~ archived since 2018 ~

Please comment if you agree

steakreuter · 2021-05-11T21:45:57+00:00

This will be short but I can't be the only one who sees headlines like “more women in medicine then men”. like am I the only one who thinks it's...

steakreuter

May 11, 2021

91 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Please comment if you agree
Author	steakreuter
Upvotes	91
Comments	101
Date	May 11, 2021 9:45 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/na8nel/please_comment_if_you_agree/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/please-comment-if-you-agree.828662 https://theredarchive.com/post/828662

Comments

[–]Box_Of_Bowling_Pins 29 points30 points31 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]duhhhh 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TigPlaze 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rudirs 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]yagarasu 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]metalnotorious 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]metalnotorious 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Test-writer 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Konato-san 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]MercurysonofJupiter 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]d_nijmegen -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]d_nijmegen1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SweatyAdvance 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]d_nijmegen -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SweatyAdvance 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]d_nijmegen -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Please provide evidence that you have sufficient qualifications to categorize claims as absurd or not in this particular field.

If I were making a fringe argument I might take the initiative and provide you with evidence. However, since I am only relaying information that is fairly well known and established in this field, the burden should be on you to get yourself up to date.

If I were to tell you humans need to eat to live, it would be encumbant on you to take the effort to familiarize yourself with the consensus in this field, not me to dispel you of your Breatharian delusions.

I've already pointed you in the right direction, which is probably more than you deserve.

This stuff is especially easy to look up nowadays since COVID has sparked renewed interest in this field as women have represented a disproportionate amount of the labor force drop off during the pandemic due to the increased need for childcare in the home due to closure of schools and daycare centers. This has been particularly pronounced in academia and other study intensive fields.

Most recently, the jobs report released by the Biden campaign a few days ago noted that the impact has been particularly severe on women and that job gains post-stimulus have been almost exclusively limit to men.

Good luck.

[–]mikesteane 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, if you want to learn you need to get up off your lazy butt and do the work yourself. As I tried to explain politely, no one is willing to work as your own personal researcher in a field that you clearly are totally ignorant about and have invested no effort in studying. Particularly as related to generally understood and well established facts.

I'm not sure where this unearned sense of entitlement comes from but this digital panhandling is embarrassing.

I've provided you with examples of the phenomena manifesting in current events as well as it being noted in a BLS produced document as pertaining to the economy as a whole. Since doctors represent a subset of the economy, in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, the default scientific position is to assume that it must apply to doctors as well.

Can you provide evidence as to why a phenomenon that the BLS documents as manifesting in fields as disparate as administrative, hospitality, and academic, would not manifest in medicine?

By the way, have you looked up the rates that I suggested earlier of female labor force attrition vs parental leave & childcare services by country? I can't make things much simpler.

[–]mikesteane1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog011 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, for example the US has poor maternity leave standards, but it's paternity leave is abysmal. If the system was reformed such that:

a) maternity/paternity leave was standardized b) It was transferable between spouses c) a certain percentage was mandatory

Then a couple could start a family and decide amongst themselves who should take time off work to stay home with the baby. For example, if a female doctor is married to a mechanic, they might decide it makes more sense for the mechanic to pause his career than vice versa.

But since paternity leave is non-existent, any woman choosing to start a family is forced to take time off her own job, while men are forced to continue to go to work.

So if a woman knows that she will have more than one child (which, as I explained before we absolutely need some of them to do) the pressure toward labor force attrition is very high.

If you don't like the word "forced" feel free to choose your own. The general idea is that discriminatory institutional factors create severe constraints on women's ability to balance starting a family and having a career which creates a disproportionate pressure toward labor force attrition. The proper response to this, is not to lament female labor force participation, but to examine and reform those discriminatory institutional factors so as to allow families maximal flexibility in optimizing their labor efficiency thereby increasing the supply of desperately needed medical professionals.

[–]mikesteane1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog011 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wine is not critical to national security, the continued survival of the human race, and economic stability. Raising children is.

Also, stop being weird I did not say the government needs to provide care. Are you talking to yourself?

I said the government needs to remove the artificial barriers to care created by corporate structure in the private sector. Once they remove those barriers, then the mothers and fathers themselves will provide care in the most efficient way possible. Or at the very least, private entrepreneurs will flood the market for childcare increasing the supply and diversity of childcare options that parents have to choose from.

It's difficult to have a conversation if you're not able to keep these very basic points straight and follow a single line of reasoning.

Insofar as the word "forced" goes, yes you are right. It might be more accurate to characterize it as choice under duress and severe constraint. In the same way that if a criminal puts a gun to your head and asks "Your money or your life?" You are technically making a choice.

[–]mikesteane1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog011 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog011 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rookeryop 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]rookeryop 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

The very fact that they leave work indicates that they don't under-value raising their kids. I never said that.

Pay closer attention: society undervalues their labor in raising their kids.

I'll try to make this simple for you:

Imagine an island with 100 inhabitants. 50 men, 50 women. All of them have jobs where they make $5/hour. Their cost of living is $1/hour and they keep $4 in profit/savings.

The island requires 100 new children to be born & raised every generation in order to survive. It's good for the society as a whole.

But someone has to put in the work. Whoever puts in the work, will be sacrificing $5/hour. They will be paying $5/hour to do the work of producing the children that everyone in the society will reap the benefits of.

Now let's take a typical couple on the island. The husband says to his wife: leave work to raise our children and I will support you.

Do you see the problem?

The cost of living is $1. So the husband will pay the wife $1 and the two kids $2 and $1 for his own cost of living. He will then keep the remaining $1 as profit for himself.

This is a raw deal for the woman. If she had convinced the husband to stay home and take care of the kids, she could have had the benefit of kids and kept the $1 profit for herself.

In other words, the system incentivizes both spouses to try to stick the other one with the kids, because the cost of childcare is not being compensated properly.

This is what's happening in our society. And when both spouses are disincentivized from raising kids, the labor is usually dumped onto women.

In truth, if the government in our hypothetical island taxed the husband 50cents and gave that to the wife on top of what he already gives her, the system would be better. This would mean that both husband and wife pay the exact same amount towards childcare regardless of which one stays home.

This would allow them to decide who actually genuinely prefers and is better suited for the job, rather than determining it by who can be pressured into doing the job.

It would also raise the availability of private childcare suppliers as they would know that now that childcare services are being priced properly, this is a lucrative field. This would open up better opportunities for couples who want the benefits of kids, but also want to both have a career.

So anyway, this is what we mean when we say that women are being forced out of the labor market due to society under-valuing the cost of childcare.

[–]rookeryop 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

My assumption is not pulled out of thin air. This is a fundamental tenet of modern economic theory and demographic theory. Countries like the United States are suffering from lowering birthrate combined with an aging population.

At the very least, the US needs to maintain the basic population replacement rate so as not to shrink out of existence. Beyond that, they need enough population growth to support increased economic output and national security interests

Maintaining optimum population growth rate is a significant part of the development model. We are already beginning to feel these problems in the US as government institutions such as social security are beginning to collapse.

Thus far, the US has subsidized it's low birthrate through immigration, allowing in something like 1 million immigrants a year (plus tacitly accepting illegal immigration). If the USA did not do this they would have already been in very dire straights.

Why do you think the USA tries to encourage childbirth through tax breaks? They are already seeing the problem on the horizon.

For other countries such as Spain, the problem is even worse.

FINALLY, remember: under-valuing childcare doesn't reduce the amount of children born because mothers don't see personal value in raising kids. It reduces the amount of children being born because childcare service providers offer less service, which raises the cost of having a child and families make tough decisions.

It also reduces the number of female professionals as women are forced out of the workforce in order to make up the gap.

This isn't a question of personal choice or moral character. In the aggregate it just happens gradually without most people even realizing.

[–]rookeryop 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]rookeryop 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tornadog011 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry, not interested in doing your work for you. These are firmly established facts and not debatable arguments. You have done no research in the area and are completely unfamiliar with the entire issue. You seem to have no background in any social science or even a 101 understanding of labor economics. You seem to hold no informed opinions or even speculative hypotheses on the matter in order for any debate to occur.

I've given you a basic summary of the relevant issues, presented specific examples and pointed you in the right direction for additional reading. Under the given circumstances, I feel that this is more than enough.

If you really have an interest in this topic I encourage you to read some of the contemporary research on female attrition rates in the labor force. The searches I've recommended present a lot of this data in an easily digestible format, usually on the first page of results. I believe it may help you to understand some of the mechanics behind the phenomena you observed and assist you in crafting realistic solutions.

Best of luck.

[+]SokalDidNothingWrong1 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

The cost of living is $1. So the husband will pay the wife $1 and the two kids $2 and $1 for his own cost of living. He will then keep the remaining $1 as profit for himself.

This is a raw deal for the woman. If she had convinced the husband to stay home and take care of the kids, she could have had the benefit of kids and kept the $1 profit for herself.

You're aware that couples share finances right?

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]SokalDidNothingWrong1 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

So you're claiming that husbands control the majority of shared finances?

[–]Tornadog01 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Appropriate_Deer5129 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

May I ask for more info please?

No problems.

It started with Veterinary medicine, which reached roughly 80% female domination.

As we know:

Women usually marry/partner equal to or higher up, thus well earning women mate up with well earning men.
The UK has roughly 1 year maternity leave
The UK also has a pretty generous carer scheme
The Veterinary and Medical fields are brutal on time and families.
Women have a better work life balance
Women have family priorities, as they birth children and usually care for the infirm and elderly family

From the above, we have two methods of self-destruct:

Firstly, women enter fields, starts dominating field and due to time requirements (On call, emergency call outs etc.) and their various family commitments, they have a huge conflict in work life balance and suffer burn-out at a much larger rate and leave the field.

Secondly, they have children and then due to having husbands earning excellent money and the insane hours they work, they leave the fields at higher rates.

Thirdly, due to the insane hours and conflict in work life balance, they change to sales or administration, but remain in their fields.

Fourth, family members (children, parents etc.) become ill or infirm and require care, they leave the field and care for the family members.

Obviously this isn't all, but unfortunately it is enough.

Also I know plenty of professional career women, who are on marriage number 2, 3 and/or 4, who really want to make their present marriage/partnership work. As their insane working schedules were a massive problem before, they step back in their professional lives, or change fields to try and maintain their romantic lives.

[–]Supervinyl -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Supervinyl -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes1967 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but it all started with the implementation of welfare.

Rubbish, the welfare system has existed for over 100 years and in the beginning was worse than slavery.

Secondly it's only been the last 30 odd years, where it is actually become a replacement to a salaried job. This is also thanks to feminism - look it up.

Yes the catholic church outlawed it, which supports my statement that prostitution is only outlawed because Christians exist.

Firstly the Catholic church isn't Christian

Secondly Christ himself forgave the prostitutes...

Logging is actually the most dangerous profession in terms of deaths and is totally male dominated (aside from astronauts, which is also male dominated).

And?

Your argument kidnnof disagrees with you, males have the highest workplace fatalities, therefore male dominated fields are typically the most dangerous.

What's to disagree with? My argument was about female workplace fatalities, you mentioned workplace fatalities as a whole.

[–]VindictivePrune -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jakes19670 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakes19671 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakes19671 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jakes19671 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VindictivePrune1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theblackparade87C 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Supervinyl 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theblackparade87C 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WingsofSky 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vanriel 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]only_the_office 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Odd_Cryptographer492 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Test-writer 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steakreuter 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZS_1171 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rookeryop -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steakreuter 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link