
Badly educated men have not adapted well to trade, technology or feminism (2015) - mathieutd
http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21649050-badly-educated-men-rich-countries-have-not-adapted-well-trade-technology-or-feminism
======
cJ0th
> In “The End of Men”, a good book with a somewhat excessive title, Hanna
> Rosin notes that of the 30 occupations expected to grow fastest in America
> in the coming years, women dominate 20, including nursing, accounting, child
> care and food preparation.

What would happen if accounting falls prey to automation in the coming years?
Would many former female accountants be willing to become nurses or to prepare
food for a living?

Well, we don't know. I just find it toxic to look at this topic at the men vs
women level even though many of the men described in the article probably are
idiots. Who gets labeled what highly depends on circumstances a single actor
can not really influence.

These problems are structural and they only exist because society as a whole
fails to make sure that every human being finds a productive place in it. Take
the guy mentioned in the article who sold small amounts of Marijuana, for
instance. In the state he's living, it's illegal and thus he gets labeled a
criminal. In another state he could work at a legal Marijuana shop just like
others work in food preparation. In one state selling Marijuana makes you a
dumb criminal, in a different state you get congratulated for your ability to
adapt because you've picked a fast growing occupation.

------
lhnz

      > It is inevitable that more men will earn less
      > than their female partners in years to come.
      > To pull their weight, they will have to do
      > more at home.
    

Will this actually work though?

Anecdotally, women seem less interested in partnering with men who make less
money than them no matter what other benefits they provide.

I rarely hear of men breaking up with women because they weren't "ambitious
enough" or weren't "their equals" however I hear this fairly frequently from
women.

Hopefully as more women become the economic winners of their families they
will fully accept the position of being the bread-winner instead of continuing
to search for men that will 'be their equal' or outperform them. Until that
happens men are going to continue to feel pressure to live up to outdated
patriarchal ideals, with both winners and losers.

------
ergothus
I find the topic interesting, but the article looks to be doing a lot of
guessing causation from results. I.e. In low-skilled jobs that are projected
to have growth, women are more represented than men.

It then wanders around different topics - effects on heterosexual relationship
when "eligible" members of one sex are in low supply, etc. But I was most
interested in that initial argument, and it wasn't given much support.

" Everywhere you look in Tallulah there are women working: in the motels that
cater to passing truckers, in the restaurants that serve all-you-can-eat
catfish buffets, in shops, clinics and local government offices. But though
unskilled men might do some of those jobs, they are unlikely to want them or
to be picked for them."

In my mind, there's a big difference between "not wanting" and "wanting but
not getting", but the article lumps those together.

All in all, a great article for raising some theories, and the facts offered
point out some questions we might not have had, but precious little evidence
of any particular answers, just evidence to shoot down a few theories (and
those disproven theories aren't covered).

Not to say I think the article's suggestions are WRONG...I just don't have any
reasons from the article to think they are right.

~~~
arcanus
I largely agree. It lost me greatly when it stated,

> Few women in rich countries now need a man’s support to raise a family.
> (They might want it, but they don’t need it.)

I'm a man, and my wife is back to work after giving birth to our child.
Raising a family seems to be a massively two person job. I have absolutely no
idea how anyone can manage it alone and keep their sanity and not neglect
their job and child.

Blanket statements such as this (instead of asking if single family homes
might be resulting in worse outcomes for children) are where the article
appeared to have an agenda.

~~~
arkh
> I have absolutely no idea how anyone can manage it alone

Not alone. The State (so, everyone paying taxes) is always here to help single
parents.

~~~
dpark
Neither I nor my wife would qualify for any sort of government assistance as
single parents. And neither of us has any idea how we'd manage to raise
children alone. Money is not the issue.

------
trendia
I hoped reading this would provide insight, but instead it only offered some
random eassywriter's disdain of people different from him/herself.

~~~
justinzollars
I work with a dude who is 50 from Michigan. It's amazing to hear stories of
what an American lifestyle in the 70's and 80's was like. With 40,000 income
he could buy a house, a vacation house in northern Michigan, a boat and two
great vacations a year.

Its hard to admit standards of living are decreasing. There is def a lot of
blame to go around. I agree one should not be disdainful of people who are
different.

This red team vs blue team logic is getting us no where.

~~~
maxlybbert
That was before inflation. Using
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL)
, it looks like the CPI was 78 in January 1980, and 244.456 in February 2017
(the most recent data currently available). Meaning that $1 from 1980 would
buy as much as $3.13 last February, and $40,000 in 1980 would be equivalent to
$125,362 in February. Perhaps not enough for two homes and a boat, but pretty
good income in most of the US.

Then again, there are plenty of caveats: the CPI overstates inflation, there
are things on the market today that no amount of money could have bought in
1980, etc.

------
krath94
"Although there is no reason in theory why men could not become nurses or
care-home assistants, few do."

This is true, but why is it that the shortage of women in technology fields is
attributed to them not being accepted or even forced out? Maybe this isn't the
general attitude, but I have certainly heard people say that woman aren't in
tech as much because they feel unwelcome, whereas when talking about men in
those other fields, it's because "they don't want to."

~~~
ams6110
There is indeed a reason, that is women are naturally/biologically caretakers
and nurturers. Women are more trusted and accepted as nurses and caregivers
than men. Many women would be uncomfortable or refuse to have a male caregiver
help bathe or dress them.

~~~
simias
This "naturally/biologically" is the crux of the issue really, where does
nature stop and society begin?

And even if nature biases one way or an other, does it explain the measured
discrepancy completely? Am I to believe that there's basically a shortage of
"nurturing" men, as there is a shortage of technically inclined women?

We also see that the proportions vary very significantly between countries, so
clearly there's a societal factor at play, one way or an other.

So I don't really like these types of shortcuts, because clearly the most
nurturing man is probably more so than the less nurturing woman. We should
judge people on their own merit, not their gender, race or other factors.

~~~
ams6110
Sure, individuals are individuals.

I was addressing the larger question of why not many men become nurses. Not
saying that those who do are not nurturing and good at what they do.

~~~
simias
Well you were saying that the only answer was of a biological nature, I was
pointing out that while it probably factors one way or an other it's a bit
presumptuous to say that it's the only reason.

In particular your example: "Many women would be uncomfortable or refuse to
have a male caregiver help bathe or dress them." I think there's a massive
cultural component to this, rather than some innate behavior. And the fact
that there are many male gynecologists show that many women aren't that picky
with their intimacy...

------
panglott
It's a little unclear in the article why unemployment should lead to this
family structure of single mothers having kids with three different fathers
(US family law strongly favors motherly custodyy), until this:

"For many men in Tallulah, the greatest obstacle to finding a job is that they
have already fallen foul of the law. ...And here the falling fortunes of
working-class men do further damage. In 1960, among never-married American
adults aged 25-34, there were 139 men with jobs for every 100 women, with or
without jobs. ...By 2012 there were only 91 employed men for every 100 women
in this group. ...Even a small imbalance can have big effects. Imagine a
simplified “mating market” consisting of ten men and ten women, all
heterosexual. Everyone pairs up. Now take one man away. One woman is doomed to
be single, so she may opt to poach another woman’s partner. A chain reaction
ensues: all the women are suddenly less secure in their relationships. Some of
the men, by contrast, become tempted to play the field rather than settle
down. In most rich countries the supply of eligible blue-collar men does not
match demand. Among black Americans, thanks to mass incarceration, it does not
come close. For every 100 African-American women aged 25-54 who are not behind
bars, there are only 83 men of the same age at liberty."

Even more reason for "ban the box"
[https://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9660282/obama-ban-the-
box](https://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9660282/obama-ban-the-box)

~~~
nwatson
Something Obama and the Koch brothers can agree on:
[http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/koch-industries-
brothe...](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/koch-industries-brothers-
criminal-history-job-applicants-ban-the-box-117382)

------
csours
Poorly educated or badly educated?

Badly educated would indicate that the education is based on incorrect facts
or processes.

Poorly educated would indicate that there may not be enough education, etc.

~~~
thrownblown
Paying attention is a skill that needs to be taught in school. It's hardly the
fault of the student if the schools don't engage and challenge them.

The American education system fed me lie after lie after lie.

All public schools teach lies, some even don't even pretend and teach
creationism.

~~~
quirkot
I am reminded of my chemistry professor's lament. "I can't count how many
students I've failed for not knowing things that were later proven to be
untrue"

~~~
Nihilartikel
I can understand the spirit and frustration of the lament, but it presents the
hazard of the unhelpful and fallacious interpretation that "I might as well
not teach them any of this in the first place since some of it might end up
just being wrong!"

Science is not about always being right. It is about knowing and building upon
the best knowledge available, while maintaining the intellectual humility and
curiosity to continually challenge the best available knowledge and revise it
towards a measurably better state. That is how the mountain is climbed.

------
dualogy
> _Badly educated men have not adapted well to trade, technology or feminism_

Surprise! "Education" _is_ the tool to adapt us descendants of egalitarian
(gender and otherwise), fraternalistic, communal, polygamous, nomadic ice-age
hunters to settled agricultural civilization, aka "trade, technology,
feminism"

------
brink
This system of educational one-upmanship where someone will try to discredit
others due to their formal education rather than logical fallacies in their
argument just comes off as inaccurate and pretentious to me.

------
cpr
<< The dead hand of male domination is a problem for women, for society as a
whole—and for men like those of Tallulah. >>

Nothing like leading the argument...

------
swang
it is really interesting the automatic assumption of people in this thread,
considering i'm guessing most didn't read past the first story about low-
income men not finding work.

perhaps the use of the word feminism enforces an opinion right away regardless
of what the article says.

------
padseeker
Apparently this story has been flagged. Why?

~~~
root_axis
Because users flagged it.

Why did various individuals flag it? You'll have to ask them on an individual
basis, but it's clear based on the comments that some view the article as
inflammatory. I'd bet there are also quite a few that flag anything explicitly
discussing gender or politics if it doesn't involve a tech company.

------
Anthony-G
I found the article to be insightful and interesting in how it used broad
strokes to tie together the social changes (feminism, the welfare state, the
contraceptive pill, class and gender differences in attitudes to counselling)
and economic changes, (mechanisation, globalisation, the decline of industry,
lower pay for unskilled labour) and how these changes impact on well-being
(both individual happiness and successful relationships).

The article also highlighted that class is just as relevant as gender: “ _the
fact that the highest rungs have male feet all over them is scant comfort for
the men at the bottom_ ”.

------
lamontcg
> If you want to be a truck driver, you need at least an eighth-grade
> education to handle the paperwork, she observes;

Until the computers do all the truck driving, then you'll need a college
degree to program/repair them.

------
empath75
This was from Oct 2016, btw.

~~~
Klockan
Actually it was from May 2015, you just looked at the last comment.

------
zeteo
Tallulah, LA is 77% African American [1]. I'm surprised The Economist would
publish this kind of victim-blaming about a very marginalized community:

> men like those of Tallulah [...] lack the resources of training, of
> imagination and of opportunity to adapt to the new demands

> poorly educated men are often much worse at things such as showing up on
> time and being pleasant to customers

> criminality, alas, remains an option for men of all skill sets

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallulah,_Louisiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallulah,_Louisiana)

------
triangleman
How many karma points do you need before you can start voting down stories?

~~~
cookiecaper
You can't downvote stories. You can only flag them. I'm not sure where the
karma threshold is. I flagged this one, though. :)

------
_pmf_
A lot of research seems to be going towards what men do wrong. Doing the same
"research" on women and generalizing it similarly would of course be
considered deeply sexist and misogynist.

------
I_am_neo
Use of Badly is aweful grammer, use poorly instead

------
programminggeek
If it makes you feel any better millennials haven't adapted well either.

~~~
bognition
in what way?

~~~
glibgil
They can't stop being poor

------
jankedeen
War. These are the men who are missing out on the great civilized purge of
useless, direction-less, education-less, baby dads. Not practicable anymore.
There is no great enemy, the military services don't want these problem
children.

Our direction is unsustainable but nobody likes this particular historical
necessity.

------
mtgx
Then free public college would be nice, wouldn't it?

~~~
cookiecaper
No, because the same complaints are equally applicable to the highly literate
MA holders that serve coffee and fast food.

The "uneducated men" in this article have the advantage of not being saddled
with 50k in debt, and they probably end up getting paid more with jobs like
groundskeeper and forklift operator.

Making college free would remove that advantage and loop it back onto the
group that is already positioned to get themselves into college.

------
jimmywanger
What an awful article. It says in one breath that women are already better
adapted to the modern world than men are, and in the next, says that "things
still need to be done".

You can't have it both ways. Pick one thesis and stay with it. I also like how
women are still portrayed as victims in this article, even though they have
better jobs and better careers than men do. Like I said, pick one.

