Ed Weick wrote:

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

There were no tmany women strong enough to be a surgeon before anesthetics. On a PBS show, they had a surgeon doing an amputation. He(sic) had an assistant with a stop watch. Assstant: "One minute thirty seven seconds." Surgeon: "Would, for Mr. [X] it had been quicker." The patient was dead.

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.


Anybody want to guess who would win a real estate deal pitting
Leona against The Donald?h


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.

Leona?



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.

There's the cliche that if we could just get men to bear children.... (How many would you give birth to, Ed, esp. if you hazve a narrow pelvis and it's befor anesthetics and antiseptic surgery?

Cheers!

\brad mccormick


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



--
  Let your light so shine before men,
              that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)

<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to