Quote Originally Posted by Alex Bragi View Post
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion, Mad--that it's women's fault that tertiary education is becoming undervalued.

Here, in Australia, many women and now choosing to become tradespersons--and I use that terminology simply because many women are now choosing to become plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc..

Yes, I agree that "The financial value of a BA verses a trade school degree is on the way to inverting." But I think it has little to do with women per se.
Yes, I'd concur that the absolute value of a B.A. or an M.A. .- its power on its own to get you a well-paid job- has dropped a good deal from what it was forty years ago, and not just in the arts and letters departments but also at law school and some economics tertiary programmes¨.This has happened at the same time as women entered widely in those professions and as women academic staff became more common, but I don't think one is a consequence of the other. It's funny, sometimes I get to hear girls in feminist discussions saying flatly "when women enter a work field or a level of decision that used to be male-only, the power and the pay move elsewhere" as a given truth, and as if this power shift were something totally impersonal or a hidden conspiracy triggered by the men. And this is used as a means of bringing home "hey, we're still female victims, still powerless in a way: let's get at the men!".That's simplistic, it's nothing of the kind. And it's obvious that high-level female political people have never been as many, and as successful, as in the last twenty years..

Plainly I think power has become more spread-out, if you look closely at the realities of company bosses, military people, leading journalists and political people today - and others in leading positions - they are less in command than their predecessors: less able to decide things "all by themselves" from their rooms and stick to the decision, because they very often have to lean on someone else, in a hard way (actual decision making) or a soft one (information, permissions, media relations).

---
Now, this is a really interesting observation. I believe in some more forward thinking countries this problem is being addressed by men and women working shorter hours for the same hourly rate. What a great idea! Why should a man have to work 40 plus hours a week to come home too tired to enjoy his family? And, why should a woman be shackled to the home and not encouraged to use her intelligent and education?
I wish that was an appreciated idea here, but despite the fact that Sweden regularsly hits the top 5 on lists of "the most gender-equal countries in the world" the idea of pulling down on work hours in some phases of life, for women or men, is heavily resisted here; it's plainly passed off as a strategy for nobodies or commies. While everyone recognizes that working women have to pull a heavy burden as soon as they raise a family, because taking care of home and family is still so much a woman's "extra duty", the suggestion that this needs to be attacked by making it easier to work a bit less than full-time without the employer seeing you as second-rate or vaguely expendable is a no-no to many people in the debate here. Plainly you work 110% or you're seen as "not interested in your career" and putting some time aside to deal better with raising the kids isn't seen as an asset in your cv or working-life profile. Over time, this is not useful to either sex.