How Female Lawyers/Doctors add to income ineqality

Had an argument with a Law School Professor over this, probably knocked me down by a fucking letter grade. Please tell me if you agree of disagree. I'm a 2L at a t-15 Law School.

OK, here's my point. We have more females graduating from Law and Med school than men. Automatically, 50% of the places Have to go to them. So all those places go to females. Thus men (esp. white males) who would ave been lawyers 20-30 years ago now have to settle for shitter, lower paying jobs)/

Now, let's be honest about social conventions in the West (other than places like Sweden and Denmark). A male lawyer can date a female waitress, nurse, secretary, whatever, and no one would blink an eye.

However, a female "professional" is never, ever going to mate a male who does a job that brings in less money and has less social status than she she does.

Thus, you have a situation where female lawyers, doctors, whatever have to marry UP. What this means is that women end up alone, miserable, and that the smartest in our gene pool aren't reproducing. Do people here get my argument?

My Jew professor just dismissed me basically and said "so would you prevent female single mothers from working?" And I said no, but I'd instiute economic incentives for females to have children..anyway, that was how my semester ended. Was I wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No OP, that is a pretty decent point of view. I can agree that this will contribute to less (intelligent) children.

Well thats obviously tl;dr
Flag reasonably rare though
>Enjoy your replies based on that alone

Can anyone recommend a site with good stats on females and who they tend to marry, eso "professional" women?

Would love to send this jewboy an email and reinforce my point. Could we not allow females (and males) to take away a percentage of their school debt for each child they have? Or maybe, like Germans did, give them money to put toward a mortgage that then gets erased if they have 4 children?

White women are simply not having enough kids. We're going to be a minority. IF we don't end muslim immigration soon and get our females having kids, we're finished.

In the uk, the group least likely to go to uni is lowe-middle class White males. The Jews are destroying us....

I don't see where you've supported your initial income inequality premise at all. You sure you want to make arguments for a living?

you're an idiot, you just fired off hot opinions and didn't bother to back them up with anything other than your feelings

do you have aspergers

>Well thats obviously tl;dr
See, this is why we have a population of fucking retards.
If it's a decent argument and goes to an important point, are you that fucking ADD you can't spend 3 minutes reading it?

If you're a White male it fucking impacts you, too....

This
Just because there's more females doesn't show there's less income. You'd have to show that, by having female lawyers, they are flooding the market and driving down wages through supply and demand. In your field I don't believe that is the case.

>you're an idiot, you just fired off hot opinions and didn't bother to back them up with anything other than your feelings
What the fuck do you mean? It's common knowledge that "professional" females do not date males of lower social status than they.

How the fuck does that have anything to do with "muh feelings?" The niggers and beaners always show themselves on these type of threads...let's find a study, hold on...

i liek u

>ust because there's more females doesn't show there's less income. You'd have to show that, by having female lawyers, they are flooding the market and driving down wages through supply and demand. In your field I don't believe that is the case.
You're not getting to argument. I'm not saying it's specific to "law," I'm saying in ALL "professional" fields: law, medicine, engineering, whatever.

Could you ever imagine a female doctor dating a waiter? NO.
A male doctor dating a waitress? YES. Females date for both looks AND status (usually status OVER looks around age 30).

So you end up with a female lawyer married to a male doctor, and that adds to the diappearing upper middle class in the US. That was y point.

>i liek u
le "you made a spelling mistake somewhere in your post, so all you said is invalid" meme. Edgy!

RARE
A
R
E

You even have universities there?
>inb4 'it's a proxy, newfag'

Here fucko:
." High-earning women (doctors, lawyers) tend to pair up with their economic equals, while middle- and lower-tier women often marry up. In other words, female CEOs tend to marry other CEOs; male CEOs are OK marrying their secretaries."
bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/

>So you end up with a female lawyer married to a male doctor, and that adds to the diappearing upper middle class in the US. That was y point.

I do get what you're trying to say but there are plenty of low iq idiots with high paying jobs. People that can barely function day to day in normal society, lost in a sea of technology that makes the world turn today.

>pic related

All my instincts were correct-- females only marry UP in status, whereas male CEOS are OK with marrying their secretaries.
THIS is what is destroying the middle class:

you are wrong
my law prof at uni was married to a construction worker

get off 4chin
i seriously hope you either grow up or fail
>this dumbo could become your lawyer

>you are wrong
>one counterexample that in no way debunks existing trends proves you wrong

>What this means is that women end up alone, miserable

... so what? There's still real women around. That's their problem not yours.

>the smartest in our gene pool aren't reproducing

Well they're obviously not the smartest then.

And in my experience these relationships don't last. Woman usually waits to get kids and then adios.

>I do get what you're trying to say but there are plenty of low iq idiots with high paying jobs
You're trapped in the 1990s friend. These days, esp in you hope to eventually live in NYC/Boston, you need to be making serious money.
MY father mad good dosh as the head Lawyer for the French Bank Societe Generale, so my mother could stay home and raise 4 kids. And that was fine.
Now, if we go back to the the 70s and take away my father and give a female his place in law school, and let's imagine she worked 6 days a week, 16 hours per day.

Do you think a female lawyer making good dosh is going to just marry a "house husband?" Of course not, so you concentrate all the dosh in 2 people who are never going to have kids, so no White kids to add to population...and BTW, it has been proven that the US IQ is going down.

Do you know why? Because these female lawyer/doctor types are not having kids. Why not:
1. Ban all foreigners from US/UK/Canadian schools
2. Reduce the percentages in MEdical, Law, and Econ schools to 80:20 in favor of males.

You're goddamn right! Fuck that kike

>you are wrong
>my law prof at uni was married to a construction worker
Well, if YOUR PROFESSOR was married to a construction worker, then from one person we can certainly extrapolate a sample showing that I'm wrong.

Based. On. One. Person.

When, on the other hand, you have a graph right inf ront of your face proving my point from Bloomberg Economics.

You are right, don't ever think for a second that you are not.

If you try to apply idealistic principles to society you end up worse off.
We have to draw the line somewhere and the only thing guiding this decision should be the results and not feelings.

For example we all agree it's a good idea to not let children vote, and that mentally ill people should be locked in asylums for their own protection and the safety of others.
Most agree that we have to draw the line for when someone becomes an adult according to the law, even though that's arguably an arbitrary age, and in reality everyone matures at a different point in their lives.
People take for granted that police to look out for young men when they are looking for an unidentified suspect or frisking people.
Yet everyone loses their shit over racial profiling as if that's somehow fundamentally different than the other types of profiling.

Same with feminism and misguided egalitarianism. Men and women are different and forcing them into competition makes society worse off.
High status females not wanting to settle for a lower status man is one of the problems. No matter how much the media tries to brainwash women to believe equality, they fucking detest stay at home dads.
Pursuing careers means pregnancy later in life which increases the health risks for the baby and mother.
There is an epidemic of single mothers, even though faithlessness is a big predictor for antisocial behaviour in men.
All of this produces tangible measurable effects for a society, it degrades the quality of life of people yet it's encouraged.

And if we want to be cynical about it and only look at the numbers, women are a worse investment as they end up working less years over their lives than men.
Even the high status females with prestigious degrees and jobs tend to leave the workforce or work less when they have a family, unlike men who end up working more when they get married and become fathers.

Supply and demand.

Yeah, we need them back in the kitchen making us sammiches!!! XD

Yes, yes we do.

>uck that kike
wow, you're edgy. It's a serious topic, retard. Not in Denmark, where the garbage man can marry a model; or your cousins Sweden, where the Princess marries her trainer. (and BTW, trust me-- within a few years, your lively, vibrant guests with their Religion of Peace is going to change your life dramatically. Trust me.)

You run your fucking mouths without looking a the graph I provided (from probably the most respected econ source in the US).

Why is the US middle class shrinking? Why is more and more wealth being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people?

You can call me a "marxist," I'm sure you are a True Conservative (TM) like Rato who believes in a Global Plantation of Coffee colored servs reporting back and sending their geld to Israel.

I know, you are all geniuses, you all know better why even bother discussing it...

I think you made a decent point OP. The professor jumping to the single mother line that quickly shows that there was little actual ammunition against your point.

Leftists are stuck in a binary, and you can't break that binary; you have to let them see the grey area.

The best argument to be made against you would be that women would still be willing to downgrade after enough time, and the social expectation would be eliminated, however, this would take a good 30-40 years to completely remove. You shouldn't argue with your professors though, it's not worth it.

We actually do. Female education and employment is dysgenic and leads to declining birth rates, broken families and rampant hedonism.

on top >professor jumping to the single mother line

>so would you prevent female single mothers from working?

Single mothers having to work is exactly a symptom of your point. That's not an argument.

It's how idiots don't see that segregation is a cure - not a tool - to racism and hatred.

Also, Notice who the most famous female lawyer on Earth-- Amal Clooney-- ended up marrying.

It wasn't a guy who owns a landscaping company.

IF you care about this and aren't done with your semester yet and are in law or econ, ask your professor and phrase it as gingerly as you possibly can.

Bring up this graphic. Other than coal burner Heidi Klum "running off with the help (in the words of her nigger buck husband), how many girls can you think of in serious relationships with men in far lower socio-economic positions than they are?

Emma Watson is worth more than her current BF, but her career is over and his father is worth a shitload of money. It's a social convention in the Anglosphere that will not go away-- women need to be with a man wealthier and more successful than she is.

I'm not trying to banter here, but I'm honestly having a difficult time understanding the basis of your argument.

Your point is that because female professionals "marry up" or "across," they contribute to wealth inequality for women. Sorry I just don't see the connection.

These statements are particularly confusing:
>Automatically, 50% of the places Have to go to them. So all those places go to females.

And how does women marry UP mean that they end up alone and miserable... There's just too many assumptions and mental acrobatics. The real reason for "income inequality" within professions and across society is because (respectively)
1. Statistically speaking, men generally outperform women at most things.
2. Women in society tend to choose lower paying, easier, and lower skill requirement professions (Nannys vs loggers, or elementary school teachers vs engineers)
Say this in class next time.

You can make an argument out of this if you support it with facts that women tend to marry up and are opposed to marrying down.

Thanks for at least acknowledging I'm not completely wrong. I knew I shouldn't have argued with him, but he was a greasy kike who had been getting on my nerves all semester and more out of..frustration or something, just couldn't help myself.

My goal is to bring this up at some point with an economist (I talked it over with a few friends who are econ grad students) and see if they ill agree (at least in private and off the record) that this is helping to destroy the middle class in the US.

Instead of 2 men with law degrees, houses in the suburbs, and 3 kids each you have a make and female with law degrees, married to one another, with a 4 million dollar apartment in Tribeca and taking their dog for therapy (this is really a big thing in NYC, putting dogs on prozac, not kidding).

I already did friend:
bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/

Even with women marrying up, why does this lead to women's wage gap? Don't MOST women marry UP regardless of profession?

If all professional women married DOWN would that end women's wage gap?

There is literally nothing to argue here... so many better ways to explain wage gap from a non-feminist perspective... the way you choose is just an all-around weak argument.

Don't worry my friend. Soon enough the chinks will be the whitest race there is and they have no such reservation to not have children because they are more content being a housewife instead of looking for high pay jobs.

Dude, Address
and when I said "the way you choose..." I meant op, not the dude I replied to in this post. Sorry if that was confusing.

Doesn't take more than a minute to read.

i have literally never seen that flag in my life

>Thus, you have a situation where female lawyers, doctors, whatever have to marry UP. What this means is that women end up alone, miserable, and that the smartest in our gene pool aren't reproducing. Do people here get my argument?

Yeah we get it. Nothing new though.

Only thing that can change this is:

>Going backwards to women belonging at home and not at work. Downside to this is freedom and a 50% loss in workforce.

or

>Change your culture over the next 50-150 years to mimic cultures were your job / education / wealth does not equal a high level of prestige and status. Downside to this; it might not even be possible without a compete and disastrous crash of the American way of life.

In other words: You are fucked bro.

>I'm sure you are a True Conservative (TM) like Rato who believes in a Global Plantation of Coffee colored servs reporting back and sending their geld to Israel.

im pretty sure my Danebro is a nationalist going by his statement.

So you will find that he does not like none Danes very much, gives two shits about muh religion and in general is extremely anti globalization.

>Bloomberg

you got a real source friend?

Not that you are wrong but that is some shitty proof.

RARE FLAG

I had a family member who used to give her dog prozac, it's strange.

Also may I ask what degree you got before Law school? I'm planning on becoming a lawyer, so I'm curious if I made the right choice.

>However, a female "professional" is never, ever going to mate a male who does a job that brings in less money and has less social status than she she does.
Wrong. You need to get out more, user

It's about 800 miles from the border of Maine.

yes

r
a
r
e

>However, a female "professional" is never, ever going to mate a male who does a job that brings in less money and has less social status than she she does.

Your case fell apart right there. She probably wouldn't marry you, a law student who has given up, but she'll marry one who brings something positive and tangible to the relationship

>hey contribute to wealth inequality for women
Not saying it's "for women," I'm saying to wealth inequality overall, destroying the middle class.

People always brag how high their IQs are here, but can't seem to grasp this idea:
1. Let's take a class at...Smith university, 50% are male, 50% are females.
For those 50% males, there is a good chance of them marrying women without professional degrees if the are pretty, have good personalities, will make nice homes. Those males could easily meet a nurse, a waitress, a teacher, and marry them. No shame, no stigma.

2. Now, we look at 50% of the class that is female. Can you honestly see a female corporate lawyer, in the Anglosphere, marrying a waiter, a male , a male car mechanic? Come on, we both know, certainly not.

Is a female going to introduce her male fiancee to her work friends "this is my husband, the waiter?" Can you imagine a first date where the male can't afford to pay the bill?
Statistics (and I will find) say females still expect the male to pay the bill on dates. Thus, female lawyers gets dibs on the male professionals, and they take them.

So, 2 places in law school, let's assume same ability. Instead of 2 incomes that could provide for 2 families and 6 kids, instead it ends up used for no kids, but for 1 nu-male and a cutn to go on vacations to Mustique.

Can people here honestly not work that out in their heads???
Again, not talking about scandinavia (bc 95% of you are cucks and god knows what you're up to) or central Europe (bc no big banks have headquarters there anyway you end up defending town rapists).

For real, big jobs at big banks in securities, mergers and acquisitions, compliance, etc.. the sort of job a man could raise 4 kids on with one income as upper-middle class-- females in these jobs are destroying a big part of the middle class.

Same with doctors. Female radiologist isn't going to marry the guy who draws blood no matter how handsome.

I disagree, even if she makes more money you can still put her in place as a woman. In fact she'll love it even more because she's used to people treating her with respect because of her position of power.

If you're physically fit and work a hard labour job you can get her. Don't give her any respect, just tell her to get her tits out, etc.

OP I don't see how income equality fits in with your argument. If anything, this would contribute to women making MORE than men.

Also stop mixing men/women with females/males. It's annoying.

maybe I don't come here enough but I've literally never seen that flag on Sup Forums

R A R E
A
R
E

but seriously if your professor gives you any trouble again all you need to do is point out how rare your flag is

Afaik china (or was it nips?) have already a gigantic problem with this.

The best women simply aren't reproducing anymore.

well saying "never ever" is indeed very wrong.

but in general women tend to marry up in most western societies.

Marrying up could either be with someone with a higher income, more prestigious standing, social status and/or a bunch of different factors.

Take my mother for instance: She married a man who earns less, is less educated but still have a way higher social standing simply because my father is much more intelligent than her.

>>Bloomberg
>you got a real source friend?
Wait, bloomberg now no longer accepted as a "real source," esp when giving info that would go against their "party line?"

OK then, you believe as you will....

Also yes, you're right that since women tend to marry up more than men, shifting high paying jobs towards the female side means more high-earners marrying other high earners, meaning less of a regression towards the mean for family income.

o ok m8 now I see you're going on about income inequality in the 99% sense, not income inequality in the "women make 70ยข for every $1 a man makes" sense.

You need to clarify this when starting a topic about income inequality and then immediately diving into gender stuff.

>Again, not talking about scandinavia (bc 95% of you are cucks and god knows what you're up to)

believing the cu ck memes.

Swedes are arseholes and extremely racist in the real world friendo. Danes who are not consider cu cks by Sup Forums are way less racist. Funny how the real world and Sup Forumss description of it does not fit.

Wait, bloomberg now no longer accepted as a "real source"

never was and never will.

but if you read my comment you will see that I do not disagree with you. I only find your source to be on the level of Wikipedia.

lawyers are 99% cunts anyway

the laws aren't even written in English, but Legalese, a foreign language

and ALL the lawyers know this, and swear allegiance to the BAR association

>women's wage gap
REEEE! This has NOTHING...repeat, NOTHING to do with "women's wage gap!" No such thing exists.

I'm trying to discuss whether the number of women and foreigners in professional schools

For the avg working class White guy, a good law/med degree is still the safest past to an upper-middle class lifestyle. We used to be able to have tens of thousands of men do this per year between med, law, and econ. Now 50% females, 20% foreigners, 15% black...then ppl wonder why there are mass White shootings?

Also, I can tell you for a fat the numbers they print in the "US News Grad School Report" are bullshit.

According to US News, my LSAt was "Avg" for the school I went to. When I had to go to the front office, 2 of the girls congratulated me on my lsat score, one mentioning it was "highest in class that year."

In other words, the score they print in those magazines is "the score you need if you are a White CIS male to guarantee admission. Would love to see what the minorities and females got.

There are a ton of issues here, but for some of you the main one going right over your heads..

>I love being a Dane

In Denmark legal texts are required to be written in plain danish so the common Dane cant read and understand them with legal help.

So I have not read through the entirety of this thread because I can't be fucked reading all the fucktarded rebuttals.

However, I am interested to see your argument that women who get into high earning jobs will end up alone and hence lead to a intellectual drain of the gene pool. Won't it just be the case that they will marry men who meet their exceptionally high standards? the gene-pool will not be entirely threatened but it will be very limited, which I gather is unacceptable to you as you seem to be more inclined to a world envisioned in Galton's Kantsaywhere. Regardless my question is certainly not without it's shortcomings as there will still be career women who wont have children even if they marry. So here I am curious to know if there is information that you are aware of that is focused on the marriage rate and birthrate of woman in higher end jobs?

> cant
meant can ofc

>t15

Hello texas

Hypergamy is true and well documented. What the fuck does his single mothers argument even mean? Does he encourage there to be single mothers, or encourage them to go after fucking deadbeats?

I'd have asked what his point even meant.

interesting, that makes sense

I suppose legalese comes from our roman conquest, all schools used to teach latin

You forgot that women are whores and it doesnt matter how educated they are. They will still crave tyrones dick

>What this means is that women end up alone, miserable, and that the smartest in our gene pool aren't reproducing. Do people here get my argument?

It's not that they never marry, but they 100% certainly have less children on average, so the end result is still the same.

7.5/10, not too bad.

No you aren't wrong but your professor is for kicking down your grade simply because they didn't agree with your hypothesis.
Talk to the Dean you've got a solid fucking case against this kike

chart related.

As education goes up, children goes down. This has a net overall negative effect on society, as the lower tier women outbreed the top tier ones.

But I love the idea of being a stay at home dad and working on my projects all day while my wife makes more money though.

>We have more females graduating from Law and Med school than men. Automatically, 50% of the places Have to go to them. So all those places go to females.

is there a source for this or is it just assumptions based off a numbers game?

im not sure if this is a thing in australia but i have no idea about frogland or cucanada

i studied engineering and 20% of the cohort were female, and (surprise surprise) they all got work before most of the men did, despite not being as intelligent nor experienced as the men

>REEEE! This has NOTHING...repeat, NOTHING to do with "women's wage gap!" No such thing exists.

Yeah I get that now... your first post was sloppy and mislead most of us to think that's what you were talking about.

>However, I am interested to see your argument that women who get into high earning jobs will end up alone and hence lead to a intellectual drain of the gene pool
I phrased it poorly in my first post. What I'm really getting at is that when women take 50% of the places in law, med, econ, etc.. social convention sys they only marry UP.

A man, on the other hand, can be a lawyer and marry a waitress, a nurse, a cashier so long as she's pretty.

Thus, we take 2 law school places= let's say both go to men, one marries a nurse and one a waitress, they each have 3 kids, upper-middle class lifestyle.

Alternative= one male lawyer, one female, they marry each other. They live in a 4 million dollar apartment in manhattan, no kids, and the man whose place that female took ends up with a shittty job and can only afford one kid.

Make more sense???

>your first post was sloppy and mislead most of us
I agree, as already said it was poorly phrased, no excuse.

>working on my projects all day
that's a funny way of saying wanking to trap porn, making furry suits and shitposting

>is there a source
last year, total law graduates were 52%. For medicine it was 49.5 female.

Believe me, if it goes anywhere more than one point down (at least in law and medicine), and dyke 3rd wave feminists will be shrieking so loudly from the rooftops you'll hear them down there.

>t-15 law school

so you go to UCLA? UT?

Lel more like building furniture, brewing beer, and training for climbing. No need to project on me you degenerate

No. You are totally right. As a lawyer, I've seen that my female colleagues are struggling to find a partner because they are not willing to accept someone with a lower social status. If they can't find another lawyer or a doctor etc, they'll end up alone, and start promoting some bullshit like feminist jurisprudence lol.

well i was more getting at how "50% of the places have to go to them"

despite the cohorts being close to 50/50 this doesnt imply that you would see the same makeup in a workplace environment

lets say 100 people graduate from law, yet only half of them manage to get work straight out of university (or theres only 50 jobs available at that given time). i wouldnt expect that half to be 50/50 male/female but more of an uneven mixture

your secret is safe with me desu sempai

well.. molyneux talked about this on his last video.
also, ur jew professor is taking the consequences of jew agenda - single moms cancer - and asking u to solve it. do us a favor and kill this jew

Honestly at this point a citation is just a stamp of approval, most arguments are derived from logic alone, even mathematical, scientific arguments require proper context. People who just nag for a source unless one is really needed are just taking the piss. I bet that poster was your professor OP

This is not only a pessimistic but an unrealistic and lazy approach to policy, you just assume there is no way to specify laws and their effectiveness so it's just "EH! NOT WORTH THE DEBATE!"

This is true ignorance

I support your argument but based on your replies I can see why you're probably getting a low grade, you seem pissy and bitchy, you get buttmad at friendly replies agreeing at you, if that's not bitchmode idk what is

100% inaccurate. I'm a programmer and my wife is a doctor, she makes 2x what I do and still married me. And we have pretty smart kids, contributing back to society and all that

First RARE FLAG

Now
OP you came here for confirmation in this echo box.

From experience. It is NEVER good idea to argue with a teacher EVER. You never win no matter how many stats you have to back it up. You are wasting time, resources, and possibly a higher grade.
Its not worth it even if you are right

You completely messed up bringing up hypergamy. It showed your hand and your subconscious reason for holding that belief. It makes you look like a neckbeard who doesn't have a gf and is angry about it.
You have to kiss ass in college OP and your only reward is getting the degree. Get use to it

>goes to t15 law school
>thinks common knowledge is enough to back up an argument

come on, son. that's just sloppy thinking

well considering this is already happening with 'stronk independent women' you're right but what consolation is it when dealing with liberal hack professors who will never admit they're wrong or even consider another point of view.

Many top law schools skew in favor of men while the Shitty ones that are lol no jobs skew in favor of women.

Women don't do as well on the LSAT. The school I'm starting at in the fall is like 55% male or more.

Is that a rare flag?

Also stop just reading the westlaw headnotes, if you want to improve your grades do the following:

Read the assigned materials carefully, in a quiet place that has no distractions. Read the entire assignment.

Think carefully about what you read as you read it. Occasionally try and reformulate the court's opinion in your own words.

Do not try and google the case or ask someone else to explain it to you. There is no substitute for doing your own reading.

Go to class. Every single class.

Turn off your computer and take notes by hand if you cant stop yourself from going to espn, pol, or some other website during class. Volunteer to answer questions, and adapt your understanding if your answer is wrong.

Begin outlining BEFORE the exam period. Have your outlines ready to go before the end of classes. NEVER use a generic commercial outline. If you can obtain an outline produced by a quality student for the SAME class with the SAME professor, then you may use it only to check the accuracy of your own outline.

Contribute to class discussions but do not waste time describing your personal biases and assumptions.

As to your post, the third sentence of the second paragraph contains a grade school tier logical fallacy.