Why are men dropping out of society? - mod note in 1st post

El_Duderino 09 · 04-11-2016 06:38PM

Colser wrote:

What's progress in this scenario...do you want the boys to go to the girly aisles or do you want a 50/50split or what?Do you agree that there are differences between us that are just nature and shouldn't be forced to be anything else?

There is absolutely, completely and totally no such thing as a girly toy. The idea of segregated isles might be sensible from a sales point of view but don't allow yourself to confuse that with the toys actually being girls or boys toys.

That would be very limited thinking

py2006 · 04-11-2016 06:41PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, some of them.

Attitudes I would have been saddened by 30 years ago, and young lads are trotting them out today. Women can't handle coding jobs, wow your code is "pretty" ha ha!

Until they meet some of the women on the team and get walked on, technically.

Ignorant gits, basically, and they've managed to keep that male chauvinist attitude clear through college.

Seriously? What planet are you on?

silverharp · 04-11-2016 06:41PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If the standard required to do the job us out if the reach of most women, then fine. If it's lighter than. It needs to be which excludes people unnecessarily, hard a silly standard and should be changed.

lets say you hire 100 hundred fire fighters every year but you have 1000 applicants after a basic weeding out of applications. if you are hiring you just want to find out the best 100, you aren't really interested in finding out that there are 500 that could do the job at a stretch and you certainly don't want a quota and lower standards or that means female fighters wont be taken seriously when there might be a few that can actually be the best of the best.
No organisation sets out to take on average employees they get the best that they can attract with the resources they have.
there shouldn't be anymore to it really

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fair question but there's nothing 'in it' for me specifically beyond any other aspect of equality. Surely you don't need to be the main beneficiary of each and every opinion you hold. I shudder to think what dome of the fellas here think of a male feminist. Suffice to say it's probably not as scarry as they think.

'Design a society where you don't know what position you'll hold' or however the saying goes.

Just a note, I haven't spoken against finding out why fellas aren't performing as well as girls in school.

but do you see that "equality" isn't the be all and end all and that people are being treated unequally to achieve "equality". lets say that more men "dropout" or downshifting decade on decade, in terms of myself it makes no difference, in terms of my son, its possibly a good thing because he would get to go to college where he might be in a 3:1 minority

so he could slay as they say , but then I think my daughter will have a tough time finding a husband because she will be faced with a "where have all the good men gone?" scenario so may end up single which isn't a good trade for a couple of promotions. On a gender basis net only men pay into the tax system so why should they support "equality" when they are footing the bill? and its being used against them? someone put it as any man that votes Left and is big into equality is a traitor to men

py2006 · 04-11-2016 06:45PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, I have goolies and they don't.

That does not mean we need a pink aisle and a blue aisle in Smyths, with dolls and toy cookers and bangles in the pink aisle and soldiers and microscopes in the blue one.

This is the very essence of our culture reinforcing sexist views.

It also makes it easier for mammy and daddy to find what the little ones want.

I don't buy into this attitude that companies like Smyths or toy manufactures themselves want to influence what girls want or what boys want. They are a business and its all about sales. Why would they want to reduce sales by allocating a toy to just one gender?

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2016 06:52PM

py2006 wrote: »

Seriously? What planet are you on?

Ireland 2016. Messed up, isn't it?

Per this report, the balance as of 2014 in UCD eng. is 80/20, up from maybe 85/15 30 years ago. If it is progress, it is very slow. But from that report:

There is a view that, as the level of participation increases, a tipping point is reached, generally regarded as being between 30% and 35% at which
the perspectives of members of both groups change and the character of the relations between the groups begins to change qualitatively. This
is often referred to as ‘the critical mass’ at which sustainable change can be achieved. Kanter (1977a) cites 35% as the figure at which this happen

In other words, if you could get the % of girls entering up to 35%, it would no longer be weird and odd for girls to apply, you would no longer only have the determined types - it would be normal and numbers would level up.Hard to get there though.

Wibbs · 04-11-2016 06:53PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There is absolutely, completely and totally no such thing as a girly toy.

It seems even monkeys show a gender difference in toy selection.
Must be the patriarchy… There are broad gender differences all over the place. This does not mean that society is innocent in choices of toys or careers, but it does suggest that there exist broad gender selection differences going on. This notion that we're blank slates to be filled up by culture is an old 1960's hippie one. It then swung more towards an equally extreme and daft idea that "genes do everything and it's mostly nature". The reality, as with most subjects is likely somewhere in the middle, with some gender biases skewing in one direction or another.

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2016 06:55PM

py2006 wrote: »

It also makes it easier for mammy and daddy to find what the little ones want.

It makes it easier for mammy and daddy to teach the kids what they should want, too.

I am not saying Smyths are part of a conspiracy, they are just selling toys. But consider that no young lad will inherit a bike from his older sister, because it is pink, and vice-versa.

py2006 · 04-11-2016 06:58PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ireland 2016. Messed up, isn't it?

Per this report, the balance as of 2014 in UCD eng. is 80/20, up from maybe 85/15 30 years ago. If it is progress, it is very slow. But from that report:

There is a view that, as the level of participation increases, a tipping point is reached, generally regarded as being between 30% and 35% at which
the perspectives of members of both groups change and the character of the relations between the groups begins to change qualitatively. This
is often referred to as ‘the critical mass’ at which sustainable change can be achieved. Kanter (1977a) cites 35% as the figure at which this happen

In other words, if you could get the % of girls entering up to 35%, it would no longer be weird and odd for girls to apply, you would no longer only have the determined types - it would be normal and numbers would level up.Hard to get there though.

The figures aside, that is not what I was questioning you on. Its the dramatic generalisation that men in this field are "sexist pigs". Are women in primary school teaching or nurses all sexist man hating pigs too?

Wibbs · 04-11-2016 06:58PM

py2006 wrote: »

Why would they want to reduce sales by allocating a toy to just one gender?

Indeed, though having grown up with lego back in the 1970's I found a mid 70's catalogue and what struck me - other than the complete lack of film franchise tie ins and a far bigger trend towards imagining one's own personal toy from random bricks - is that in most pictures both boys and girls are present(and the cover model was made by a girl), with a slight detour on one page with Lego kitchens. These days, though Lego would be generally more equal compared to others toys, the stuff is more gendered. Was the 70's Lego a product of the "blank slate" times, or did economic research show that it made better financial sense to add in more gender biases? As you say if a company can sell equally to both it essentially doubles their sales, so why do so many gendered toys?

*EDIT* just going on personal experience as a kid back then, even with the near 50/50 split in Lego advertising the overwhelming majority of kids I knew who played with Lego were boys. There were a couple of girls but they stood out.

...And Justice · 04-11-2016 06:59PM

I currently live in a situation where the wife thinks I'm in work all day having the craic, while shes doing housework, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't

py2006 · 04-11-2016 07:01PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It makes it easier for mammy and daddy to teach the kids what they should want, too.

I am not saying Smyths are part of a conspiracy, they are just selling toys. But consider that no young lad will inherit a bike from his older sister, because it is pink, and vice-versa.

I dunno. I know its wrong (these days) to say a toy is for a specific gender. But generally speaking boys do go for certain toys and generally speaking girls go for certain toys. There are times of course were they don't but I really don't see it as a huge issue.

El_Duderino 09 · 04-11-2016 07:10PM

Wibbs wrote:

It seems

There can be preference. No problem. The idea of a girls toy or a boys toys is the sign of a very limited thought process.

Wibbs wrote:

Must be the patriarchyâ€¦

If you think so. I didn't say that.

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2016 07:10PM

py2006 wrote: »

The figures aside, that is not what I was questioning you on. Its the dramatic generalisation that men in this field are "sexist pigs".

I am not saying all lads in tech jobs are sexist pigs.

I am saying that I meet young lads in tech jobs fresh out of college who are sexist pigs, showing attitudes I thought were on the way out 30 years ago. I was wrong.

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2016 07:12PM

py2006 wrote: »

But generally speaking boys do go for certain toys and generally speaking girls go for certain toys.

The question is why.

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2016 07:14PM

py2006 wrote: »

I know its wrong (these days) to say a toy is for a specific gender.

On the contrary - that was 20+ years ago. Now (if you look at a catalog) every toy is gendered. Even kids bicycles are either pink and sparkly or not.

El_Duderino 09 · 04-11-2016 07:14PM

py2006 wrote:

I dunno. I know its wrong (these days) to say a toy is for a specific gender. But generally speaking boys do go for certain toys and generally speaking girls go for certain toys. There are times of course were they don't but I really don't see it as a huge issue.

How could you possibly know that? Look at ads for toys on tv. Its easier to identify the toy is fun for me if I'm a boy and the ad has almost all boys using the toy.

py2006 · 04-11-2016 07:21PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The question is why.

or why not? If so many girls were interested and wanted what would be referred to as a 'boys toy' why aren't the marketing people looking to latch on this for extra sales?

At the end of the day, there is no security person stopping parents on the aisles saying you can't buy this product for your daughter or for your son. I don't think they even label the aisles anymore girls and boys (or do they?). I don't have kids myself so I could be talking a lot of nonsense here (especially as I am 3 bottles of beer in).

Zubeneschamali · 04-11-2016 08:48PM

py2006 wrote: »

I don't think they even label the aisles anymore girls and boys (or do they?).

They don't need to label them, one aisle looks like this:

Colser · 04-11-2016 09:49PM

Let's take the toy thing a step further..as adults when we can all do what we want (generally)why aren't men dressed in dresses wearing makeup,spending hours in clothes shops on a Saturday,stressing over what to wear on a night out ect...it's down to nature imo and there are differences between us that are not learned or forced on us,it's in our wiringðŸ˜

BTW I know some men like to do the above and that's fine,I'm talking about the majority.

py2006 · 04-11-2016 10:18PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They don't need to label them, one aisle looks like this:

I wonder is there a science to it. Are there studies to show that (generally speaking) girls and boys like certain colours etc.

Wanderer78 · 04-11-2016 10:21PM

py2006 wrote: »

I wonder is there a science to it. Are there studies to show that (generally speaking) girls and boys like certain colours etc.

there probably is but never underestimate the power of marketing

mzungu · 04-11-2016 10:29PM

py2006 wrote: »

I wonder is there a science to it. Are there studies to show that (generally speaking) girls and boys like certain colours etc.

It would appear so, in general the classic colours are used for both (girl- pink / boy - blue), with gender neutral usually featuring boys colours as a way to maximise potential sales.

Tabular analysis and chi-square revealed that bold colored toys, predominantly red, black, brown, or gray toys, and those that were action figures, building toys, weapons, or small vehicles typified toys for “boys only” on this U.S. website. Pastel colored toys, predominantly pink or purple toys, and those that were dolls, beauty, cosmetics, jewelry, or domestic-oriented typified toys for “girls only”. A majority of toys for “both boys and girls” were mostly “gender neutral” in type, but they resembled toys for “boys only” in terms of their color palette, presumably to appeal to boys, who are less likely to cross gender lines than girls. (Auster & Mansbach 2012)

Wibbs · 04-11-2016 11:47PM

Colser wrote: »

Let's take the toy thing a step further..as adults when we can all do what we want (generally)why aren't men dressed in dresses wearing makeup,spending hours in clothes shops on a Saturday,stressing over what to wear on a night out ect...it's down to nature imo and there are differences between us that are not learned or forced on us,it's in our wiringðŸ˜

BTW I know some men like to do the above and that's fine,I'm talking about the majority.

Actually that gender preening is likely much more cultural. There are cultures where the men are the "peacocks" and the women are the "dowdy" gender. There are tribal societies where the men won't go into battle, where actual death and injury occurs, unless their hair and bodypaint/makeup are perfect. Going so far as to call off battles because of rain, which might threaten to ruin both.

nomdeboardie · 05-11-2016 12:17AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed, though having grown up with lego back in the 1970's I found a mid 70's catalogue and what struck me - other than the complete lack of film franchise tie ins and a far bigger trend towards imagining one's own personal toy from random bricks - is that in most pictures both boys and girls are present(and the cover model was made by a girl), with a slight detour on one page with Lego kitchens. These days, though Lego would be generally more equal compared to others toys, the stuff is more gendered. Was the 70's Lego a product of the "blank slate" times, or did economic research show that it made better financial sense to add in more gender biases? As you say if a company can sell equally to both it essentially doubles their sales, so why do so many gendered toys?

*EDIT* just going on personal experience as a kid back then, even with the near 50/50 split in Lego advertising the overwhelming majority of kids I knew who played with Lego were boys. There were a couple of girls but they stood out.

Taking this off on a tangent even further off-topic

, I had the vague impression (through fuzzy memories) that there was a transition from the basic bricks and widgets, which you might say were the fodder of un-directed creativity and 3D composition, to more elaborate pre-formed figures and items. While the latter could encourage forms of world-building on another level, I suppose, I had a sense that the product was being 'dumbed down', in a way

eeguy · 05-11-2016 12:32AM

nomdeboardie wrote: »

While the latter could encourage forms of world-building on another level, I suppose, I had a sense that the product was being 'dumbed down', in a way

Lego as a product was in a downwards spiral in the noughties due to video games and other media based entertainment.

They were saved by movie tie ins, adult oriented products and by releasing their own games. Not dumbed down, just adapting to a changing market.

nomdeboardie · 05-11-2016 12:38AM

eeguy wrote: »

Lego as a product was in a downwards spiral in the noughties due to video games and other media based entertainment.

They were saved by movie tie ins, adult oriented products and by releasing their own games. Not dumbed down, just adapting to a changing market.

(I can't comment on more recent developments, as Lego hasn't been on my radar for many many decades

)

Billy86 · 05-11-2016 12:13PM

silverharp wrote: »

somewhere around 90% of black kids don't have a father around and these single mothers are raising the next generation of thugs and deadbeats.

Some interesting reading for you - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/charles-blow-black-dads-are-doing-the-best-of-all.html

RDM_83 again · 05-11-2016 06:06PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Some interesting reading for you - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/charles-blow-black-dads-are-doing-the-best-of-all.html

That doesn't really rebut the point though?
Silverharp's figure is wrong but there is a massive over prevalence of single parent families among the african-american community.
67% of Black kids in the USA are in single parent families, yes that doesn't mean that the fathers aren't involved but as your own figures say its only a small minority that are involved in their daily lives.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/

Edit: Not defending the idea that black single mothers are raising delinquents but I would presume lack of positive male role models does have a negative impact on those kids

FloatingVoter · 06-11-2016 01:09AM

Since we're rambling .... texts I never sent to anyone tonight while sat alone in a viper lounge in Dublin. Here we go (cos I'm drunk now and want to read this in the morning)...
"Fakes and heroes walk in a bar..."
"I don't believe in danger ?"
"I'm Sorry for being wrong and alone. Send to who ?"....

and done being drunk I interrupted a conversation (well, propped it along so Romeo could score Juliet as Romeo had done the groundwork but was floundering a little, a wee lift never hurt.)

"I was asexual. Deep down I needed to be an astronaut" [that was the lady I got talking to]. ****ing class. And back to lego and inner city Chicago as we must...

El_Duderino 09 · 06-11-2016 03:38PM

silverharp wrote:

lets say you hire 100 hundred fire fighters every year but you have 1000 applicants after a basic weeding out of applications. if you are hiring you just want to find out the best 100, you aren't really interested in finding out that there are 500 that could do the job at a stretch and you certainly don't want a quota and lower standards or that means female fighters wont be taken seriously when there might be a few that can actually be the best of the best. No organisation sets out to take on average employees they get the best that they can attract with the resources they have. there shouldn't be anymore to it really

Choose the firefighters from the 500 who could do the job. If absolutely no women could do the job, then there's your answer.

silverharp wrote:

but do you see that "equality" isn't the be all and end all and that people are being treated unequally to achieve "equality". lets say that more men "dropout" or downshifting decade on decade, in terms of myself it makes no difference, in terms of my son, its possibly a good thing because he would get to go to college where he might be in a 3:1 minority so he could slay as they say , but then I think my daughter will have a tough time finding a husband because she will be faced with a "where have all the good men gone?" scenario so may end up single which isn't a good trade for a couple of promotions.

What's the actual cause of these fellas dropping out though? The fact that they can't compete in the modern world? Lots of people have dropped out of 'society' for one reason or another. I don't think anyone has demonstrated that it's happening more often right

silverharp wrote:

On a gender basis net only men pay into the tax system so why should they support "equality" when they are footing the bill? and its being used against them? someone put it as any man that votes Left and is big into equality is a traitor to men

Those with more money pay more into the tax system. Is the complaint hat men have more money or that men have to pay tax from that money?

Breaking these things down by gender is so basic. But assuming you take that approach and it ultimately comes down to the fact that you're a man and men pay more tax so you take the 'male' side of each issue, then why bother with all the fancy arguments? Why not just take the male side and skip the superfluous arguments?

We started talking about how schools don't suit boys as much as girls. I doubt gender us the best way to try to fix that problem. I'd be fairly sure that tailoring the education style to learning styles would be the best way to tackle the best problem. Then match people to careers based on aptitude and interest. The idea of men's or women's jobs/roles/sports/toys etc, only serve to limit children.

If they were educated well and given the resources to pursue the career they are most suited to, then there wouldn't be much argument for gender quotas.

Why are men dropping out of society? - mod note in 1st post

Comments