2 ms·

The problem is how we make the determination. For whatever reason, many well-educated, powerful people (university faculty and journalists come to mind) are con

The problem is how we make the determination. For whatever reason, many well-educated, powerful people (university faculty and journalists come to mind) are content to conclude that women are oppressed today based on C-suite or STEM demographics while ignoring mining, garbage collection, construction, forestry, oil rigging, and other hazardous or otherwise undesirable occupations. Or serial assault vs literally any other kind of assault. Not to mention the myriad criteria for which men are clearly disadvantaged (health/longevity, judicial prejudice, homeless, mental illness, public resources, education, etc). I don't know how we can hope to answer your question with such a blatantly biased approach.

greglindahl 9y ago
So you're saying that everyone who disagrees with you isn't paying attention to the evidence, which you find totally convincing. Somehow I suspect that is not the case. BTW, my aunt went to welding school and then had to sue the union in order to be able to get an actual job. Is a study of that sort of discrimination a sufficient counter-example to welders being overwhelmingly male, or is it just that most women don't want to be welders? It's totally true that my aunt is an unusual woman. Not only did she want to be a welder, but she was willing to sue.