UK: The future is female, job figures show

Thats fine, we have been lectured to this unconsciously for a long time, w/e. Now can we have some initiative to help boys stay in school, attend college, actually give a crap that guys need to learn differently, get guys into nursing, teaching and get rid of the female only scholarships?

I work for an organization that basically exists solely to provide employment for women (well, and french Canadians). The work is puerile and largely unnecessary. Meetings are fucking painful listening to the endless idle chatter. Women are great at acting like big-shots, but in the end, to them work is less about productivity than it is about providing them with an excuse to prance around in expensive clothes.
I doubt that the future is actually female. Once enough women are in the system, it will become clear that men need to be hired to get things done.

"an excuse to prance around in expensive clothes."
________________________

Ha! That is so true. I worked in the newspaper business for some 20 years and we had a female managing editor who would change her outfit three times throughout the day - mid-morning, early afternoon, and evening. Everything was about making an impression, looking good with the latest fashions. She was very good at getting others to do her work. She spent most of the day chatting with the male boss and horsing around with other men, if you know what I mean. Despicable b***h. If the genders were reversed, "he" would have been out of there long ago.

The only jobs women may be taking over are the white collar jobs, that's it. Women need their power suits, idle chit-chat, A/C, and hour lunches.

regards,
MAJ

And yet here we still have 'positive' discrimination against men in the work place. Personally I think this article's rubbish, I've heard attacks on male skills such as mathematics and such becoming 'redundant' but actually male dominated professions are simply expanding, particularly in the technology sector.

Years ago now, I remember my ex reading a book, and telling me how great it was. I made the mistake of asking her what it was about - sorry, have no clue re title or author.

The book was a sci-fi, set in a future where women ruled the cities, and men lived wild as pretty much cavemen. Basically, she explained with glee, it had started with women getting better at school, and then taking all the top jobs. But since they needed men to actually do all the 'heavy stuff', boys were pushed into manual jobs - which then meant they didn't actually need any schooling at all. Finally, the women had automated everything and no longer needed the guys around except for sex - so they kicked them out of the cities and then just rounded them up for playthings when they wanted them.

Steamed me up a bit when she told me, and I made a point of losing the book when we next moved flats - but all of a sudden it doesn't sound quite so sci-fi...

manonthestreet

I think all these 'studies/comments" relate only to Western Europe and the USA. There will be many places in the world where this is not true. May be this will be the cancer which destroys western society. I for one hope so.

I liked GaryB's story. I think there is no doubt that women do want to displace men and drive us out. I think they do this all the time in small ways.

There is also another phenomena work here I think. Take for example barbers. When I was a child all the barbers where men. Then women started to move in and the men moved out. So now there are very few male barbers(at least in the UK). The point is as women move in men move out.

They were trained better in schools that completely cater to their learning styles. Most of the teachers were female and could teach on their "wavelength." They were favored over men in college scholarships and loans. Colleges had hundreds of student groups that had the words "Women in" in the title to help pad their resume and build leadership skills (as well as join the gender-neutral groups with the guys).

In the workforce, they can attend women-only meetings to help build their skill-set while the men had to fend for themselves (or attend groups that women could attend as well). They are free to discriminate and hire women over men to help out their struggling sistas. If the government had its way, they would get paid more for working less hours, less dangerous jobs, and taking more vacations (while men get paid less and taxed more).

Women live longer with the help of more tax dollars devoted to their well-being (paid mostly by men). They go home and watch TV that mostly caters to them. That should help morale just a bit, right?

In 1992, there was an article in the scientific journal Nature that predicted the athletic performance of women would surpass that of men by 1998. The article focused on events such as running, and made front page news around the country. Well, it didn't happen. Come 1998, just like 2008, men still out performed women by the same margin as they did in 1992. Politically correct drivel.

Women will not dominate men in the workforce. As a group, they don't want to. Women want options and flexible schedules. In white collar jobs, the average woman is not willing to put in the same number of hours as the average man. In blue collar jobs, the average woman is not willing to do the grunge that men do. Again, politically correct drivel.

A big piece of this, which they are not discussing, and I hate to sound like a broken record here, is the birth-sex ratio skew that has emerged these past 20 years. If on average and given death rates favoring females (in terms of survival), for every 2 boys, 3 girls are born, and if for every 20 females who make it to adulthood, say only 17 males do, then after a few iterations of this cycle (a cycle being once every 20-25 years, with intervening years being averaged in), the gender distribution is going to skew heavily toward females.

In 100 years, starting at parity, do the math:

1) 4 "cycles" of births [assuming a starting point of people aged 0 and assuming they reproduce at age 20~25; this is not fact since in a given year, there are people of all ages ranging from 0 to 25, so each year there is a new set of births. To make it more complicated, the "years" roll, as births happen every day. But we know this already :) Still, we are working in each year in the figures, remembering that populations are less simple equations and more like calculus-style functions. I am sure the actual projections by gov't sources vary from this one, but bear in mind I am trying to illustrate a point here more than anything else.]

2) For each person, assume 2 children are produced (we are talking the world here, not just the west)

3) Now assume that of 10 children then, 6 are girls and 4 are boys. This is the skew I am talking about.

4) Now assume that of 20 boys, 17 make it to adulthood, while of 20 girls, all do (this is for statistical purposes we're talking about here; the death rate for girls is normalized as compared with boys, and so of 20 females alive, 17 males remain).

Here goes:

CYCLE ONE:
2010 starts with:
6 billion people (this is low, I know; probably more like 8 billion people by then) --producing-->
12 billion people
--> Production Breakout:
12 billion people -> 6.6 billion females & 5.4 billion males

Adjust for early male deaths; females stay fixed relative to males, for argument's sake.
(17/20) x 5.4 billion = 4.6 billion males

Cycle one ends at:
6.6 billion females and 4.6 billion males

CYCLE TWO:
2035 starts with:
11.2 billion people --producing-->
22.4 billion people
--> Production Breakout:
13.44 billion females & 9 billion males

Adjust males relative to females due to early deaths:
(17/20) x 9.6 billion = 7.65 billion males

Cycle two ends at:
13.44 billion females and 7.65 billion males

CYCLE THREE:
2060 starts with:
21 billion people --producing-->
42 billion people
--> Production Breakout:
25.2 billion females & 16.8 billion males

Adjust males relative to females due to early deaths:
(17/20) x 16.8 billion males = 14.3 billion males

Cycle three ends at:
25.2 billion females and 14.3 billion males

CYCLE FOUR:
2085 starts with:
39.5 billion people --producing-->
79 billion people
--> Production Breakout:
47.4 billion females & 31.6 billion males

Adjust males relative to females due to early deaths:
(17/20) x 31.6 billion males = 26.86 billion males

Cycle four ends at:
47.4 billion females and 26.86 billion males

So by 2100, we have a sex ratio of 56:100, M:F. That is quite a jump from the near-1:1 that we start with in 2010. [Actually it is more like 1:1.1 or 1:1.2 we will be at in 2010.]

These are worldwide figures I am using. If you go to parts of the world, you will find many more girls v. boys (big parts of N. America, for example), or many more boys v. girls (Middle east, China) exist. And as we know, one sees news reports about the places where boys outnumber girls but not vice-versa. Nonetheless, the trend is clear.

Perhaps the reason the work world looks like women will be running it utterly is because they will simply outnumber men by almost 2 to 1 in 100 years. Maybe then we'll see a movement to reduce "female dominance" in the workplace? Fat chance! :)

manonthestreet

This might be so but you are assuming that the process in a geometric progression. This is probably not the case. There are mechanisms at work which will stabilize the situation. Though I take your point that women will outnumber men. Whatever the difference in numbers the situation will be amplified by social restraints which will continue to shackle men.

Oh yeah, this is far from a perfect illustration-- way far. But it's just an illustration; the next 100 years could bring all sorts of weird things that would affect this. Reproduction is limited by resources, wars could have disproportionate casualties for whatever reasons, etc. But the trend is what's important in the sense that if it is 300 years before humanity is 2:1 F:M, it really doesn't matter in that it will happen and as long as the trend continues, we'll get to that place eventually. 100 years, 200, 300-- you and I will be long planted by 2100 anyway. It's just that while 2100, 2200, 2300, all seem far off, remember that it was only 300 years ago that is was 1708. And heck, I remember that year like it was yesterday! :)

P.S. I'm mcc99, not manonthestreet. ;)

manonthestreet

Yes I was not arguing with the trend. It is also important to remember that whatever the final destination we- those who are alive today - will suffer the pre-shocks of this trend. I have sort of taken the route of 'eat,drink and be merry for tomorrow we die'.

Anyone who reads my many post here will soon realise that I am one who feels the female is instinctively destructive of maleness. Have a look at my film:- http://uk.youtube.com/user/mooseman33

It more or less sums up what I see as the future. Give it a look mcc99 it will only detain you for less than 5 minutes.