4 ms·

That's itself a very biased telling of how things are. The USA along with many other western nations now discriminates against men in favour of women, in many

That's itself a very biased telling of how things are. The USA along with many other western nations now discriminates against men in favour of women, in many concrete and very specific ways: - Family courts - Rape shield laws - In the private sector, tech sector programmes handing out money but only to women - Laws that mandate gender ratios in certain situations, like bidding on government contracts Society has bent over backwards to try and create equality of outcome for women, thereby simultaneously eliminating equality of opportunity for men. This is not actually progress. Progress would be equal opportunity for all.

wpietri 9y ago
Loss of privilege feels like a loss. If you have no historical perspective and are currently favored by discrimination, programs attempting to undo historical discrimination seem like they're biased against you. They aren't. As an example, consider the common practice of scholarships that are awarded based on both merit and economic need. A rich dude could be mad that he is being discriminated against. After all, they won't even consider giving him those scholarships! What jerks people are! He worked hard, and should be eligible for everything! He's wrong, of course. His feelings are real, but his perspective is severely limited. If you're used to things being tilted in your favor, a level playing field is going to seem unfair.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Modern men are not "privileged". This is corruption-of-blood level stuff. Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women and have no reason to accept being discriminated against as a result. Trying to blame bad things done by historical figures for bad actions taken today is the result of much wrongness in the world. Please don't try to justify it. Oh, and your analogy to the rich dude is deeply flawed. Rich people can become poor and poor can become rich; it happens all the time. Putting gender re-assignment surgery to one side, gender is generally fixed. If you get discriminated against because you're a man, you aren't going to be mollified by an argument of the form "one day you might be a woman and it may work in your favour". Whereas "one day you may be rich" or "one day you may be poor" is used as a reasonable justification for all sorts of things, like progressive taxation and a social safety net.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    I am a man. I am definitely privileged because of it. Many men make similar observations: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-t...
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      That article doesn't list one concrete example of how being a straight white male actually made life easier for him. I can and have listed several major, specific ways in which it's the opposite. I hate to use the T-word but this sort of non-argument you've just presented is exactly why Trump won. It's just racist, sexist self-loathing based on nothing whatsoever. If there was something, that guy would have listed a variety of specific grievances, as would every feminist article in every newspaper (of which there are huge quantity every single day). You know what the last specific complaint in a feminist opinion piece I read was? An article a few days ago that was upset because the only female shoes in emoji are high heels. Don't tell people white male privilege exists when you can't back it up.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > [something] is exactly why Trump won No. Trump won through the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, rampant GOP gerrymandering, a terrifyingly complicit and supine media, an institutionally racist and sexist country backlashing to Obama, and an electoral system that vastly overpowers the majority white (and racist) Southern states.
        peoplewindow 9y ago
        The supine and complicit media came out near 100% in support of Hillary, perhaps due to her massive campaign spending. Regardless, I think when your explanation is "the entire USA is racist and sexist" you are - again - making my point for me. I know lots of Americans and I've never seen a shred of racism or sexism in any of them. But if you constantly tell ordinary, hard working and honest people that their whole life is a fraud, that their success isn't really success, it's just "white male privilege", and you can't point out a single reason why ... guess what? They're going to get mad and start quietly voting for someone who fights back against that culture. That's what I meant and I'm sure you know it.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Society has bent over backwards to try and create equality of outcome for women, thereby simultaneously eliminating equality of opportunity for men No, it's bent over backwards to address a pre-existing inequality of opportunity that disfavors women. But what both sides find uncomfortable and avoid is the inconvenient fact that in a continued series of interactions over time (like life in the real world) rather than an isolated event disconnected from past and future, every opportunity is a product of outcomes at an earlier time, and every outcome effects opportunities at a later time. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are different concerns, but not at all orthogonal concerns. Any attempt to durably effect changes to inequality of opportunity will necessarily effect inequality of outcomes not only as an effect of opportunity, but as a key mechanism. And, conversely, every attempt to safeguard existing inequality of outcome safeguards (whether it is the conscious intent or not) durable inequalities of opportunity.
xigency 9y ago
- Family courts While I would have thought that these would weigh in favor of women, in my experience I have actually seen the opposite. There are many family judges and lawyers that are incredibly sexist and will screw over women in favor of men. And in fact, that is mostly what I have seen in my county. > ...try and create equality of outcome for women, thereby simultaneously eliminating equality of opportunity for men. I understand the emotional argument here but I don't think it's valid. Opportunity isn't zero-sum.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  I wonder where you live. I have heard many reported family courts cases over the years and they have always been resolved in favour of the woman, sometimes grossly so. For instance, I have one friend whose wife went literally mad (post-partum psychosis). Total psycho breakdown level mad when she was off her meds, which happened a lot. Fortunately the courts awarded him custody of the kids. Unfortunately they are still, years later, dragging their heels over the divorce and he his still not yet divorced. There is no reason for this beyond the fact that family law in his (western) country is designed to benefit the woman to the cost of the man, to a nearly absurd degree. Re: opportunity. Yes, opportunity is very often zero sum. Most obviously hiring and firing at the company level are zero sum games - if a woman got the job because she's a woman, it means you didn't. Whilst the economy in general may not be zero sum over the long run, it sure is at the moment you're applying for a job. Likewise for cases like this: https://sites.google.com/site/codejamtoioforwomen/ https://sites.google.com/site/codejamtoioforwomen/ where tickets to a very expensive conference were reserved only for women. Limited number of places at the conference = zero sum game and therefore, very much unequal opportunity. Note that there's a female only version of Code Jam because women couldn't compete with the men in the mixed gender version.
  - xigency 9y ago
    > Note that there's a female only version of Code Jam That proves that it isn't always zero-sum. They've opened up more spots by creating an additional event for women.

wpietri 9y ago

Loss of privilege feels like a loss. If you have no historical perspective and are currently favored by discrimination, programs attempting to undo historical discrimination seem like they're biased against you. They aren't. As an example, consider the common practice of scholarships that are awarded based on both merit and economic need. A rich dude could be mad that he is being discriminated against. After all, they won't even consider giving him those scholarships! What jerks people are! He worked hard, and should be eligible for everything! He's wrong, of course. His feelings are real, but his perspective is severely limited. If you're used to things being tilted in your favor, a level playing field is going to seem unfair.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Modern men are not "privileged". This is corruption-of-blood level stuff. Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women and have no reason to accept being discriminated against as a result. Trying to blame bad things done by historical figures for bad actions taken today is the result of much wrongness in the world. Please don't try to justify it. Oh, and your analogy to the rich dude is deeply flawed. Rich people can become poor and poor can become rich; it happens all the time. Putting gender re-assignment surgery to one side, gender is generally fixed. If you get discriminated against because you're a man, you aren't going to be mollified by an argument of the form "one day you might be a woman and it may work in your favour". Whereas "one day you may be rich" or "one day you may be poor" is used as a reasonable justification for all sorts of things, like progressive taxation and a social safety net.
- wpietri 9y ago
  I am a man. I am definitely privileged because of it. Many men make similar observations: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-t...
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    That article doesn't list one concrete example of how being a straight white male actually made life easier for him. I can and have listed several major, specific ways in which it's the opposite. I hate to use the T-word but this sort of non-argument you've just presented is exactly why Trump won. It's just racist, sexist self-loathing based on nothing whatsoever. If there was something, that guy would have listed a variety of specific grievances, as would every feminist article in every newspaper (of which there are huge quantity every single day). You know what the last specific complaint in a feminist opinion piece I read was? An article a few days ago that was upset because the only female shoes in emoji are high heels. Don't tell people white male privilege exists when you can't back it up.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > [something] is exactly why Trump won No. Trump won through the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, rampant GOP gerrymandering, a terrifyingly complicit and supine media, an institutionally racist and sexist country backlashing to Obama, and an electoral system that vastly overpowers the majority white (and racist) Southern states.
      - peoplewindow 9y ago
        The supine and complicit media came out near 100% in support of Hillary, perhaps due to her massive campaign spending. Regardless, I think when your explanation is "the entire USA is racist and sexist" you are - again - making my point for me. I know lots of Americans and I've never seen a shred of racism or sexism in any of them. But if you constantly tell ordinary, hard working and honest people that their whole life is a fraud, that their success isn't really success, it's just "white male privilege", and you can't point out a single reason why ... guess what? They're going to get mad and start quietly voting for someone who fights back against that culture. That's what I meant and I'm sure you know it.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Society has bent over backwards to try and create equality of outcome for women, thereby simultaneously eliminating equality of opportunity for men No, it's bent over backwards to address a pre-existing inequality of opportunity that disfavors women. But what both sides find uncomfortable and avoid is the inconvenient fact that in a continued series of interactions over time (like life in the real world) rather than an isolated event disconnected from past and future, every opportunity is a product of outcomes at an earlier time, and every outcome effects opportunities at a later time. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are different concerns, but not at all orthogonal concerns. Any attempt to durably effect changes to inequality of opportunity will necessarily effect inequality of outcomes not only as an effect of opportunity, but as a key mechanism. And, conversely, every attempt to safeguard existing inequality of outcome safeguards (whether it is the conscious intent or not) durable inequalities of opportunity.

xigency 9y ago

- Family courts While I would have thought that these would weigh in favor of women, in my experience I have actually seen the opposite. There are many family judges and lawyers that are incredibly sexist and will screw over women in favor of men. And in fact, that is mostly what I have seen in my county. > ...try and create equality of outcome for women, thereby simultaneously eliminating equality of opportunity for men. I understand the emotional argument here but I don't think it's valid. Opportunity isn't zero-sum.

peoplewindow 9y ago
I wonder where you live. I have heard many reported family courts cases over the years and they have always been resolved in favour of the woman, sometimes grossly so. For instance, I have one friend whose wife went literally mad (post-partum psychosis). Total psycho breakdown level mad when she was off her meds, which happened a lot. Fortunately the courts awarded him custody of the kids. Unfortunately they are still, years later, dragging their heels over the divorce and he his still not yet divorced. There is no reason for this beyond the fact that family law in his (western) country is designed to benefit the woman to the cost of the man, to a nearly absurd degree. Re: opportunity. Yes, opportunity is very often zero sum. Most obviously hiring and firing at the company level are zero sum games - if a woman got the job because she's a woman, it means you didn't. Whilst the economy in general may not be zero sum over the long run, it sure is at the moment you're applying for a job. Likewise for cases like this: https://sites.google.com/site/codejamtoioforwomen/ https://sites.google.com/site/codejamtoioforwomen/ where tickets to a very expensive conference were reserved only for women. Limited number of places at the conference = zero sum game and therefore, very much unequal opportunity. Note that there's a female only version of Code Jam because women couldn't compete with the men in the mixed gender version.
- xigency 9y ago
  > Note that there's a female only version of Code Jam That proves that it isn't always zero-sum. They've opened up more spots by creating an additional event for women.