Male mortality rates are higher for almost every age category. I did not make a point about the rate of change of mortality rates, but in the U.S. , I think you're wrong on that, too.
I'm struggling here, you weren't making a point that mortality rates are responsible for why women are challenging the dominance of men? I accept mortality rates are higher for men but they always have been, certainly in the 1960s they were even higher then they are today. I no longer understand why you're talking about mortality rates.
Turnover is consistently higher for men. It's especially obvious if you drill down to the age ranges.
I'll remind you that I am really challenging your way of debating and thinking and not your actual argument which I don't even deem worthy of discussing. You haven't even made an argument for why the turnover rate is the way that it is, nor an argument for why that demonstrates a disadvantage for men. The turnover rate for all I know, demonstrates men are constantly seeking better working conditions while women are settling for less than they deserve, the statistic is not backing up any argument you've made. Reliability is only an advantage in the specific contexts where employers expects unreliability from a sex and don't hire them into desirable jobs for that reason.
You antagonised me by telling me it's my fault that you don't listen to arguments or reason which is the only reason I'm still talking to you in this thread. You haven't accepted or replied to any of my criticism, your evidence is insubstantial for your arguments or non-existent and you only reply to what you believe is best suited to make me look like a fool. I have yet to see any indication of self-awareness or taking responsibility for errors you make either, it's just fighting back and fighting back endlessly. We could debate for another year and you would still find a way to defend every action, divert all responsibility and remain true to your initial premises regardless of what goes on. It's not even about "if you don't change your view to my view then you're stubborn" but that you're not even engaging with criticism or evidence. It's just throwing back my criticism at me and defending yourself no matter what.
The Berkeley paper showed clearly that women are more productive because they cost less per work unit due to the gender gap in pay.
The two measures we've seen - turnover and productivity - consistently show that women are better, cheaper workers.
I think the onus is now on you to demonstrate otherwise.
What's that got to do with worker reliability? I'm not of the position that men are better workers than women and honestly I find the whole argument really stupid. There are so many factors that matter more than gender, anyone who hires based on gender is a complete moron. My point is that you first decide your general argument, which is that society needs to adopt more feminine traits and reduce masculinity and then from there, find evidence to support that. I'm glad the berkley paper that I linked you helps your argument but I'm just proving my point that you don't really care about the facts. You suck up evidence you think helps you without thinking it through and reject evidence against it without considering it. Ultimately there's nothing for someone talking with you to agree to disagree or just be lambasted by a smug idiot. That's the only thing I've attempted to demonstrate.
I'm looking to be proven wrong but you actually ignore everything I say except for things you clearly feel you have the ability to prove me wrong on, you can't see how that would be dull for anyone debating you and misleading in terms of the credibility of your argument?