[Samurai]

I watch K-dramas once in a while, and I am amazed by the high quality of living conditions and production/technical quality of their shows. But it hides the immense cost they are paying for that success.

What cost is acceptable for achieving economic success?

https://youtu.be/JCnvVaXEh3Y

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

A recent Franklin Templeton newsletter also made a case for investing in the Japanese stock market, making more or less the same points.

Nikkei has given a 33% return in the last 1 year.

More on the resurgence of the Japanese stock market from today's Times of India

[Samurai]

https://youtu.be/9RUmRYpmqfQ

[dragracer567]

Interesting and balanced video that takes into account, the hype around India Inc. these days while being upfront about the challenges.

One of the comments under this video caught my eye: "India disappoints both optimists & pessimists"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UYK...omicsExplained

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Interesting and balanced video that takes into account, the hype around India Inc. these days while being upfront about the challenges.

Good one. The optimism is real and the challenges can be overcome with earnest effort I suppose.

It was interesting they called out the low labor force participation, especially the participation from women.

I recalled listening to a podcast/interview with Alice Evans, where they explain the rise of China through their love of money, their increasing emphasis on wealth and their Lunar New Year's celebration's focus on monetary gain. She highlights the connection between female employment and rise in economic prosperity. You can listen to it here.


Her views can be considered to be controversial by some when she says things like, "I call this “The Honour-Income Trade-Off”. Families may then be caught in what I call “The Patrilocal Trap”: daughters are socialised to get married, stay put, and avoid unrelated men."

However, she does point us to a study by Suhani Jalota and Lisa Ho. The conclusion from their Mumbai study was interesting and I could relate to it. You read about it here or listen to the podcast (Why is female employment low in India?) here.

I mean, take the WFH thread or the threads where discussions are about the State providing free/subsidized public transport to women. People don't give enough thought about how much these small but significant things empower women and consequentially improves productivity and prosperity.

[JediKnight]

Very interesting take on how the economy is especially oppressive for young people. Though the talk is on the US economy but similar trends are emerging in richer parts of India.

• Every economic policy designed to transfer wealth from workers (young people) to asset owners(old people).
  
• Average housing cost pre-pandemic 2,90,000 USD in just four years it is now 4,20,000 USD and interest rates have gone from 3 to 7%
  
• Many young people have given up saving for houses as it outside their reach.
  
• Many young are not marrying and having kids as it is unaffordable. 60% of people 30-34 in 1990 had one child now it is 27%
  
• Economy/education/housing weaponized by rich out of reach for majority of young people.
  
• People under the age of 40 are on average 24% less wealthy then they were 40 years ago. People over the age of 75 are 72% wealthier.
  
• Divorce reduces your wealth by 60% overnight. This is a serious issue in developed countries where divorce rates are very high. E.g. US divorce rate is around 50%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdbP30_kNk

[Jeroen]

The one thing keeping more women from working is men! It is that simple.

Many modern, emancipated, men are fine with women working. But that is not enough. You need to also actually step in a help out with the traditional women responsibilities in and around the house, children looking after family. That needs to be splitted as well.

When you look at these countries with high percentage of women working you will still find that those working women still spend more time doing household chores, looking after the children, family and so on.

Many have it easy. All they have to do is work. Everything else is taken care of by their wife’s. Even if those wife’s are working and pursuing a career too.

Make a few checks in your own surrounding. When one of your children falls ill at school. Who gets called, the father or the mother irrespective of who is working?

When somebody in the immediate family falls sick, who is it that will spend time helping out?

Here is an interesting example. My next door neighbour Hugo suffered from a brain haemorrhage. He is 82, has gone blind, his short term memory is badly affected. Who do you think is looking after him, visiting him, arranging all kinds of practical things? The women of our village. All of them have jobs, only a few of the husband have helped out.

Jeroen

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The one thing keeping more women from working is men! It is that simple.

No, it is not that simple. For someone from patriarchal society, it may appear like a simple truth. But you need to consider what usually happened when power is on the other side.

I belong to a matrilineal community, where women inherited all the property, and men got nothing. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 changed the legal status of this inheritance, making it equal for men and women. However, the old rules were still applicable to disputes raised until the end of 20th century. For example, there was a property dispute case regards to my great-grandmother's property [note: not great-grandfather's], which was filed in 1998, and finally ended in 2016. She had 3 daughters and 1 son. The son's family got 2.8% of the property according to the old rules, and not 25% as one would expect based on new rules.

Even in the families that don't go to court, daughters still get the lion share of the property. The sons usually don't mind because it is the community tradition, it is considered quite shameful to demand equal share as sisters as the law mandates. The matrilineality is quite common in Kerala too, but I am not sure how they practice it now.

How does the above information matter to the question at hand? Economic power entirely shifts the power dynamics within the family. Women in such communities never let men decide their fate. Husbands and sons don't get to decide unilaterally on any important decision unless the wife or mom allows. I have been at the receiving end of this all my life.

But this doesn't mean women in matriarchal societies were all like Xena the warrior princess. Biology matters. Dangerous jobs or jobs that need extended time away from home were mostly handled by men with no economic power. In this respect, it was not different than patriarchal society, because biology doesn't change.

Let me quote a professional from Psychology Today:

Of the individuals who work in the four most dangerous jobs, more than 90% are men. Consequently, across all occupations, men are much more likely than women to be killed on the job. In 2017, for example, 4,761 men were killed at their workplace, compared to just 386 women. The fatality rate for men that year—5.7 deaths per 100,000 workers—was nearly 10 times greater than the fatality rate for women, 0.6 per 100,000 (DeVore, 2018).

When I was in engineering college in the 80s, one could see highly skewed gender ratio across branches. While computer science and electronics branches had equal or more girls than boys, the mechanical and civil branches had 95:5 or even higher skew favoring boys. Why did this happen?

Why did women's share in labour participation dramatically start rising in 20th century and continues increase even now? Because most jobs created in 20th century and later were indoor jobs, which made biological differences lot less relevant while doing those jobs. This explains the skew in engineering branches.

Why most pediatricians, caretakers and kindergarten teachers are women? Because these are emotional work, and women gravitate towards such professions. Meanwhile most surgeons are men, because you don't need to emote with your customers. I have male surgeon friends who casually mention they did 6-8 surgeries that day, there is no emotional attachment.

Iceland is THE most gender equal country. How are jobs distributed across industry there?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...dustry-gender/

Let's look at the 3 industries with high skew, marked in red. It that patriarchy at work?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why most pediatricians, caretakers and kindergarten teachers are women? Because these are emotional work, and women gravitate towards such professions. Meanwhile most surgeons are men, because you don't need to emote with your customers. I have male surgeon friends who casually mention they did 6-8 surgeries that day, there is no emotional attachment.

Originally Posted by Samurai

. It that patriarchy at work?]

Your earlier statement on women is the answer to your own question about patriarchy. My opinion of course, but you have a different view on women than I do.

And a different view on what conclusions you can draw from these statistics. You also need to think through to what extent some of this behaviour ((e.g. unemotional surgeons) is due to biological difference or merely a result of conditioning. Little boys are taught be tough? So they become men who don’t show emotions. Same with girls and women. Society puts a lot of assumptions on both sexes to date. A lot of what you see in these stats are a result of conditioning and expectations.

You really need to look into why women gravitate to some of these jobs. And it is much more complicated than it being emotional work. One of the reasons is that they end up in jobs that can be done easily part time and have more or less fixed hours. Because when a woman works is done, there are still kids to look after, washing to be done, house to be cleaned.

As long as men pull their weight in that sort of domestic and family orientated activities you are likely to see them ending up in different job categories.

About most surgeon being men. That is changing in many countries. Although it is still a male dominated area as they say. Probably partly because of my earlier point. Being a surgeon is an extremely busy job with very long hours. Difficult to combine with raising kids and running a household.

In paediatric surgery in some countries female surgeons rate is about 40%.

What is true that surgical instruments were made for men! On average men’s hands are bigger and stronger. So again, women as a species were completely ignored!

What is also interesting to note: there are many studies conducted showing female surgeons to be better than their male counterparts! Female surgeries patient show lower rates of post operative complications, shorter stay in hospital and so on.

Female surgeons make more patient centric decisions than male surgeons. The list goes on. But there is probably something to be said for a surgeon with emotional and empathy skills. Give me a female doctor / surgeon over a male one anytime! Unfortunately I had to meet an endless strings of all kinds of doctors these last few years. So my personal preference is finely tuned!

Jeroen

[Jeroen]

Just to add to my previous post. Iceland is often referred to as the most gender equality society. Which is probably true in terms of formal rules and regulations and some other aspects too.

But when it comes to looking after the kids and household chores, a different Iceland emerges.

Gender researchers and psychologists believe there is still a long way to go to achieve gender equality at home.

https://www.ruv.is/english/2023-10-0...c-homes-392896

What is very telling too, men have a very different perception on what they bring into the household and bringing up the kids. Shows they have no idea and even in Iceland a lot comes down to the women. So yes, very likely that has an impact on the jobs they chose. They are let down by their men!

Jeroen

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I belong to a matrilineal community, where women inherited all the property, and men got nothing. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 changed the legal status of this inheritance, making it equal for men and women. However, the old rules were still applicable to disputes raised until the end of 20th century. For example, there was a property dispute case regards to my great-grandmother's property [note: not great-grandfather's], which was filed in 1998, and finally ended in 2016. She had 3 daughters and 1 son. The son's family got 2.8% of the property according to the old rules, and not 25% as one would expect based on new rules.

Even in the families that don't go to court, daughters still get the lion share of the property. The sons usually don't mind because it is the community tradition, it is considered quite shameful to demand equal share as sisters as the law mandates. The matrilineality is quite common in Kerala too, but I am not sure how they practice it now.

Genuine Q - Do the men in your family (and others mentioned) take care of children across the years (especially the younger ages) while the women go to work (whatever profession they do)? i.e. more than the women do?

Do they men do more of the domestic household work in such matrilineal households as compared to their wives, sisters, etc.?

My assumption / understanding - they don't.

Believe there's a lot more weight in Jeroen's below point that cuts across matrilineal and patriarchal (/patrilineal) families. The outcome is that women even if given equal or greater opportunity in any profession and/or decision making, feel the burden to cater to the household duties much more than the man would.

Even in well-to-do families with a truckload of servants and support, it's generally the women of the household who pick up the management of those staff and own it. Atleast that's been my experience / observations.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You really need to look into why women gravitate to some of these jobs. And it is much more complicated than it being emotional work. One of the reasons is that they end up in jobs that can be done easily part time and have more or less fixed hours. Because when a woman works is done, there are still kids to look after, washing to be done, house to be cleaned.

As long as men pull their weight in that sort of domestic and family orientated activities you are likely to see them ending up in different job categories.

+ 100 to this.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Meanwhile most surgeons are men, because you don't need to emote with your customers. I have male surgeon friends who casually mention they did 6-8 surgeries that day, there is no emotional attachment.

Because of a surgeon in the family, I've interacted with a lot of surgeons, both male and female. It is true that the gender ratio is still skewed, but I really don't see the female surgeons get extra attached either. They are as matter-of-fact and clinical as their male counterparts. Their training over decades just makes them that way. It really has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of either gender (whatever those may be!), there are other factors for that skewed gender ratio.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

My opinion of course, but you have a different view on women than I do.

That's happening a lot these days, even defining women has become political. But I am firmly in the JK Rowling school of thought on this one.

Originally Posted by am1m

Because of a surgeon in the family, I've interacted with a lot of surgeons, both male and female. It is true that the gender ratio is still skewed, but I really don't see the female surgeons get extra attached either. They are as matter-of-fact and clinical as their male counterparts.

Thanks, this is the point I am trying to put across. Men do well in professions that don't need emotional attachment. Doesn't mean women can't do it. It is just that women gravitate more towards professions that need emotional attachment, while men avoid those.

I see this a lot in therapy field since my son is autistic and is under therapy since 15 years. About 95% of the behavioral therapists I encounter are women. Even clinical psychology faces similar gender imbalance.

https://www.centreformalepsychology....nder-imbalance

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

But when it comes to looking after the kids and household chores, a different Iceland emerges.

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

Genuine Q - Do the men in your family (and others mentioned) take care of children across the years (especially the younger ages) while the women go to work (whatever profession they do)? i.e. more than the women do?

My assumption / understanding - they don't.

This is the actual crux of the misunderstanding. That is why such questions are asked, to reach the predetermined answer.

Do you both believe men and women are same except for their reproductive functions? It is this belief that leads to accepting arguments of transactivists that a man who has surgical modified himself is a woman. JK Rowling school of thought doesn't believe in that. Men and women are different and are differently abled in different areas. Each have their spectrum, and there is some overlap too. In some areas women are better, and in some areas men are better. Some professions attract mostly men and some professions attract mostly women. Rest fall somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

Do they men do more of the domestic household work in such matrilineal households as compared to their wives, sisters, etc.?

Let's look at the real question you are asking. When the economic power flipped, did the traditional gender role flip? No, that is because biology did not flip. Women still give birth, have mensural cycles, menopause, etc., even in matrilineal communities. Economic power empowered women in matrilineal communities to be the primary decision makers, or at least have veto power. It did not change their biology or change their preference towards work, clothing, fashion, emotional requirements, etc.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

But when it comes to looking after the kids and household chores, a different Iceland emerges.

Thank you for this tidbit. This proves what I am trying to say, except you draw a very different inference. Men bad!!! But that doesn't make sense at all. If Iceland is the most gender equal society, why are Icelandic women putting up with this obvious oppression? Except... the Icelandic women want to play those traditional roles. When given the freedom to do anything, they still like to do those traditional roles. Shocking!!!

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Samurai

It is just that women gravitate more towards professions that need emotional attachment, while men avoid those.

Agree about the numbers and skewed gender ratios in these sort of professions, those are obvious. But the point I'm trying to make is that it has nothing to do with the need for or lack of emotional attachment or any other such gender-related attribute. There are other historic and social factors/norms that are the reason, and those differ by industry.

In the IT industry, I work in a field/department that traditionally had a very high percentage of women (after HR), when I started my career. I've had more women managers than male and I've even worked on a couple of teams where I was the sole guy. The reasons were mainly because it is non-coding, so most male engineering grads thought it was not worth their time, and so it was perceived as less lucrative and easier to get into. Over time, as it has become more lucrative and recognized as a career option, I've seen more men enter and nowadays, the gender ratios have balanced out.