Keith, you may have a point, but I wouldn't call it a "feminization" of work. Though its nature changes from year to year and decade to decade, work is work is work. In my opinion, two things have happened. One is the entry of women into fields that were formerly dominated or virtually restricted to men. Many women are now medical doctors or dentists. Many work on the shop floor. I remember getting the shock of my life more than twenty years ago when there was a young woman hanging around small passenger jet that was supposed to fly me and some colleagues from Calgary to the northern tip of Baffin Island. I recall asking her if she was coming along on the trip. Well, surprise, she was the pilot! I've been on several regular flights with women captains or co-pilots since.
The other thing that I believe has happened is that women have identified types of work that did not exist before, and have lobbied to expand them. The "caring professions" are a case in point. Women not only do them better than men do, but also seem to have a better and more empathetic feel for what needs to be done. I have no doubt that many men have felt threatened by the growing presences of women in the workforce. Some would blame women for their own lack of success. However, what we do have to recognize is that women in the workforce will not go away. It's a piece of social change that's permanent, and we have to accept that. Ed Weick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:44 PM Subject: [Futurework] Feminisation of jobs (was: Two predominant trends) > Ed, > > I've snipped some paragraphs from your latest posting. This is the bit > where we are discussing the declining family size in all western countries. > (I guess this must be so among indigenous parents in America, too, but > overlaid by higher immigrant birth rates): > > > At 16:35 27/08/2003 -0400, you wrote: > > (KH) > <<<< > But of course -- parents have been having far fewer children for selfish > motives (and also children have become more difficult to raise for all > sorts of reasons). > >>>> > > (EW) > <<<< > Selfishness may be one way to characterize it. In medieval times and until > quite recently people had lots of children because they knew some would die > but enough might survive to provide family support. > > [snip] > > Nowadays, people don't have many kids because there is no need to have many > kids, and they look after them far better. A substantial workforce has > emerge around an abundance of quality daycare, freeing parents to get on > with their lives. > > But, I would also suggest that people are having fewer kids because the > economic slots (jobs) into which those kids might be fitted as adults have > decreased or become filled up. When I left university with an undergrad > degree in the late 1950s, I had six firm and good job offers in hand. It is > now probable that fewer than one in six grads has a job offer in hand. > > This may change as the baby boomers begin to retire. This will happen soon > and replacements will be needed. > >>>> > > I agree with what you've written above edcept for the last paragraph. With > the present "job-less growth" going on in the US right now, I somehow don't > think the replacement effect is going to occur. > > It's occurred to me in the last day or two that the principal reason why > the birth rate is declining steeply in the western developed countries is > the increasing feminisation of jobs. > > Boys are doing worse than girls at every age at school. They are still > slightly ahead at university level but girls are fast closing the gap > there, too. Jobs are being increasingly dominated by women and typical > men's jobs are declining. (Where there are many openings in the caring > professions, males are very disinclined to take them -- the percentage in > nursing, for example, has hardly altered in years.) Males are failing at > both school and at work. Because there are fewer marriagable males from > which the females choose their partners, their failure is showing up in > crime as well as unemployment figures. The economic change is highlighting > the profound genetic differences between males and females. > > I think there's a double whammy effect happening here. Because of the > changing nature of jobs, there are more unmarriagable males, but because > more females are getting into the higher ranges of organisations they are > also going to be more discriminating as to which among the marriagable > males they are going to choose. > > The future of males will be increasingly precarious -- particularly of > those with anything less than average IQ. Because of the narrow-focus > nature of the male brain, no doubt most entrepreneurs will still be males > (though females will be needed to manage them properly once the businesses > are established), and they'll probably continue to dominate sports, car > mechanics, plumbing and fire-fighting -- and will be increasingly filling > the prisons. But, really, it looks pretty grim. > > In England, there is an increasing shortage of small houses and flats > suitable for single people. And by far the main demand comes from females > in their 20s and 30s with jobs. Many of the males in their age group are > either unemployed or too incompetent to look after themselves so they're > staying at home with Mom. (The last phenomenon is already significant in > two of the countries which have had the steepest decline in birth rate, > Italy and Japan -- and the Moms are getting cheesed off about this in both > countries!) > > Keith Hudson > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England, > <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
