

Why Don’t More Men Pursue Female-Dominated Professions? - tokenadult
http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/07/why-dont-more-men-pursue-female-dominated-professions/

======
busterarm
I have a cousin who was an elementary school teacher because he loved it. It's
all he ever wanted to do. He has a bunch of kids of his own because he enjoys
being a dad. He's that "really great with kids" guy.

In school, all he ever got was suspicion. All of the teachers and
administrators and parents in schools treat male primary school teachers as if
they're child molesters or think that men are totally unsuited to the job.
There is _blatant_ sexism.

He lasted two years and now runs his own construction/carpentry business where
he's a lot happier.

~~~
rayiner
What's hilarious is that this is so uniquely cultural. My mom, who was raised
with an English tutor in Bangladesh, remarked about my elementary school
experience that she didn't like how all the teachers were women, because men
made far more effective teachers. That is the sexism on that side of the pond
--that women aren't suitable for a role that involves inculcating the
knowledge and practices and morals of society.

~~~
busterarm
In fairness to your mom, all of my primary school teachers were dumb as bricks
and sucked at their jobs. And this was in one of NY's supposedly gifted
schools.

Most were really shit-terrible at math especially. I feel like primary
education is where the dumbest people with teaching certification end up.

~~~
tptacek
What an unpleasant comment.

~~~
busterarm
You are totally correct, but it's only as unpleasant as my experience was.

My teachers were absolutely terrible. If it weren't for my mom teaching me
math at a much accelerated pace (high school algebra by 3rd grade) and the
fact that I practically lived in libraries until I was 14 or so, I wouldn't
have done as well as I did.

A common problem I had in school with math was that the teachers were bad at
solving the problems themselves and relied on the answer books which had wrong
answers/misprints. I would get in arguments with teachers on occasion about
the right answer and would often go up to the board with the work or a proof
and the teacher would go "well, my book says it's this, so that's what it is."

I guess I was a stubborn kid and maybe a bit of an a-hole then too. :)

Edit: I'm not saying everyone who wants to teach children is an idiot. I know
some amazing people who specialized in child education, like the cousin I
mentioned. However, all of the really dull people I know that went into
teaching all wanted to teach 1st-3rd graders...folks who could barely operate
a cash register.

------
awjr
A 'lot' of these jobs have contact with children and the news organisations
have done enough damage to societies perception that a man wanting to work
with children is probably a pedophile to wreck that career path.

'Something must be wrong with you'

------
zeidrich
I think it's generally the same reasons that more women don't pursue male-
dominated professions. I think this is typically that there's an established
culture, and not fitting in with that culture makes you seem like an oddity or
that you've got ulterior motives.

Is that man teaching because he needs a job, or because he enjoys teaching? Or
does he just want to prey on the girls?

Is that woman developing video games because she's a good programmer, or is
she just desperate for male attention?

The biggest difference is that fewer people see this as a problem when it's
affecting men. Culturally men are expected to bear their problems instead of
lament them.

------
Tichy
I suspect there are two reasons why men would push for more women in IT:

\- lower wages because of higher competition (the employer's incentive)

\- more "attractive" workplace _wink_ _wink_ (the employee's perspective)

I know it's not politically correct to say that, but don't shoot the
messenger.

I don't think men feel the need for more "female perspectives" in programming.
Especially as they wouldn't even know what those would suppose to be.

Women (feminists) push for more women in tech because they have seen some
people become rich via tech jobs and feel left out. They don't push for more
garbage women and so on.

~~~
jamesaguilar
I find it disturbing and sad that you didn't even think to mention
egalitarianism in either your male or female reasons to push for more females
in tech.

~~~
Tichy
How would "egalitarism" be relevant? Does that imply that every profession
should have 50:50 men and women?

If egalitarism were a significant motivator, then there would have to be the
same push for garbage women as for IT women. Since there is no push for
garbage women, egalitarism disqualifies as a reason.

~~~
jamesaguilar
I think fairness and equality are common enough goals that you shouldn't have
to ask me why they would be relevant. You should just know. That doesn't mean
you have to agree that they override other considerations, but it's
unnecessary to pretend that you don't understand they are important to other
people.

~~~
Tichy
I honestly don't understand what you mean. Where did I supposedly argue
against fairness and equality?

~~~
jamesaguilar
You asked me how egalitarianism is relevant, and I'm telling you that it
should be obvious that it's relevant because some folks think the current
distribution of work is not fair to females.

~~~
Tichy
Well you didn't answer what exactly is meant by egalitarian. 50:50 male and
female workers in every profession? Or what exactly?

As I said, if "egalitarian" means 50:50 male and female workers, then the same
people pushing for tech women would have to be pushing for more garbage women,
too. Since they don't, obviously that is not the driving force.

~~~
jamesaguilar
I don't think fairness is necessarily characterized by an exact 50:50
distribution, nor do I think that is a common view of it.

~~~
Tichy
You characterized it as egalitarianism, which could be characterized as 50:50
distribution. In any case I think you should quantify your "demands", or else
how can they ever be satisfied? It is not obvious to me why it is unfair if
for example a woman is a nurse instead of a PHP developer? Should she begrudge
her fate? Why not vice versa (PHP devs who would rather be nurses)?

------
johngalt
This is more bias against men than we are ready to admit.

I was somewhat blind to this until the wife opened a daycare in our home. When
we interviewed with a new parent, she would very tactfully advise the parents
that I might be in charge some days/times. The most common response was 'just
let us know what days.' Which was code for: we aren't comfortable with that
but we are too polite to say that while he's here. Less than half of the kids
showed up the first time she took a day off. My paper airplane tournament was
missing a number of contestants.

Then I had a few candid conversations with friends who had children. Almost
universally wouldn't consider a male daycare provider. Or any daycare
situation where a male would be even temporarily unsupervised with children.

It was disappointing to see that level of bigotry. While there aren't going to
be men manning the barricades over daycare and teaching, it is something that
should change. If you want your daughters to learn STEM, it might be a man
teaching them. Try not to panic.

------
mililani
I am currently going to school to study occupational therapy--which is
predominately a female dominated profession. Why did I do it? Frankly, I was
getting burned out on tech, and I've always wanted to try health care out
without having to over commit in terms of time and money. My program is about
3+ years including the pre-reqs, and the total cost will be only about $25000.
I also didn't want to do anything really stressful like nursing. But, now that
I'm actually surrounded by women, I am starting to pine for my old tech days
of having guy co-workers, which often led to guy friends, talking about guy
stuff.

Women are weird. They're exceptionally passive aggressive, and they love
gossiping like there was a fire sale on it. It doesn't help that the few
female OT's that I've had to shadow were not my cup of tea. I didn't think
they were nice at all, and I could see them being overtly political or passive
aggressive. Also, as others have mentioned in this thread, there is a very
real bias I may have to contend with as a male in a female dominated
profession.

Currently, I want to work in pediatrics. I like the idea of working in the
schools and with kids. However, I DO see that others, especially women, may
view that with a wary eye. It sucks.

There is a bright side though. If you're a single guy, damn, the women... Lots
of pretty women. That's something that I don't miss about tech.

------
dgabriel
There are organizations devoted to getting men into traditionally-female
occupations. We don't hear about it as much, because it's not tech oriented?

[http://aamn.org/](http://aamn.org/)
[http://www.worldforumfoundation.org/working-
groups/men/](http://www.worldforumfoundation.org/working-groups/men/)

------
betterunix
The assumption is that men are generally doing well under the current system,
so nobody needs to encourage men to pursue careers dominated by women. I am
sure there is a notion that nursing is a feminine career, but that is beside
the point; the real issue is that _nobody is trying to dispel that notion_.
The effort is focused on dispelling the notion that engineering and science
are "manly" disciplines.

It also does not help that here in the USA we are trained to be automatically
suspicious of men who pursue two common and traditionally female lines of
work: elementary school education and childcare. A male kindergarten teacher
is always at risk of being branded a pedophile by some paranoid parent, and
must watch his every step in his personal life (what if he is into S&M? what
if he is gay?).

------
skylan_q
Because there are never "not enough men" in some field, it's always "not
enough women."

~~~
acomar
In what way is that an answer? That's just restating the question posed in the
OP. Why aren't we concerned about fields with "not enough men"?

~~~
jamesaguilar
The four possibilities suggested in the article are good. But I suspect the
biggest reason is that the female-dominated professions tend to be lower
status, less well-compensated professions than the male-dominated ones. It's
not like it's particularly difficult for a male to become an RN or a teacher.
There are no institutional or systemic barriers that I'm aware of.

~~~
gaius
That's not really true tho'. All the dirty, dangerous jobs are male-dominated.
Why do you never hear anyone complaining there are too few women driving
garbage trucks, mining coal, packing meat, working construction?

~~~
jamesaguilar
Even those low-status male jobs are fairly well-compensated compared the
female-dominated professions, especially considering the amount of education
required. And several of them will always tend male as long as they aren't
done by robots, because men have a physical strength advantage.

------
hawkharris
The author gives "P.R. Officer" as an example of one profession typically
dominated by women. When I studied public relations in college, I was one of
the few guys in my classes, and I began to pose this question to others in the
field.

I think part of the reason is that many guys mistakenly associate PR with
publicity and event planning — activities which they view as being "for
women." In reality, modern public relations is deeply intertwined with
management. It's about managing a company's relationships and persuading
important audiences to take action.

Publicity and event planning are tools in modern PR. To say that they're the
substance of the field is like saying that computer science is about keyboards
and typing.

So, what's interesting here is that the field of public relations has evolved
to encompass some things that are perceived as traditionally male, including
business management, strategy and law. However, many men perceive the field as
it was decades ago.

To answer the OP's question, maybe men don't push for men to break into
traditionally female fields because, once those fields are branded as being
"for women," they cease trying to understand how the fields evolve over time.

------
newnewnew
To understand conversations about gender bias in professions, you have to
understand that the American academy (and by extension, America's educated
class) operates from a _Marxist_ ideology. This casts the world in light of
_class conflict_. In the branch of this ideology which deals with sex
relations (called "feminism"), men are the oppressor class and women are the
oppressed. Thus, male overrepresentation in the suicide or prison population
is not a problem (men cannot be _oppressed_ , they are the over-class). But
male overrepresentation in tech is a problem, or at least it has become a
problem as tech work has gained in prestige.

Male underrepresentation in traditionally female fields is not considered a
problem, again because males cannot be oppressed as a class. It is true that
men have fared worse than women in the recession[1], and that men have fallen
behind women in educational attainment, so that an influx of men into these
fields might have strong, positive effects for society. But as long as the
"patriarchy" remains, it will not be a concern.

[1]
[http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm](http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm)

~~~
ThomPete
Men are found at the very top and the very bottom of society, even in very
even societies like the Scandinavian countries.

So if anything men are both the most oppressing and most oppressed class of
society.

Furthermore woman normally marry upwards which makes it even harder for those
already at the bottom to find a life companion and escape their situation.

~~~
betterunix
Women are also found at the top and at the bottom, even here in America:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_pelosi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_pelosi)

[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/homeless-
woman-...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/homeless-woman-stabs-
subway-6-train.html)

~~~
ThomPete
I am assuming your are joking right?

------
gametheoretic
Oh, this post is gold. Albert asks:

>Why are women fighting for more women to do STEM while men are not fighting
for more men to be therapists?

...and Freakonomics hears: "Why don't more men pursue female-dominated
professions?" Not once, but twice. Alfred writes back to clarify his meaning,
yet Dubner, again, simply lifts keywords out of his sentences and writes his
own question to answer. Literally failing to think outside the bounds of
political tropes.

~~~
Danieru
I'm glad another person noticed this. Most comments also missed the
distinction.

In their defence I think the two questions have high interrelation. Why men
should go into teaching and etc is the same reasons men are not campaigning
for more male participation. Programming is a good career so people are
willing to fight for equality. From an emotionless stand point teaching is a
mediocre career so what is the point? Men who do teach do so for the caring,
but they recognize the career is not for everyone. Programming on the other
hand is profitable, I imagine programming women recognize that the career
would be a good match for many other women.

By a similar token neither men nor women are campaigning to get more people
into sanitation engineering, even if women are under represented.

~~~
gametheoretic
Yes, I noticed that as well. The formula seems to be: a) identify trope, b)
throw down cards, c) leave.

Each of your points of evidence is true in-and-of-itself, I think. But not
enough compare-and-contrast with outside situations for my taste. Programming
is a good career. So is finance. So why no campaigning there? 2) You're right,
Men don't campaign for teaching or sanitation careers. What _do_ men campaign
for? Further, I might compare-and-contrast with the transitions of other
groups which were formerly underrepresented within their industry and ask
whether it was campaigning which won that victory.

------
lnanek2
Nurse might be cool, you get to help save people's lives and make a real
difference without as many barriers as becoming a doctor. Googling the average
salary, though, it's 1/4 what I earn as a developer. So no way.

~~~
dingaling
In the UK National Health System, a Band 5 nurse ( i.e. no longer an assistant
but not yet a specialist ) earns between £21k and just under £28k, which is on
par with what my IT career was after a similar period in work.

[http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-
bene...](http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/working-in-the-nhs/pay-and-
benefits/agenda-for-change-pay-rates/)

Band definitions here:

[http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-
career/nursing/pay-f...](http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-
career/nursing/pay-for-nurses/)

One might say that's not a lot of money for the stress and responsibility, but
it's still starting at the UK average salary.

------
Steuard
A meta-comment, which I'm separating from my main reply: Rather a lot of the
comments here seem to be reacting to this in ways that boil down to "Feminism
is unfair to men!" For anyone out there who hasn't studied much of this stuff,
let me warn you to be cautious buying in to those arguments. They can sound
persuasively like justice; I used to nod and mutter "Yeah!" to them myself.
But I have eventually recognized that if we want to achieve that goal of true
equality that we all want, women have one heck of a lot more catching up to do
than men.

~~~
johngalt
>... women have one heck of a lot more catching up to do than men

May I ask what criteria you used to come to that conclusion? What do you use
to measure equality? You seem to have analyzed both sides and I'm curious to
hear how you arrived at your conclusion.

~~~
Steuard
Unfortunately, I don't have any quick answer to this ready to hand, and I
don't have remotely enough spare time right now to try and write a long one. I
know that sounds like dodging the question, and maybe it is. But I see it as a
symptom of myself feeling like I'm only in the early stages of really
understanding this stuff.

Given all that, here's one glimpse of how I'd start to answer your question
(meant only to point in the right direction, since I don't have time to build
a convincing case). I think I'd say that my active definition of "equality" is
something not far from "equality of opportunity" and perhaps also "equality in
everyday experience". Our society seems to inhibit women from taking the same
risks that it allows for men. Some of that is formalized (e.g. women in the US
Army haven't been allowed to serve on the front lines) but a lot of it is
buried deep in societal attitudes. I couldn't begin to trace how that happens,
but everyone seems to agree on the result: men are overrepresented at the
upper and lower ends of society. In our system, women are systematically
"sheltered", which sounds nice, but it means that they are prevented from
living up to their true potential, and that can be soul-killing.

The "everyday experience" side is (I think) closely related to that on some
deep level, but probably feels quite different on the surface. It's hard to
summarize, but basically I'm thinking about the many ways that women in our
society are forced into a defensive mindset when they go about their daily
lives.

An anecdote (presented to me as true when I saw it) may illustrate the idea: A
high school teacher asked her class to imagine that they were in a shopping
mall late at night and had to walk to their car on the far side of the parking
lot alone: what precautions would they take on their way there? The guys in
the class wanted clarification: was this mall in a bad part of town? Had they
seen someone dangerous hanging around to make them worried? And so on: they
wanted to know _why_ they were taking precautions. Meanwhile, every single
girl had already gotten well into a long list: "Carry my keys in my fist."
"Watch under nearby cars." "Have my phone out." "No way I'm going alone: find
_someone_ to walk me out there." "I _always_ park under bright lights close to
a door." The lists go on and on.

That's just one illustration, but I hope it captures the basic idea that I'm
trying to describe. (To be clear, the threat of violence is a big part of this
"equality of everyday experience" factor, but far from all of it. I think that
there are big doses of "hard to get taken seriously as a professional" mixed
in with it, too, for example.) [The same sort of thing happens in other
contexts, too: e.g. how Levar Burton always puts his hands in view outside of
the car when he's pulled over by the police
[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/01/levar-burton-
explains-...](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/01/levar-burton-explains-his-
ritual-to-prevent-being-shot-by-police/) ]

------
knowtheory
There's a notion of "Prestige" in language (see:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_(sociolinguistics)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_\(sociolinguistics\))
).

So, languages and dialects have some sort of (nebulously defined) level of
prestige relative to any particular population, and the prestige of a
particular language/dialect is one of those factors for a bunch of cultural
phenomena, such as where and whether it's appropriate to use a particular
language/dialect in a particular social setting, and whether a language is
taught to children, etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, point being, prestige is also one of those things you see in careers
too. It may be that there aren't more men banging down the doors to get into
dietetics and nursing because those jobs aren't perceived to be as prestigious
as being a doctor.

People aspire to being the President of the United States, or a doctor, or
lawyer or whatever. They don't aspire to being middle management, or nursing
home attendants, or city clerks.

(p.s. I think that gender imbalance in any field is questionable/problematic.
But on a pragmatic basis there's actual material harm when all of the
prestigious and high earning fields are particularly biased.)

------
jack-r-abbit
Recently we (my wife and I) were on the search for a replacement nanny as our
nanny of 2 years was going back to school. During the process, my wife posted
to Facebook asking her friends what they thought about a "manny" she found. I
was shocked at the whole situation.

First, even just the fact that it seems perfectly legit to call him a "manny"
was enough. I can't even imagine how much the internet would explode if
someone questioned hiring "womengineers."

Second, the fact that the question is even asked. Like there is something
EXTRA we need to look at when hiring a man as a nanny that we would not look
at for a woman. Skills are skills. A background check is a background check.

Lastly, I was appalled by the women that spoke up about how sketchy it was and
that they would advise against it. Thankfully, there were people that spoke up
about it being no different. That it would be great to have our boys see a man
in such a role.

Ultimately, he didn't make the cut. But this was not a male/female reason. But
seeing what I saw, I do feel a bit sorry for the guy as I'm sure this happens
more than he knows. I'm sure he has missed out on great jobs because too many
of people's friends thought it was too sketchy.

------
dwc
A while ago I watched a Norwegian documentary questioning various aspects of
Norwegian society. One segment dealt with gender equality. One thing the stats
found is that as gender opportunities in employment reached parity women
largely abandoned traditional male jobs are returned to traditional female
jobs. Having enough of a safety net not to worry about going hungry, homeless
or without healthcare may be a contributing factor. But it seems as if when
people really go by their preferences they gravitate toward professions that
match the traditional gender stereotypes. An interesting bit was when they
interviewed psychologists and social scientists, and they discounted the idea
that there could be a preference difference between genders. They thought that
if society were perfect that there would be a 50/50 split in any profession.
Phooey.

In the US I think it's likely that men just don't want to be nurses. Some men
do want that and there _are_ male nurses, but it's rare. It doesn't have to be
because they're afraid of perceptions. It can be because they don't desire to
do that job.

~~~
johnbm
The documentary series is Hjernevask and is amazing, not just the episode on
gender:
[http://vimeo.com/user5971760/videos](http://vimeo.com/user5971760/videos)

~~~
dwc
I watched on YouTube and there were several segments. I watched all of them.
Very interesting! I may give the vimeo version a try in case I missed
anything. And I can always use practice in norsk. Tusen takk for linken!

------
Steuard
For this particular question, it's hard for me to see that there's any real
mystery involved. The push for more gender equality in traditionally male
professions only shows up for professions associated with high status and/or
high income (hence, STEM fields and upper management get lots of attention).

I have seen no similarly strong push to get women involved in (say) garbage
collection, which is also traditionally male. Yes, equality there would be
great, too, but that inequality isn't as big a factor in preventing women from
an equal share of power and influence in society.

Meanwhile, there _are_ efforts to get men involved in higher-status
traditionally female jobs like nursing. But there simply _aren 't_ many high-
status/high-paying jobs that are traditionally female... which is pretty much
the point. (Looking at the article, I'm surprised to see
psychologists/therapists presented as predominantly female. When I hear
"psychologist", the first image that comes to mind is Freud.)

~~~
Tichy
The crucial question is why can women cope with low paying jobs, and men
can't. I think the notion that the father in a family should usually be the
main breadwinner has a lot to do with that.

Women have the _privilege_ to be able to choose a low paying profession (which
offers more flexibility/time for family). The privilege is theirs because they
control reproduction.

------
rayiner
I've always found this to be an amusing counter-narrative: "if you're so
concerned about the lack of women in finance, business, and technology, why
aren't you concerned about the lack of men in teaching or secretarial work?"
How is this not a self-answering question?

It should also be noted that the percentage of male nurses, while still small
(10%) has tripled in four decades, and male nurses earn more than female one:
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/25/men-
nur...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/25/men-nursing-
occupatins/1947243).

~~~
betterunix
I would say that a much more concerning problem is that of male elementary
school teachers and male childcare workers, at least here in the USA. There is
automatic suspicion facing any man who wants to spend his days working with
children. It takes only one accusation to end that man's career, regardless of
evidence, regardless of what a great job he does. Nobody seems particularly
concerned with this kind of sexism, nor with the real damage it can do, nor
with the fact that it creates a line of work that only one gender is allowed
to enter.

------
physcab
Let me put on my armchair psychologist hat and say:

I think it's due to the fact that in our society, men aren't socialized to
think about feelings, and in fact, men are socialized to not have them. So
it's not a surprise that these professions that require some form of feeling
caring for one another lack men. For example teaching (sympathizing and
empathizing with students and caring about their future), nursing (caring
about patients well being and health), and PR (caring about the success of
your customers) all require feeling.

------
jkscm
[citation needed]

I think this is the appropriate answer to these guys talking about this kind
of a topic.

------
peter303
They pay less. Which may be a result of gneder imbalance initially.

------
chris_mahan
My wife would kill me.

------
pasbesoin
People make assumptions (snap judgments) based upon "externalities".

People bully and exhibit prejudice (both effective strategies, by the way; why
do you think they persist?) in order to secure their own advantage.

Choose a role that fosters negative outcomes in the former and fosters and
facilitates the latter, and you can be in for a lot of grief.

Flower up the language about this however you like; at base, this is a
substantial reason.

Is it "fair"? No. Is it reality? In my opinion and experience, yes.

------
pessimizer
Because they're paid shit in comparison to the labor and education involved.

There's nothing keeping men from joining female professions, such as teaching,
nursing, cooking, or library science, and when they do, they're usually paid
more and promoted to management earlier. Look at the sex ratios of the foot
soldiers of any of those professions, and compare them to the sex ratios of
middle management and upper management. Based on nothing but anecdote, I think
you'd find 90-100% women at the bottom, 40-50% women at the middle, and 5-10%
women at the top.

edit: Anything like this for the US?

[http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/01/14/men-
outnumber-...](http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/01/14/men-outnumber-
women-school-principals.html)

edit: It's informally called the "Glass Escalator."

[http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/v...](http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/viewArticle/100/187)

"A common complaint expressed by some men and women librarians is the idea of
a glass escalator for males in the field. Women expressed frustration at men
promoted rapidly into management or administrative positions (Williams, 1992;
Greer, 2001). Men are just as frustrated that they are often pushed up the
career ladder when they are perfectly content in their present position. One
male who desired to work as a children’s librarian was encouraged to move into
administration after only six months on the job. He has stayed in his original
position for 10 years but only by resisting promotion (Williams, 1992).

"The concern expressed by Suzanne Hildenbrand that men would continue to
dominate administrative and director positions has been questioned and
contradicted by Paul Piper & Barbara Collamer. They point out that female
library directors now outnumber males by nearly a 3 to 1 margin (Hildenbrand,
1999; Piper & Collamer, 2001)."

------
EGreg
[http://web.archive.org/web/20130116165633/http://www.psy.fsu...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130116165633/http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm)

