TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A New Female Order

A New Female Order

A recent article in Foreign Policy predicts that we are witnessing a global redistribution of power - not between rich and poor, but among men and women. The author points out that the two sectors of the economy most hit by the global recession are traditionally male-dominated - housing and finance. Construction jobs are melting away particularly quickly in the West, and global finance centers aren't faring any better. Wall Street is projected to lose 46,000 jobs and $70 billion by the beginning of 2010, the stock market in Dubai has already lost something like 70% of its value and Hong Kong 50%, and 25,000 jobs have been lost between Tokyo and London's main trading institutions. In the United States, 80% of those laid off since October 2008 have been men. That trend is true also in Europe, and it will likely continue.

In addition, the continuing trend among Western states to decrease relative defense spending as a proportion of total state spending is going to place emphasis on other more social segments of the economy. As defense, construction, and finance all struggle, sectors like education and health care face a resurgence of importance. Rather than explicitly targeting shovel-ready construction and infrastructure projects, a great deal of the stimulus went towards down-paying investments in health care, green technology, and education initiatives. With over 70% of health care professionals already female, the hypothesis of the article immediately becomes apparent.

The implications of this shift are many - the author terms the phenomenon "the death of macho" - but the biggest impact will be on the nuclear family, as more women become breadwinners, and more men share the burden of raising children. Another implication is empowerment - many Western countries have already turned the reigns over to females to govern - since 2008, both Lithuania and Iceland made the change, prompting newspaper headlines akin to "Iceland turns to a woman for a change."

Though the developing world is not seeing this shift on the same level, the author argues that it is one that looms on the horizon. Regimes like China purposefully craft policy that will preserve the male-dominated hegemony, but in the long run may cause more damage than anything - 90% of the Chinese stimulus package goes directly toward infrastructure projects (though it is hard to argue that China does not need them).

Any global shift is not without danger, and one outcome of global empowerment of women is obviously conflict. In fact, the article argues that future international conflict will not be ideological or civilizational, but motivated primarily by gender realignment. This author has already stated that the War on Terror represents a manifestation of the tension between states where women are empowered and ideologies that would deny them that empowerment.

It's an interesting perspective, and well worth the read:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl..._death_of_macho

Domestic violence is up though, so no worries.

I always thought that having more women in power would be of great benefit for the world.

Wonder who the first female dictator will be..

Apparently this shift is already starting to play out, in Australia at least:

quote:

WOMEN are the surprise winners from the changes that have flowed from the global financial crisis, with the latest jobs figures showing that female employment has been climbing at a time when male employment has been sliding. In the first six months of this year an extra 25,800 women have found jobs at a time when the number of men with jobs has fallen by 56,400. And the extra jobs for women are not � as widely believed � part-time. Trend figures produced by the Bureau of Statistics show that the number of women employed full-time has climbed 26,500 over the course of this year while the number of men employed full-time has fallen by almost 100,000. Asked why he thinks women should be doing well at a time when men are suffering, Melbourne Institute labour economist Mark Wooden said the male story was a "classical downturn story". "The female story, on the other hand, is completely bizarre," he added. "The only explanation I can come up with is that the industries that are continuing to do well are those that employ women." An examination of industry trends reveals that employment has been growing in the fields of health care, social administration and arts and recreation while shrinking in the fields of mining, manufacturing and real estate, lending weight to Professor Wooden's suspicions.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/w...90709-dep7.html

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Wonder who the first female dictator will be..

Already been a few if you count queens. This is the kind of thing we can probably expect to see:

quote:

Catherine, throughout her long reign, took many lovers, often elevating them to high positions for as long as they held her interest, and then pensioning them off with large estates and gifts of serfs. After her affair with her lover and capable adviser Grigori Alexandrovich Potemkin ended in 1776, he would allegedly select a candidate-lover for her who had both the physical beauty as well as the mental faculties to hold Catherine's interest (such as Alexander Dmitriev-Mamonov). Some of these men loved her in return, and she always showed generosity towards her lovers, even after the end of an affair. One of her lovers, Zavadovsky, received 50,000 rubles, a pension of 5,000 rubles, and 4,000 peasants in the Ukraine after she dismissed him.[5] The last of her lovers, Prince Zubov, 40 years her junior, proved the most capricious and extravagant of them all.

quote:

Several stories about the circumstances of her death at the age of 67 probably originated soon after. A common story states that she died as a result of her voracious sexual appetite while attempting sexual intercourse with a stallion - the story holds that the harness broke and she was crushed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_great



(j/k - we really do need more chicks in power.)

quote:

Originally posted by secked Domestic violence is up though, so no worries.

That's actually included in the article as well - men who put particularly important stock in their "macho" identity will increasingly backlash against the changing norm. The hypothesis is that there will be two categories of men - those that can adapt to a world in which women have a larger stake of control, and those that will be bitter about the relative decline of "manly" characteristics as positive. That latter group may have a high propensity for violence to maintain the status quo, just as those who weren't able to relinquish the empowered status of whites had in the civil rights movement here in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov A recent article in Foreign Policy predicts that we are witnessing a global redistribution of power - not between rich and poor, but among men and women.

I think this sentence perfectly illustrates the most immediately apparent flaw in the article's reasoning. Power is largely consolidated in the hands of the few, and those few are generally not rank-and-file workers in any industry.

Thus, there is no reason to expect that the distributon of power will track shifting employment trends. Just how much power does the author think those laid off construction workers really had as a result of their employment? I won't say it's "none," but at best it's on the scale of moving a few pebbles around when the real issue is plate tectonics.

That is not to say that I don't expect to see women making gains in power, but that trend is not new, and I do not expect that it will be substantially affected by more women working in mediocre jobs and supporting families rather than men working mediocre jobs and supporting their families.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Wonder who the first female dictator will be..

Your wife.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I always thought that having more women in power would be of great benefit for the world.

What makes you think that it will be a good thing?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I always thought that having more women in power would be of great benefit for the world.

Get the fark outta here!

Have you ever had a female boss? Quite different to their male counterparts.

Everything is taken personally.

quote:

Originally posted by Lemonad Get the fark outta here! Have you ever had a female boss? Quite different to their male counterparts. Everything is taken personally.

...and there would be intense negotiations every 28 days...

give'em whatever they want. all of it.

trust me, after a while they won't want it anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think this sentence perfectly illustrates the most immediately apparent flaw in the article's reasoning. Power is largely consolidated in the hands of the few, and those few are generally not rank-and-file workers in any industry. Thus, there is no reason to expect that the distributon of power will track shifting employment trends. Just how much power does the author think those laid off construction workers really had as a result of their employment? I won't say it's "none," but at best it's on the scale of moving a few pebbles around when the real issue is plate tectonics. That is not to say that I don't expect to see women making gains in power, but that trend is not new, and I do not expect that it will be substantially affected by more women working in mediocre jobs and supporting families rather than men working mediocre jobs and supporting their families.

I agree with this. I think I even made a similar point in my dissertation.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I always thought that having more women in power would be of great benefit for the world.

LOL, and then guys like yourself wonder why you never get laid?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think this sentence perfectly illustrates the most immediately apparent flaw in the article's reasoning. Power is largely consolidated in the hands of the few, and those few are generally not rank-and-file workers in any industry. Thus, there is no reason to expect that the distributon of power will track shifting employment trends. Just how much power does the author think those laid off construction workers really had as a result of their employment? I won't say it's "none," but at best it's on the scale of moving a few pebbles around when the real issue is plate tectonics. That is not to say that I don't expect to see women making gains in power, but that trend is not new, and I do not expect that it will be substantially affected by more women working in mediocre jobs and supporting families rather than men working mediocre jobs and supporting their families.

Agreed, I've gone from finding the weak and feeble modern male archetype (or lack of) [who tend to be apologetic about their genetic make up and differences] from annoying to ridiculously hilarious. If some one castrates you, that's fucked up and not terribly funny. If you choose to castrate yourself due to (in most probability due to some lingering cultural guilt complex, and being too stupid to realize it doesn't apply to you), it a gets harder to sympathize with that and you can't help at least getting a smirk out of it.

Remember, all conventional ideas and values, especially if they bring about social stability = BAD! I mean... the nerve to be concerned about interests other than your own! That's fucked up yo! Everyone should be a petty insecure neurotic maniac only interested at increasing their individual "self interest" regardless of it's consequences or social cost. What kind of numbskull would consider the the interests of society as whole, only a sadomasochistic commy that hates women! That's right, if you consider yourself to be a self respecting male, that's probably just code for you hating women! You know, Marx was a MALE and a COMMY, so you're probably a backwards sadomasochistic commy like UNKLE Marx who despises women!

It's been a while since I've witnessed the further decline or PDD and TA in general, but Arbiter is probably one of the last voices of reason left amongst a buch of stupid neanderthal monkeys, at least when it comes to most threads. Why do you continue to torture yourself Arbiter? Does work allow for plentiful time wasting on the net or something?

On a more serious note, did it ever occur to some of you self depreciating morons that crazy second wave types could actually hate the female archetype, perhaps even more than they hate the male archetype? If it hurts your head to much, don't worry. You're already fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's been a while since I've witnessed the further decline or PDD and TA in general, but Arbiter is probably one of the last voices of reason left amongst a buch of stupid neanderthal monkeys, at least when it comes to most threads.

And your vitriol adds so much awesomeness to the PDD!

Last time you quoted arbiter I remember you crying that he didn�t love the Palestinians the same way you did. So which is it?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN And your vitriol adds so much awesomeness to the PDD!

Well, in case you didn't notice, the tone of my post was half serious and a lot of playful sarcasm. You of all people should complain about it right PKC ?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Last time you quoted arbiter I remember you crying that he didn�t love the Palestinians the same way you did. So which is it?

I don't "love the palestinians." I just don't see them as sub-human animals deserving a 'life' of misery and degradation for being non-Jewish Arabs / semites indigenous to the region that must be removed by any means to appease a colonial agressor and superficial nation state (aka Israel).

I certainly don't think a state "in the name" of the Jewish people should be exempt from international law or it's military has carte blanche to disregard human rights and basic humane treatment being at the digression of stupid IDF grunts.

I know, through experience now, that a basic fundamental assumption that we assume true for most human being some reason is extremely hard to associate with Arabs. I guess you have to be part Arab to have this strange 'biased' notion of Arabs being human too? So I don't expect people to be able grasp an 'odd' concept like that doesn't mesh so well with the collective sub-conscience in 'the West' for lack of a better term.

Moving on, I used to hold certain people to higher standards which was perhaps foolish, either way, I don't anymore. But that doesn't mean I can't commend someone for their more redeeming qualities now does it ?

Re: A New Female Order

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov A recent article in Foreign Policy predicts that we are witnessing a global redistribution of power - not between rich and poor, but among men and women. The author points out that the two sectors of the economy most hit by the global recession are traditionally male-dominated - housing and finance.

Men get hit harder in the back pocket when it comes to finances by being the bigger risk taker in their investments. I'll try not to just throw a blanket over the following to lump every male investor under the same statement. Years ago I read a survey by MLIM (and I'm damned if I can remember where I put it...) observed that most men will invest in a volatile, high risk, high gain market to make the most out of their time. Course the downside of playing with that is you're often overlooking the fact that its a high risk, high loss market and for everyone that wins, someone will be losing.
Its a hard thing to swallow when you're stuck on a loser and to some extent personal pride will see them ride that sucker into the ground rather than ever admit they made a mistake. So they go hurling big chunks of money at things like technology shares, mining and so forth which peaks high and plummets just as fast, often picking up their tips from word of mouth, rumours and so on without as much research, time and patience.

The other side of the equation here, women research heavily, observe trends and put it into areas which are much more financially conservative over a broader portfolio and if they're going to take advice, they'll do it from a professional rather than their mates like a betting tip. Course the downside of all this is that women will be joining into something that is booming and going to make them some big money, much later than the boys do.

These are just studies of the personality archetype/stereotype across the gender spectrum rather than any specific individuals, its entirely possible for boys and girls to be playing in each other's traditional finance games and do well at them.
I don't really amount that to emasculation so I'll disagree with the article overall as he's not really fronting up a lot of hard facts, and finishing with some 'hard words' for impact, that it's going to be a war of hearts and minds rubbish.

Finance, it's just two different ways of doing things and there's a preference for one gender doing the opposite of the other
Heck, you can go broke betting on slow and steady stuff just as easily as you can punting on the horses so to speak, one just takes longer...

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano Your wife.

HA - isn't that the truth!

quote:

Originally posted by Lemonad Everything is taken personally.

word - that's precisely why it sucks. plus, they take away the fun of playful bantor in the workplace (for the most part - however, the girl sitting next to me can take some nasty distasteful jokes and dish some right back).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think this sentence perfectly illustrates the most immediately apparent flaw in the article's reasoning. Power is largely consolidated in the hands of the few, and those few are generally not rank-and-file workers in any industry. Thus, there is no reason to expect that the distributon of power will track shifting employment trends. Just how much power does the author think those laid off construction workers really had as a result of their employment? I won't say it's "none," but at best it's on the scale of moving a few pebbles around when the real issue is plate tectonics. That is not to say that I don't expect to see women making gains in power, but that trend is not new, and I do not expect that it will be substantially affected by more women working in mediocre jobs and supporting families rather than men working mediocre jobs and supporting their families.

Your point is taken, but I think the point was that micro changes in family structure and the workplace can lead to changes in the society overall over time. My wording may have been poor when I described the trend as a redistribution of power (I admit, I chose that to rankle the conservative instincts of a few members), but I don't think you can discount so easily the statistics Renegade posted, for instance. With men losing jobs at a fast clip and women on the whole gaining (especially in relative terms), the role of women in both the workplace and in the home is changing. With a change in the perceived role of women and their stake in societal functions will come greater integration in other societal roles, including governance and decision-making.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Your point is taken, but I think the point was that micro changes in family structure and the workplace can lead to changes in the society overall over time. My wording may have been poor when I described the trend as a redistribution of power (I admit, I chose that to rankle the conservative instincts of a few members), but I don't think you can discount so easily the statistics Renegade posted, for instance. With men losing jobs at a fast clip and women on the whole gaining (especially in relative terms), the role of women in both the workplace and in the home is changing. With a change in the perceived role of women and their stake in societal functions will come greater integration in other societal roles, including governance and decision-making.

It's certainly true that changes in family structure and the workplace can lead to broader social changes, but it is extremely simplistic to think that the result of women's changing role in the home will be a generalized increase in the influence of women in other social contexts. While that's certainly possible, it seems at best highly speculative at this point.

For that matter, to the extent that women's current relative success in employment is a function of relatively higher demand for the services of industries that have traditionally employed a comparatively high number of women, the current trends may as a factual matter not even reflect the sort of small-scale change that's being proposed. Furthermore, although the statistics Renegade posted are certainly interesting, that shift represents the aggregate of six months and still does not amount to even 1% of the Australian workforce. Does anyone really expect the market pressures responsible for those figures to persist for the years--perhaps decades--that would be required to effect any sweeping changes?

I think this topic is interesting (I wouldn't have posted, otherwise), but it seems to me that the article is essentially relying on short term economic trends in a period of substantial economic instability, then assuming that the trends will spark particular other changes at some indeterminate point in the future. That doesn't sound like a recipe for reliability. Let me put it this way: if this article were suggesting I make a long-term investment on the basis of these predictions and I, as an investor, decided to follow the suggestion, then I think I would be taking a risk much greater than the vast majority of those investment risks that backfired and put our economy where it is now.

All the recent mini-recession did was wake a lot of people up out of their comparative complacency about how the world works economically and will probably have blown over and mostly forgotten about by this time next year by the majority. I'd imagine the employment market will be still staggering to its feet for maybe 1-2 years after, but essentially it has none of the impact of the great depression era which went on for much longer and gave rise to the 'character' of the 20th century in terms of those that survived it financially. The ramifications of that followed up quickly by WW2 shaped us as a society in the westernised world.

All we got was a two year financial bump on the head and police actions in the middle east for the last decade which fundamentally did nothing for all the money spent and needless deaths they caused.
The smarter people will use it as a learning lesson and be become better for it, the dumb ones will continue their myopic practice of short-term forecasting on current trends.

TL: DR version- nothings changed really and its relevance to societies investment practice 20 years from now will be a footnote in history.

I did find the article I was talking about in my first post too-

Merrill Lynch Investment Managers (MLIM) Survey Finds: When It Comes to Investing, Gender a Strong Influence on Behavior

Its old (2005) but I think its still relevant. Time change, people don't.

Do you think that pay grades being lower for women have anything to do with this? Could there indeed be an incentive to hire more women because they often earn less than men?

Not saying this is a good or bad thing, just stating that there is a usually difference between men and women doing the same job.

If women ruled the world, we'd all already be nuked.

Just what we need... Brrrriiiinnng! "Hello? Oh hey Marge... Ya... Uh huh... Presidenta of Russia? Ya I know her... She said WHAT about my eyeliner?! Launch that bitch!"

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.