6 ms·

> One generation behind us, women still sort of relied on men, and now that the tables have turned, women might need to make a compromise. You mean the system

> One generation behind us, women still sort of relied on men, and now that the tables have turned, women might need to make a compromise. You mean the system was heavily stacked to make women reliant on men. I won't call that a compromise. The tables haven't turned, the game changed. We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men. If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers. They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs.

Frondo 10y ago
Yes, this, a thousand times this. People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life. Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting to talk to, and if I have to have a good job lined up, well, that's how you play the game. Now...if society is breaking in a way that it's tough for men to get good jobs, then let's look at that. Women aren't to blame for that, though. Let's look at what's really going on.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  So what do you do when there simply aren't enough jobs for most men to "have their shit together"? What are all those men going to do when they have both no stake in the economy, and little or no chance of finding a woman to love them? What percentage of men like this can society handle before some sort of tipping point is reached? I refer you to this comment from "wingless" from another discussion currently on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795855 I'm always aware of this whenever the usual stuff about the "gender pay gap" gets trotted out by the media. Men and men women are playing entirely different games in the employment market. A woman is working for the money and whatever satisfaction she derives from the job itself. A man is working for his ability to attract a girlfriend, his status in society, his entire sense of "value". It's hardly surprising that men are motivated to choose riskier and higher earning careers.
  - inetknght 10y ago
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that connection.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    What I'd do is this: 1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!) 2) Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. (And again, work at a local level to make it OK not to have a big thriving career, since it's not gonna happen for a lot of folks.) That's what I'd do. The system of "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back. I wouldn't even try to resuscitate it.
    - J-dawg 10y ago
      >Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. I would dearly love to believe this is possible, but I fear it's not. I don't think (most) women are capable of overcoming their programming to seek a high-status provider.
      - Frondo 10y ago
        Really? I give women more credit than that. For the first time in how many centuries, they don't have to be chained to some dud with a good job, and they're figuring out what they want. Good poetry? Being a good househusband? There's going to be quality in that. World's changing, and you can't get away being a schlub just cause you've got a good job anymore. I say bring it.
      - Nomentatus 10y ago
        If the prestige were great enough, maybe (and good luck with that.) Now add in the extraordinary reluctance of most women to date men shorter than they are.
- pm90 10y ago
  > Now...if society is breaking in a way that it's tough for men to get good jobs, then let's look at that. Women aren't to blame for that, though. Let's look at what's really going on. I don't think the comments in this section suggested blaming women for reducing men's partipation in the workforce. Specifically, the comment's OP seems to be suggesting that while the economic tables have changed, socially it is still a requirement for men to have a regular, well paying job (or whatever that expectation is) which perhaps also need to change to accommodate the reality that a lot of men may not satisfy that requirement, while still being good partners in relationships.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    What I was responding to was this: "women might need to make a compromise." Nope, if women are happy, then good for them, they certainly don't need to make a compromise. They don't owe men anything.
    - madez 10y ago
      The modal verb "to need" is highly depend on the context. You might have seen it in a different context than the author. While you may have interpreted it as saying that if women don't compromise, then they are bad, the author could have meant that if women don't compromise, then (the population will decrease/whatever else that might make sense).
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., Well, that's the whole point. Family courts are still heavily biased towards women. As long as women and men are not treated differently, and alimony and spousal support are evenly distributed between genders, then yes, "bring it on".
- jokoon 10y ago
  > Women aren't to blame for that, though. I did not say that. But "expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great." is not so great. If you start to put socio-economic criterias for a relationship, I don't think you really want a relationship.
awg789 10y ago
> We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men. The mysterious forces were not "meant to keep women as dependents of men". They evolved naturally, women took care of the babies while men hunted/gathered stuff. Nowadays, this division is no longer necessary, since you usually don't need muscles and physical prowess to do a job, or at least it doesn't give you a significant advantage. > If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers. They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs. You mean as in having scholarships, internships, and work positions exclusively for women? If you don't believe me, take a look at job offers in SF/NYC. edit: bad grammar...
oh_sigh 10y ago
> They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs. What about college graduation rates? New college grads are heavily biased in favor of women, and women earn more money than male counterparts on average(until some decide to take off in their career to have/raise kids).
- bobbytherobot 10y ago
  My point was simply that men with credentials for a job aren't being rejected solely because they are a man. A few decades ago, women were routinely rejected solely for being a woman.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    Sure, but now we have a society which has swung the other way. Shouldn't college attendance rates be 50/50 by gender? Thats the conventional wisdom, at least when it's women who are getting the short end of the stick
dominotw 10y ago
>If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers. hundreds of thousands of men that we have imprisoned, thousands of men with mental health issues and drug addictions. men that took a wrong turn in life and ended up homeless, destitute or in the prison. These men have been systematically kept out of jobs. There has to be special kind of hypocrisy in action to conclude society influences women's choices( eg: giving them barbie/pink toys) and prevents them from having a STEM career and yet turn around and say men at bottom belong there because of their own failings. Men at the bottom must pay the price for the 'privilege' enjoyed by men at top. According to the narrative, a rich woman is 'systematically be kept out of jobs' while a poor boy man in a war/drug-torn urban environment is not. I just hate this line of thought so much. Sex is not a deterrent to one's success in todays America, parental income is, a privilege that can be precisely measured.
- bobbytherobot 10y ago
  Those are all fair points. My point wasn't that any man can simply roll up and get the high paying job and it's never been the case. Many men would have been rejected just based on the color of their skin or because they had a Jewish last name. By and large, men aren't being denied access to an interview simply based on their gender. If we go back a few decades, women were denied access to an interview simply based on their gender.
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    That may have once been the case, but not anymore. Almost all companies have some sort of affirmative action hiring process that is rigged against white men. I see tons of job postings where women and minorities are "strongly urged to apply." That's kind of wording makes it sound like a white man would not be considered for the position.
    - dominotw 10y ago
      There is no better time to be a woman in Tech from a hiring perspective. Two of my female classmates from college who are more or less the same as me ( a male ) are inundated with offers from top tech companies in the valley, not even exaggerating. Meanwhile, it would be a minor miracle if recruiters even call me back. there are other issues like pervasive culture of sexual harassment in tech but getting hired is not one of them.
greenhatman 10y ago
By compromise, he probably means that women will have to get comfortable dating men who earn the same or less than them. Or are less ambitious than them. In my perception most women don't look at men who aren't more well off than themselves or lower status than themselves.
abandonliberty 10y ago
You are entirely theoretically correct. Unfortunately reality is far more complicated. You may want to reassess your approach after reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795367. In short: Data indicate our current society doesn't function in a world where men aren't substantially better off - and we're equitably continuing to head away from that. An intelligent, thoughtful, rational approach would be ideal rather than seeking to score points "white knighting" or "feministing" in the gender war. Or keep picking on them and ignore the problem. Help show the world that feminists are no better than the men they deride. Besides, what type of harm can broken family units and a substantial disillusioned male subclass possibly cause anyway?

Frondo 10y ago

Yes, this, a thousand times this. People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life. Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting to talk to, and if I have to have a good job lined up, well, that's how you play the game. Now...if society is breaking in a way that it's tough for men to get good jobs, then let's look at that. Women aren't to blame for that, though. Let's look at what's really going on.

J-dawg 10y ago
So what do you do when there simply aren't enough jobs for most men to "have their shit together"? What are all those men going to do when they have both no stake in the economy, and little or no chance of finding a woman to love them? What percentage of men like this can society handle before some sort of tipping point is reached? I refer you to this comment from "wingless" from another discussion currently on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795855 I'm always aware of this whenever the usual stuff about the "gender pay gap" gets trotted out by the media. Men and men women are playing entirely different games in the employment market. A woman is working for the money and whatever satisfaction she derives from the job itself. A man is working for his ability to attract a girlfriend, his status in society, his entire sense of "value". It's hardly surprising that men are motivated to choose riskier and higher earning careers.
- inetknght 10y ago
  I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that connection.
- Frondo 10y ago
  What I'd do is this: 1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!) 2) Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. (And again, work at a local level to make it OK not to have a big thriving career, since it's not gonna happen for a lot of folks.) That's what I'd do. The system of "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back. I wouldn't even try to resuscitate it.
  - J-dawg 10y ago
    >Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. I would dearly love to believe this is possible, but I fear it's not. I don't think (most) women are capable of overcoming their programming to seek a high-status provider.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      Really? I give women more credit than that. For the first time in how many centuries, they don't have to be chained to some dud with a good job, and they're figuring out what they want. Good poetry? Being a good househusband? There's going to be quality in that. World's changing, and you can't get away being a schlub just cause you've got a good job anymore. I say bring it.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      If the prestige were great enough, maybe (and good luck with that.) Now add in the extraordinary reluctance of most women to date men shorter than they are.
pm90 10y ago
> Now...if society is breaking in a way that it's tough for men to get good jobs, then let's look at that. Women aren't to blame for that, though. Let's look at what's really going on. I don't think the comments in this section suggested blaming women for reducing men's partipation in the workforce. Specifically, the comment's OP seems to be suggesting that while the economic tables have changed, socially it is still a requirement for men to have a regular, well paying job (or whatever that expectation is) which perhaps also need to change to accommodate the reality that a lot of men may not satisfy that requirement, while still being good partners in relationships.
- Frondo 10y ago
  What I was responding to was this: "women might need to make a compromise." Nope, if women are happy, then good for them, they certainly don't need to make a compromise. They don't owe men anything.
  - madez 10y ago
    The modal verb "to need" is highly depend on the context. You might have seen it in a different context than the author. While you may have interpreted it as saying that if women don't compromise, then they are bad, the author could have meant that if women don't compromise, then (the population will decrease/whatever else that might make sense).
jimmywanger 10y ago
> When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., Well, that's the whole point. Family courts are still heavily biased towards women. As long as women and men are not treated differently, and alimony and spousal support are evenly distributed between genders, then yes, "bring it on".
jokoon 10y ago
> Women aren't to blame for that, though. I did not say that. But "expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great." is not so great. If you start to put socio-economic criterias for a relationship, I don't think you really want a relationship.

awg789 10y ago

> We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men. The mysterious forces were not "meant to keep women as dependents of men". They evolved naturally, women took care of the babies while men hunted/gathered stuff. Nowadays, this division is no longer necessary, since you usually don't need muscles and physical prowess to do a job, or at least it doesn't give you a significant advantage. > If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers. They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs. You mean as in having scholarships, internships, and work positions exclusively for women? If you don't believe me, take a look at job offers in SF/NYC. edit: bad grammar...

oh_sigh 10y ago

> They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs. What about college graduation rates? New college grads are heavily biased in favor of women, and women earn more money than male counterparts on average(until some decide to take off in their career to have/raise kids).

bobbytherobot 10y ago
My point was simply that men with credentials for a job aren't being rejected solely because they are a man. A few decades ago, women were routinely rejected solely for being a woman.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Sure, but now we have a society which has swung the other way. Shouldn't college attendance rates be 50/50 by gender? Thats the conventional wisdom, at least when it's women who are getting the short end of the stick

dominotw 10y ago

>If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers. hundreds of thousands of men that we have imprisoned, thousands of men with mental health issues and drug addictions. men that took a wrong turn in life and ended up homeless, destitute or in the prison. These men have been systematically kept out of jobs. There has to be special kind of hypocrisy in action to conclude society influences women's choices( eg: giving them barbie/pink toys) and prevents them from having a STEM career and yet turn around and say men at bottom belong there because of their own failings. Men at the bottom must pay the price for the 'privilege' enjoyed by men at top. According to the narrative, a rich woman is 'systematically be kept out of jobs' while a poor boy man in a war/drug-torn urban environment is not. I just hate this line of thought so much. Sex is not a deterrent to one's success in todays America, parental income is, a privilege that can be precisely measured.

bobbytherobot 10y ago
Those are all fair points. My point wasn't that any man can simply roll up and get the high paying job and it's never been the case. Many men would have been rejected just based on the color of their skin or because they had a Jewish last name. By and large, men aren't being denied access to an interview simply based on their gender. If we go back a few decades, women were denied access to an interview simply based on their gender.
- dukeluke 10y ago
  That may have once been the case, but not anymore. Almost all companies have some sort of affirmative action hiring process that is rigged against white men. I see tons of job postings where women and minorities are "strongly urged to apply." That's kind of wording makes it sound like a white man would not be considered for the position.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    There is no better time to be a woman in Tech from a hiring perspective. Two of my female classmates from college who are more or less the same as me ( a male ) are inundated with offers from top tech companies in the valley, not even exaggerating. Meanwhile, it would be a minor miracle if recruiters even call me back. there are other issues like pervasive culture of sexual harassment in tech but getting hired is not one of them.

greenhatman 10y ago

By compromise, he probably means that women will have to get comfortable dating men who earn the same or less than them. Or are less ambitious than them. In my perception most women don't look at men who aren't more well off than themselves or lower status than themselves.

abandonliberty 10y ago

You are entirely theoretically correct. Unfortunately reality is far more complicated. You may want to reassess your approach after reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795367. In short: Data indicate our current society doesn't function in a world where men aren't substantially better off - and we're equitably continuing to head away from that. An intelligent, thoughtful, rational approach would be ideal rather than seeking to score points "white knighting" or "feministing" in the gender war. Or keep picking on them and ignore the problem. Help show the world that feminists are no better than the men they deride. Besides, what type of harm can broken family units and a substantial disillusioned male subclass possibly cause anyway?