Come on, can we really say that feminists are any worse than your average MRA/Red Pill/whatever denizen?
Besides the fact that everyone is living in their own reality bubble, due to social media, and doesn't really interact with anyone outside of it except to feed their own outrage.

"Come on, can we really say that feminists are any worse than your average MRA/Red Pill/whatever denizen? "

Nope, about the same.

I agree. Life is more fun when you can enjoy the company of the opposite sex.

Or the men’s right’s movement. Come on, can we really say that feminists are any worse than your average MRA/Red Pill/whatever denizen?

Yes we can. And, in any case, neither the judiciary or the educational apparat pays any attention to MRAs.

"the researchers suggest the scientific evidence shows that women have on average stronger skills in empathy, communication, emotion recognition and verbal expression" On the other hand they yap too much. That's not up for debate. And in the US they tend to yap in a high-pitched, nasal, squawking register.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd pay much heed to a difference of only three percentage points between two categories - cognitive and not cognitive - that must be hard to define consistently, and to measure.

"Anyway, I’m not sure I’d pay much heed to a difference of only three percentage points between two categories – cognitive and not cognitive – that must be hard to define consistently, and to measure."

Agreed. I'm more interested to see that the "men are biologically defective and ill-suited for our times" argument trotted out as the only logical explanation and seemingly with no sense whatsoever that this might amount to bigotry.

Far from his first time here; here is from an earlier post: "What percentage of men are brutes anyway? Let’s hope we don’t find out."

Sometimes I feel almost suicidally low due to repeated instances of such writing: the point being not so much that there is such intense and at the same time boisterously and proudly owned hatred for men, but that it escapes the filters of almost everyone here. Suggests to me that I must be a misfit in this world for being one of those lone voices repeatedly calling these extraordinarily vituperative put-downs out.

Sometimes I feel almost suicidally low due to repeated instances of such writing: the point being not so much that there is such intense and at the same time boisterously and proudly owned hatred for men, but that it escapes the filters of almost everyone here.

Take a timeout from the media world (includes TV, radio, Web, and especially social media). You may find the world to be a much saner and more balanced place than you thought it had degenerated into.

All those who are addicted to Internet Populists and who vote for demagogues (like Trump) should also do this. They might discover that the world they live in isn't half as bad as they thought.

I don't see how that solves the problem: powerful and smart people loudly proclaim my gender to be defective, that too in a world that is otherwise obsessed with equality/justice, and that this is considered acceptable in a way nothing targeting another group would be.

Back in 1930's, a lot of those who had issues with Hitler's rhetoric might also be told that the world outside was saner than what they thought, and this objection could be technically correct, yet missing the point. (This is not quite Godwin's law nor trying to be rude, I am merely highlighting the problem with the argument).

Yes. Get out of your reality bubble.
And I don't mean go visit those feminist websites that you've heard about. I mean, go talk to some actual humans in real life.

" powerful and smart people loudly proclaim my gender to be defective" - that's your problem right there, this is metaphorical not literal. And if you can find some nutter feminist actually saying so (they won't be very powerful or smart though), why should you care? The advice is good: turn off the media and notice your actual life. No one minds that you are a guy.

blah, yes, this comment is effectively something like "Yes, all those people who complain that the media is system is broken, systematically, in the direction of bias against men, and probably all historically dominant groups in the West, they're correct. Don't worry about it, just tune out".

I mean, it still is probably useful practical advice in the immediate term, but it will hardly fix the problem of Anglosphere countries ceasing to have any coherent demos or trusted public sphere, which is probably necessary for democratic norms to work at all.

To me a lot of this stuff makes sense if you think about racist jokes. The reason jokes at white people's expense are considered more acceptable than jokes at black people's expense (in general) is that people see the former as punching up and the latter at punching down. Now, you can unpack why this is, but I think that general claim is not controversial. And a similar logic applies here. These "put-downs" against men are more acceptable because, whether you agree or not, people see a patriarchy and think of these put-downs as punching up.

My pet theory is that this kind of thinking explains a lot.

"These “put-downs” against men are more acceptable because, whether you agree or not, people see a patriarchy and think of these put-downs as punching up."

Making jokes about stupid rednecks, computer geeks and flyover people is not punching up.

Depends on whether you frame rednecks and flyover citizens as just white people or, say, socioeconomically disadvantaged rural citizens. Computer geeks, in this economy, I think qualifies as punching up.

"Depends on whether you frame rednecks and flyover citizens as just white people or, say, socioeconomically disadvantaged rural citizens. "

Let's just assume that the people making the jokes assume they are both stupid and poor.

It's not really got to do with actual advantage or relative status. It's just ideology; one suits ideology (if women earn more, it's because they deserve it, because they have real superior skills), one does not (if men earn more, it absolutely can't be because they have real superior strengths or the right mix of interests and preferences). People are generally aware than one ideology is socially acceptable, because it has built a strong base of propaganda, and that other ideas are not acceptable.

Jokes against Jewish people do not become acceptable because they have largely been in the ascent. Status has nothing to do with it. We don't decide that paedophiles (to use an example where we all agree with the ideology) are low status, and therefore we cannot "punch down" towards them by making jokes about them (the only thing that constrains jokes is that they are considered to be in bad taste to victims of paedophilia, not any actual status difference to the target).

There's been huge bloat in higher education with the share of each cohort taking home a BA degree doubling over the last 35 years. Of course this is running ahead of the number of 'cognitive' occupations.

What, I come here for stimulating debate, but this morning is about on a par with the belligerent father who was yelling and chasing his son out in the street with a gun late last night.

Good points have been made, good counter points have been offered, links have been posted. It's been an aggressive intellectual debate. Certainly stimulating. I suspect it's you and not the debate itself that is at issue.

Tyler, kudos on the column. There's a lot of obvious Straussian reading to that column. It was risky to post such a politically correct article, but your careful word choice will leave the PC critics without much room for rebuttal.

Straussian reading on my part:

"Why are the political views of educated women turning against the president, relative to his male supporters?"

The orthodox view is that the President is sexist. Of course, in a hypothetical world where Hillary Clinton won and educated men were turning against the president, what would be the orthodox view? I suspect in that case, the view would be that all the men were sexist.

"Why are marriage rates rising for educated Americans but falling for the less educated?"

Obviously we've lost the societal pressure to marry for sex. However, marriage is good for many other less obvious reasons. The educated are smart enough to see the long term benefits. Apparently the less educated required the nudge of society.

"So, I suggest, if men feel as if they are in decline, combined with the already-known phenomenon of male wage stagnation, that may unsettle society and politics as we have known them."

A subtle way of saying, society can expect some bad effects from the devaluing of males and typical male behavior.

"The researchers suggest the scientific evidence shows that women have on average stronger skills in empathy, communication, emotion recognition and verbal expression,"

Of course, what goes unsaid is what areas the scientific evidence indicates men are stronger than average (and conversely women are weaker on average). But stating those can get you publicly ostracized and fired .... particularly from a high tech job.

"Over this same period, men went from a group that dominated higher education to often requiring a kind of "affirmative action" for admissions, as many schools want to keep their student population relatively balanced between the sexes."

This is interesting. How often, statistically, is there direct affirmative action for men and a percentage of how often there is direct affirmative action for women? I suspect the ration is less than 1 in 3.

" Unfortunately for the rest of us, men are not always accepting this relative decline with grace."

This is the best line. I'm thinking even the shallowest of readers is going to clue in that you aren't a woman Tyler. Still, I'm willing to bet a lot of readers never even notice and just assume the article was written by a woman.

'The orthodox view is that the President is sexist.'

Melania, along with any woman who believes Stormy Baniels' tale (the now confirmed payoff to Daniels simply adding to the reasons to believe the porn star over the president concerning his intimate affairs- and man, who ever thought that anyone would be writing that in 2015, 2005, 1995, or 1985, and that in the scale of scandal, that would not even be at the top of the list?), might have an entirely different word to describe a man having sex with a porn star four months after the birth of a son.

Why should Trump cheating with a porn star be a big scandal?
Even in the 90's, Bill Clinton's escapades with Gennifer Flowers were not a big scandal. It wasn't until Clinton was hooking up with a WH intern and lying about it under oath that his extramarital affairs were his biggest scandal.

And yet, not all cognitive jobs pay the same, and the high pay, high status ones have major sexism. Your typical software giant us near 50/50 when it comes to total staff, but look at their engineering departments, and 15/20% of woman engineers is the most balanced you get: They make the ratios look nicer by defining lower paid occupations as technical staff, and publishing those numbers.

"high status ones have major sexism. ... but look at their engineering departments, and 15/20% of woman engineers is the most balanced you get: "

I wonder what could cause that? Is it just blatant sexism? Or could there be other reasons?

"According to the Society of Women Engineers, women and other minorities constituted approximately 16%-17% of engineering graduate students from 1990-2003. Furthermore, in 2003 approximately 20% (approximately 12,000)of new engineers were women, compared with about 80% of men (approximately 49,000)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_engineering_in_the_United_States

No, facts are for chumps. It's obviously sexism.

Well, do cite the figures from 1950 please, and then explain how we managed to go from near zero to 20% in two generations.

Actually, we went from zero to 20% in one generation and the percentages have stayed roughly the same since then. It just might be that in roughly 4 decades since it's been culturally acceptable for women to be in the workforce full time that we have reached a level that roughly matches female interest in those jobs. And, BTW, there's such a focus on these fields because these are high-paying, professional, clean office jobs -- nobody seems to worry that there are even fewer female plumbers (even though those jobs are also relatively well paid). Do you think continued sexism is the logical reason that female plumbers remain in the (very) low single digits? But if you think women are staying away from plumbing because their interest is low, why might that not also apply to software development?

I think there are obvious reasons why women are not clamoring for jobs like plumbing that involve going into the homes of total strangers.

That does not seem to stop them from working for maid services like Molly Maid

Nor does it keep them from being Social Workers.

"I think there are obvious reasons why women are not clamoring for jobs like plumbing that involve going into the homes of total strangers."

There is probably more plumbing work in new construction and industrial than retail.

Yes, it's hard to blame engineering firms for not having 50% women, if the college grads in engineering aren't 50% women.

I personally think that social conditioning is the real culprit, not innate abilities or interests, but if the fact is that social conditioning is making women not choose to be in engineering, no hiring policy is going to magically create more female engineers than there are graduates.

The question is whether you and people like you would believe there were innate differences even if incontrovertible proof was offered, not that I am offering that.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/icd.1986/full

Meh. My position on the women in math/cs debate is that women have it easier at the major decision points (admission to undergrad or grad, scholarships, internships, fellowships, faculty positions, etc) and harder everywhere else, with the effect declining with age.

Some suggested factors for why it's "harder everywhere else" are social conditioning, the way math/cs is taught, or innate differences in what interests men and women at a population level. But the most common complaint I've heard from female friends and colleagues in these fields (at least at the undergrad/grad level) is that when there are 4 men for every woman, and a nontrivial chunk of these men don't really have vibrant personal lives outside of math/cs, any average women ends up hit on way, way more than they'd like. Hit on at group project meetings, poster presentations, talks, after-conference dinner, getting coffee with a potential research collaborator, whatever. If you're an attractive woman, even worse.

Of course, none of these things prevent women from going into CS. Many still do, including attractive ones! But it's an annoyance at best, and drives women to switch fields at worst. Unfortunately, I don't have any great ideas for fixing this either.

I don't think this is it either. Engineering is full of nerdy guys who are just too shy to ask the women out. There really isn't a problem with male geeks sexually harassing the female geeks.

Engineering is full of nerdy guys who are just too shy to ask the women out.

No, they just didn't like you.

I think Art has a crush, all he does anymore is pull Hazel's pigtails.

I don't think FG is talking about sexual harassment, but the fatigue of too often having to gently, but firmly turn down being hit on by guys that may be clueless.

If you are a decently attractive woman, and you geniuses care about your male colleagues as fellow humans, this is not a trivial inconvenience.

I have no idea how much impact this has in gender ratio, but I do know women for whom it's real.

*genuinely care about*

People with non-"vibrant lives outside of maths" may, well, tend to be much better at maths... (Particularly in a way less well captured by tests).

Well, let's actually look at real companies. Start with google! Surely the folks who fired James Damore would be well on their way to achieving a woke workforce... https://diversity.google/commitments/

Filter by tech. 92% white or asian. 20% female. 1% black, 3% hispanic.

Apple is a little better https://www.apple.com/diversity/ Scrolling all the way to the bottom past pages and pages of n=1 stories, filtering by tech, we arrive at 83% white or asian, 7% black, and 8% hispanic. 23% women.

There is a lot more noise and fanfair being made about diversity than there is actual diversity. And then you might start to ask uncomfortable questions, like if racism explains everything, why are companies systematically pro Asian? Why are these companies being attacked for being pro white when they actually underrepresent whites (~53% employees), which make up 60% of the US population?

Shouldn't Asians be the ones under attack for making up <6% of the population but more than 30% of the jobs at these tech companies? Were's the Asian privilege narrative?

My interpretation is that diversity narratives are a form of chic for white people. First, it purchases approval from other cosmopolitan whites. Second, it raises the status of white employees, since only the most qualified whites can get hired in spite of affirmative action mandates.

Obviously, AA only hurts the least qualified white males. And who cares about them anyway? Our mistake is that we interpret the diversity narrative literally and take charges of "racism" and "privilege" literally. In reality, despite a presumed history and culture of racism and sexism, no hiring managers are being called out. No one is a sinner (except idiots like James Damore). We're all great. Apple is great. Google is great. We can do better. We will do better. Overall it's a very positive prospect as long as you're already on the winning team.

Once again, the only people who should feel bad are Trump's America. And frankly, that's not so hard to ignore.

"Once again, the only people who should feel bad are Trump's America. And frankly, that's not so hard to ignore."

The world was a better place when everyone could safely ignore those people and just let them cling to their guns and religion.

As an Asian guy born here to parents born in Asia, my read is that white people in America (including the ones taking up the diversity flag) still subconsciously think of Asian people (especially east Asian) as smart and diligent, in which case it's not surprising that we're overrepresented. If we have to score 100 points higher on the SATs than a white kid, or 200 points higher than a black kid, OK.

While social skills are important, I do not believe that they are truly "increasingly important." Think about what this would imply. It would mean that the computer processors and iPhone apps our economy produces today require more social skills than were required to produce the automobiles and VGA cards of yesteryear. Sure, you can come up with an argument for why that might be, but does anyone actually believe it?

What might otherwise account for the rise of social skills' importance? Think of it this way: for a long while, the be-all, end-all of job experience was doing a stint with a management consulting firm. Why was that such a good thing? Well, mostly because a lot of people who had already been promoted had that experience, and wanted to hire more people like them.

So, the more people at the company who tout social skills as the secret of their success, the more important it is for incoming candidates to signal social skills. But does that mean they're actually important, or does it just mean that the more of something you have, the more it will be built into your job descriptions?

Someone has to be "social" with our coming robot overlords, don't they? :)

I don't understand Tyler. Brilliant. Accomplished. Etc. But a total and absolute coward when it comes to any issues that question the political correctness of today. So what is the point of being "Libertarian"?

He probably doesn't want to become a Summers.

He probably has a wife.

So what is the point of being “Libertarian”?

I've heard it has something to do with liberty and free markets. Not sure what political correctness has to do with it. Is libertarianism a branch of the men's rights movement?

I think most people expect Libertarian's to be more honest than your average partisan. To not fall into a common narrative for the sake of political convenience. I do agree that their is no reasonable expectation that Tyler put his career on the line for the sake of some real or imagined Libertarian reason.

You are correct -- no reasonable causality. Except intellectual freedom. Doesn't that count for something? Just expected more. Tyler is exceptionally talented at virtue signalling; a very clever and savvy blogger; mindful of his reputation and intellectual capital. Who can blame him? But it is clearly disingenuous. Anyone that consistently reads his postings knows that on matters of sensitive cultural debate he drops in line and goose steps like a good liberal Nazi. Probably the finest. It is actually fascinating to read. The way he finesses his language and makes it seem he is intellectually honest. He might even believe it himself.

Good thing you're here to remind him what he really believes.

There's a connection between libertarianism and being anti-PC, but I don't see it as related to honesty or partisanship. Libertarianism assumes a rational marketplace, and much of the PC/social justice position assumes the opposite. The standard argument from the PC/social justice position is that businesses under-recruit, under-hire, and under-promote women for irrational reasons. A libertarian would want to exhaust every other explanation first.

Not everyone longs to be a martyr. Some people try to nudge from the inside. Good on both types.

The demand for social skills seems to me overrated, as if these skills were only discovered in the past 20 years.

I'm retired, 9 years older then my wife. She's an economist making a good salary. Let me tell you, it's great that women are making big bucks. Our daughter is about to make big bucks first year out of school (STEM). This is all good. While you're up will you get me the remote?

Just out of curiosity, but what is her salary (you can give a rough number)? I'm just curious about what starting salaries in STEM are right now.

www.glassdoor.com

I don't think he believes anything. And that was my point. And maybe that was yours to?

"Unfortunately for the rest of us, men are not always accepting this relative decline with grace."

Not sure I get this parting thought.

Translate to: "maybe it's not a good idea to tell those men to go fuck themselves".
Which is possibly the only unifying message the Left in America has.

I dislike the whole battle-of-the-sexes mindset. We're all individuals with different skills and abilities. If women are getting hired more, you don't have to think of it as women (collectively) getting something at the expense of men (collectively). That's just buying into the mindset of identity politics. And it's really stupid to think of the other gender as some sort of alien collective out to deprive you of what your gender deserves, you won't get many dates that way, unless you're gay.

These mens rights snowflakes should look into that. If they turn gay they don't ever have to deal with women's bs.

Some of the feminist side are the same way. Argh the patriarchy! All the men are getting together in a giant plot to keep women down! You have to vote for the woman so we women (collectively) can seize what is due to us from the men (collectively)!
If I thought of all men as collaborators in a plot to oppress me, I wouldn't be married or have any kids.

Well, a heck of a lot of feminists are indeed gay. Somehow I don't think the same thing will work for the MRA types.

Yup, it's worth noting how collectivist it is. It is ceding the terms of engagement to the Marxist inspired types.

"I dislike the whole battle-of-the-sexes mindset."

What? You regularly advocate for establishing and maintaining systemic discrimination on the basis of sex and you have the nerve to suggest that anyone who objects has a battle mindset? Is this just a lack of self-awareness or an intentional strategy?

Tyler Cowen has some passing interest in Mormonism, so here is Brigham Young in 1867:

"I do not know how long it will be before we call upon the brethren and sisters to enter upon business in an entirely different way from what they have done. I have been an advocate for our printing to be done by females, and as for men being in stores, you might as well set them to knitting stockings as to sell tape. Such business ought to be done by the sisters. It would enable them to sustain themselves, and would be far better than for them to spend their time in the parlor or in walking the streets. Hardy men have no business behind the counter; they who are not able to hoe potatoes, go to the canyon, cut down the trees, saw the lumber, &c., can attend to that business. Our young men in the stores ought to be turned out and the sisters take their place; and they should study arithmetic and bookkeeping necessary to qualify them for such positions."

Mormonism has a history of kicking out all the young (unmarried, discontented) males. It leaves more women for the older men to marry. So this advice may be more self-serving than it appears. They don't want the young men hanging around to compete for females in a polygamous society, so they tell them to leave town and find a job elsewhere.

The LDS has not been polygamous in over a century now.

That quote was from Brigham Young in 1867.

Sure, but what bearing does that have on anything involving the LDS or society as a whole now?

Oh, yes. Put the women to work. Just don't give them any authority to make decisions within the religion's hierarchy, and don't let them in the men-only meetings where those decisions get made. I recall that Stalin also paid lip service to equality of the sexes.

Pretty good article. Gotta wonder about your closing sentence though:

"Unfortunately for the rest of us, men are not always accepting this relative decline with grace."

Tyler. Sir. Do you no longer consider yourself a man? You are definitely positioning yourself on the 'correct' side of some divide here.

This week, men must get used to their reduced status in society

Next week, men need to get their act together because women don't want to marry men with lower social/income status.

Week after, hell is coming to earth due to the dearth of children being born into proper middle class marriages.

A different take - election results aside - would be to link this with Tyler's other puzzle about men: the rise of young, able, non-working men who report decent life satisfaction. One possibility is that, 50-60 years ago, young males (usually) needed to demonstrate responsible behavior and earning potential in order to access socially-sanctioned sex. Plenty of exceptions, but for most guys, being a loser (socially & economically) blocked access to women. Now, this involved a lot of father/family/church/social control over female sexuality - using access to women as a carrot to reward young men's good behavior - which itself is quite problematic on personal freedom (libertarian?) grounds. The breakdown of this system over the past decades means that a young man doesn't have to work hard or act responsibly - he can often get a girlfriend, and if not there are substitutes (of a sort) on the internet. I'm NOT advocating a return to that system (lack of female autonomy, among other problems). But when young men can get all the sex they want no matter what, at least some will prefer playing video games all day to working.

"A different take – election results aside – would be to link this with Tyler’s other puzzle about men: the rise of young, able, non-working men who report decent life satisfaction ... But when young men can get all the sex they want no matter what, at least some will prefer playing video games all day to working."

+1,

There are at least three components working in concert. First, the work place has become more competitive for men (particularly black males); Two the non-monetary penalties for not working have declined and Three the cost of satisfactory recreation has declined.

You don't even have to put it in such stark terms. A guy who can get by comfortably as a handiman can marry a career woman and fix all the things in her house, keep himself as gainfully employed as he likes, and play as many video games as he likes, all without showing up in a lot of the employment statistics. He also has more time to spend rearing young children or driving them to school, enabling his breadwinning wife to double-down on her career aspirations.

Is such a man a "loser?" Is he unwise? Is he bringing society down in any way? I'd say no on all accounts.

"Is such a man a “loser?” Is he unwise? Is he bringing society down in any way? I’d say no on all accounts."

Unfortunately, all the men I know that took that path, ended up divorced. I don't really know if the primary problem was him or her or just them. I do know that it didn't last. I do know that the women seemed to develop a lack of respect for the men. But that might well be true in any divorce situation. This is of course anecdotal.

Does anyone have a link on statistics for divorce where the woman is the primary breadwinner?

@Jwatts,
I've seen the same.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a problem that can't be addressed because it cannot be genuinely acknowledged.
So that tension festers and comes out in little ways that erode the relationship over time.

> The researchers suggest the scientific evidence shows that women have on average stronger skills in empathy, communication, emotion recognition and verbal expression, and corporate America is valuing those qualities all the more.

Won't this just exacerbate the disparity in wealth problem? If corporates prefer social skills, and the entrepreneurial end is dominated by men, and men make up most of the dropouts, aren't we going to have an even greater disparity in wealth outcomes? A sort of middle class of women, and extremes of male success and failure?

"A sort of middle class of women, and extremes of male success and failure?"

I think that's mostly what we've always had.

"One possible reason for this shift is that more jobs demand good social skills."

Define "social skills". I see men all the time who do not know each other striking up a conversation based on sports. Does Cowen mean that women have some sort of new-age-work social skills that men don't...like *consensus building"? Who sez consensus building produces better results than competition? Men are comfortable with argumentation, women are not. Does progress come from going along or from defending ideas in combat? More likely it seems that the growth in employment is in the touchy-feely sectors...health care and education...and Cowen is drawing the wrong conclusions.

"Service economy" is a pretty broad term. House-painting and roofing are service jobs; do they demand high social skills?

On the other hand, new-product development and introduction in a manufacturing company will often demand high social skills, involving negotiation with and coordination of multiple groups within the company plus outside suppliers.

Service economy vs goods economy is not particularly helpful in assessing need for social skills.

Or maybe more men are going onto trades that pay much better. At the same time, unions restrict the supply of trade labor.

Comments for this post are closed