5 ms·

I've noticed throughout my life that negative outcomes that primarily affect females (math test scores, wage gap, etc) are Huge Problems That Demand Immediate A

I've noticed throughout my life that negative outcomes that primarily affect females (math test scores, wage gap, etc) are Huge Problems That Demand Immediate Action, and negative outcomes that primarily affect males (language test scores, life expectancy gap) are just kind of how it is. I'm not bitching about it or pushing an agenda, but it's not subtle.

standardUser 6y ago
Generally speaking, the clearly oppressed and disadvantaged group is the one we focus on in terms of equity. Men are not, nor have they ever been, that group.
- zepto 6y ago
  This is the problem with making it about sex or gender. ‘Men’ as a category may not be that group with respect to ‘Women’ as a category. But there are a huge number of men who are in fact, just as disadvantaged as a huge number of women even if that number is marginally smaller. There is no reason at all why those men’s problems should not be receiving the same attention that women’s problems are receiving, other than the framing as a response to oppression of groups.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    This is the issue with scoping our solutions based on identity rather than to those suffering the symptoms we would like to address.
- DC1350 6y ago
  Men are the disadvantaged group when you look at things they do worse than women though. There’s no such thing as being disadvantaged overall.
- busterarm 6y ago
  You know that the article is about a study demonstrating that women are outachieving men academically, right? It's outright suggesting that there is some as-of-yet-identified disadvantage there. So while you say "no, not ever", I say "are you even having the same conversation we are?"
- ganzuul 6y ago
  Being coerced into fighting wars that have nothing to do with you is clearly oppressive. Maintaining a society which accepts this, is oppressive. Violence for entertainment is male-focused, and oppressive. Men are very, very oppressed. A few who have escaped into financial independence does not make a trend.
- garmaine 6y ago
  Maybe we should be focusing on outcomes and equality, not equity?
- dudul 6y ago
  You're literally commenting on an article that shows you that boys are the disadvantaged group.
- Veen 6y ago
  It may be true that men have historically dominated the top of most institutions—that most "oppressors" are men—but it doesn't follow that the majority of men are privileged or that most women are oppressed and disadvantaged, especially in modern western societies.
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    Yes, that is called the "apex fallacy."
    - jl2718 6y ago
      One thing I’d really like to see less of on this board, is argumentation by labeling an idea with some obscure field-dependent term, with no other logical support presented. Admittedly we allow this in mathematically rigorous fields, and there is, perhaps, some discussion to be had about what is rigorously proven as an inviolable natural law in the social sciences. It seems to me that such terms are admissible in the natural sciences only when based on clear parameters of disproof, and evidence, broadly sought, has never been shown to refute it. But in progressive social sciences, and nearly all denominations of politics and religion, these terms are used to deny the admissibility of any evidence against an assertion. This is a fundamental disagreement of the mechanisms of reasoning and communication, and I’m not sure how the two can exist together, but for some reason they always have. For academics, the required canon has simply shifted from Catholicism to social justice. I wonder if there would be some fatal flaw within any gathering of the purely rational such that they must be balanced by the irrational. Or perhaps it is a mutual exchange of the long-term respect and value creation due to risk and rigor, for the short-term financial support of those that would rather pay tuition to pretend.
      - at_a_remove 6y ago
        Fortunately, I was not arguing against the parent to whom I replied by simply vomiting out a little term. I was saying, "Hey, there is a common name for this idea you just mentioned, you may find it useful going forward."
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  In America, the chances of you being mutilated (non-medically necessary circumcision) are astronomically higher as a man than as a woman. Men have been that group when it comes to their foreskin.
screye 6y ago
As long as males have to compete to woo females, the natural order will persist. Every species on earth shows us this: "males are disposable, females matter". A 1M:100F ratio can revive an extinct species. A 1F:100M ratio is a blood bath. There are zero incentives for powerful men to help underperforming men, while women have neither natural nor sociological pressures stopping them from helping other women. For better or for worse, we are barreling towards a point where male underachievement won't be ignorable. More than 50% of women will have to 'settle' for a man with worse career prospects. Scarily enough, if women choose to continue acting oblivious while wielding their primary evolutionary bargaining chip (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) to their fullest, then at least a couple of generations of men will waste away before a proper equilibrium is reached. Ofc, this is a hypothesis that leans too heavily into our animalistic tendencies and their stranglehold over all societal developments. I also don't want this to come off as an MRA rant. Just a few ideas I wanted to put out there.
- machiaweliczny 6y ago
  > while women have neither natural nor sociological pressures stopping them from helping other women Doesn't pass reality check IME
- jl2718 6y ago
  The population ratio is irrelevant. The relevant ratio is ‘actively seeking reproduction in the same age and social class’. Nearly all men in the progressive career class are actively seeking reproduction, and very few women. This is because, in this social class, the opportunity cost of reproduction is low for men and high for women. It is massively the opposite in low social class. I think you might be shocked to experience gender dynamics in largely poor and uneducated communities. The desperation for suitable male mates is palpable.
PoignardAzur 6y ago
Eh, I think it will average out eventually. New political currents hate ambiguity and nuance. If you're trying to motivate people to rise up against the Empire, the last thing you want to hear is people saying "Okay, but some imperial officers are actually good people, and this Saw Guerrera is a sadistic monster", even though both are true. Eventually, once the Rebellion becomes widespread enough, people start saying "Okay, the Empire was awful and we're glad it's gone, but maybe we should cut back on the whole hunt-down-every-single-ex-stormtrooper-and-murder-them-and-their-family thing". I hope, anyway.
- throwgender123 6y ago
  > Eh, I think it will average out eventually. I agree, which is why I'm not bitching about it. But it's also kind of sad. I have a young son, and even at 5yo he has seen enough "yay girls!" messages in books and cartoons to deduce that there's something wrong with being a boy. It's also a good example of the societal construction of concepts like "oppression". The idea that women earning less for the same work is a huge problem, and that men doing more dangerous jobs and dying younger isn't, is a subjective choice we've made. And the problem isn't so much that it's wrong, but that we don't have to choose. We could decide that they're both problems, but we don't. And I think the reason has a lot to do with the heavily-downvoted sibling comment saying, "Well, we worry about the oppressed people, and men aren't oppressed."
- muskox2 6y ago
  I think what happens in real life is the rebellion quickly becomes an empire, with it's own set of horrible things. Then you need a new rebellion... And so on...
  - PoignardAzur 6y ago
    Oh please. Saying "the Rebellion becomes an Empire" implies that the side that fought against the bad things starts to do equally bad things once it gets into power. Homosexuality was punishable by death in England up until 1861. Women didn't have the right to vote in France until 1945. Progressive extremists get people fired, and can even commit violent crimes sometimes, but they're nowhere near as bad as the state-approved violence that the minorities they defend were historically subject to (and still are in some countries). Writing a transphobic tweet can get you fired, and I agree that's bad. Being transgender can get you killed. Saying "the rebellion becomes an empire, we need a new rebellion against them" is incredibly dismissive of the abuse marginalized groups go through.
berdario 6y ago
Maybe? the wage gap has clear reasons (mens' jobs are better paid, women get promoted less) and thus clear solutions (stop discriminating against women at hiring/promotion time, or improve women's retention thus allowing them to stick in a job for longer, improving their chances at a promotion), even if these solutions are easier said than done. the life expectancy gap instead... what are the reasons? I suspect that in some cultures it can be because of gender-specific abuse of alcohol... but if that's the reason ( or even if otherwise if the reason is biological) I'm not sure that we have an obvious solution to the problem. Also, I presume that language test score could be as concerning as math test scores... but the latter will help students pursue a STEM career, which is better remunerated than a career that makes use of knowledge of languages. From that point of view, to improve opportunities later in life, fixing math scores can have priority.
- throwgender123 6y ago
  > ... better remunerated than a career that makes use of knowledge of languages. "Good oral and written communication skills" are a requirement of virtually all high-paying careers, including STEM.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  Your explanation of the wage gap is wrong. The supposed wage gap is actually a reflection of the effort gap (men work substantially more) and death gap (men die at work 10x as often, in the US). Feminists just want equal pay for unequal contribution. The wage gap would disappear if women closed the effort and death gaps.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

standardUser 6y ago

Generally speaking, the clearly oppressed and disadvantaged group is the one we focus on in terms of equity. Men are not, nor have they ever been, that group.

zepto 6y ago
This is the problem with making it about sex or gender. ‘Men’ as a category may not be that group with respect to ‘Women’ as a category. But there are a huge number of men who are in fact, just as disadvantaged as a huge number of women even if that number is marginally smaller. There is no reason at all why those men’s problems should not be receiving the same attention that women’s problems are receiving, other than the framing as a response to oppression of groups.
- LanceH 6y ago
  This is the issue with scoping our solutions based on identity rather than to those suffering the symptoms we would like to address.
DC1350 6y ago
Men are the disadvantaged group when you look at things they do worse than women though. There’s no such thing as being disadvantaged overall.
busterarm 6y ago
You know that the article is about a study demonstrating that women are outachieving men academically, right? It's outright suggesting that there is some as-of-yet-identified disadvantage there. So while you say "no, not ever", I say "are you even having the same conversation we are?"
ganzuul 6y ago
Being coerced into fighting wars that have nothing to do with you is clearly oppressive. Maintaining a society which accepts this, is oppressive. Violence for entertainment is male-focused, and oppressive. Men are very, very oppressed. A few who have escaped into financial independence does not make a trend.
garmaine 6y ago
Maybe we should be focusing on outcomes and equality, not equity?
dudul 6y ago
You're literally commenting on an article that shows you that boys are the disadvantaged group.
Veen 6y ago
It may be true that men have historically dominated the top of most institutions—that most "oppressors" are men—but it doesn't follow that the majority of men are privileged or that most women are oppressed and disadvantaged, especially in modern western societies.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  Yes, that is called the "apex fallacy."
  - jl2718 6y ago
    One thing I’d really like to see less of on this board, is argumentation by labeling an idea with some obscure field-dependent term, with no other logical support presented. Admittedly we allow this in mathematically rigorous fields, and there is, perhaps, some discussion to be had about what is rigorously proven as an inviolable natural law in the social sciences. It seems to me that such terms are admissible in the natural sciences only when based on clear parameters of disproof, and evidence, broadly sought, has never been shown to refute it. But in progressive social sciences, and nearly all denominations of politics and religion, these terms are used to deny the admissibility of any evidence against an assertion. This is a fundamental disagreement of the mechanisms of reasoning and communication, and I’m not sure how the two can exist together, but for some reason they always have. For academics, the required canon has simply shifted from Catholicism to social justice. I wonder if there would be some fatal flaw within any gathering of the purely rational such that they must be balanced by the irrational. Or perhaps it is a mutual exchange of the long-term respect and value creation due to risk and rigor, for the short-term financial support of those that would rather pay tuition to pretend.
    - at_a_remove 6y ago
      Fortunately, I was not arguing against the parent to whom I replied by simply vomiting out a little term. I was saying, "Hey, there is a common name for this idea you just mentioned, you may find it useful going forward."
Der_Einzige 6y ago
In America, the chances of you being mutilated (non-medically necessary circumcision) are astronomically higher as a man than as a woman. Men have been that group when it comes to their foreskin.

screye 6y ago

As long as males have to compete to woo females, the natural order will persist. Every species on earth shows us this: "males are disposable, females matter". A 1M:100F ratio can revive an extinct species. A 1F:100M ratio is a blood bath. There are zero incentives for powerful men to help underperforming men, while women have neither natural nor sociological pressures stopping them from helping other women. For better or for worse, we are barreling towards a point where male underachievement won't be ignorable. More than 50% of women will have to 'settle' for a man with worse career prospects. Scarily enough, if women choose to continue acting oblivious while wielding their primary evolutionary bargaining chip (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) to their fullest, then at least a couple of generations of men will waste away before a proper equilibrium is reached. Ofc, this is a hypothesis that leans too heavily into our animalistic tendencies and their stranglehold over all societal developments. I also don't want this to come off as an MRA rant. Just a few ideas I wanted to put out there.

machiaweliczny 6y ago
> while women have neither natural nor sociological pressures stopping them from helping other women Doesn't pass reality check IME
jl2718 6y ago
The population ratio is irrelevant. The relevant ratio is ‘actively seeking reproduction in the same age and social class’. Nearly all men in the progressive career class are actively seeking reproduction, and very few women. This is because, in this social class, the opportunity cost of reproduction is low for men and high for women. It is massively the opposite in low social class. I think you might be shocked to experience gender dynamics in largely poor and uneducated communities. The desperation for suitable male mates is palpable.

PoignardAzur 6y ago

Eh, I think it will average out eventually. New political currents hate ambiguity and nuance. If you're trying to motivate people to rise up against the Empire, the last thing you want to hear is people saying "Okay, but some imperial officers are actually good people, and this Saw Guerrera is a sadistic monster", even though both are true. Eventually, once the Rebellion becomes widespread enough, people start saying "Okay, the Empire was awful and we're glad it's gone, but maybe we should cut back on the whole hunt-down-every-single-ex-stormtrooper-and-murder-them-and-their-family thing". I hope, anyway.

throwgender123 6y ago
> Eh, I think it will average out eventually. I agree, which is why I'm not bitching about it. But it's also kind of sad. I have a young son, and even at 5yo he has seen enough "yay girls!" messages in books and cartoons to deduce that there's something wrong with being a boy. It's also a good example of the societal construction of concepts like "oppression". The idea that women earning less for the same work is a huge problem, and that men doing more dangerous jobs and dying younger isn't, is a subjective choice we've made. And the problem isn't so much that it's wrong, but that we don't have to choose. We could decide that they're both problems, but we don't. And I think the reason has a lot to do with the heavily-downvoted sibling comment saying, "Well, we worry about the oppressed people, and men aren't oppressed."
muskox2 6y ago
I think what happens in real life is the rebellion quickly becomes an empire, with it's own set of horrible things. Then you need a new rebellion... And so on...
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  Oh please. Saying "the Rebellion becomes an Empire" implies that the side that fought against the bad things starts to do equally bad things once it gets into power. Homosexuality was punishable by death in England up until 1861. Women didn't have the right to vote in France until 1945. Progressive extremists get people fired, and can even commit violent crimes sometimes, but they're nowhere near as bad as the state-approved violence that the minorities they defend were historically subject to (and still are in some countries). Writing a transphobic tweet can get you fired, and I agree that's bad. Being transgender can get you killed. Saying "the rebellion becomes an empire, we need a new rebellion against them" is incredibly dismissive of the abuse marginalized groups go through.

berdario 6y ago

Maybe? the wage gap has clear reasons (mens' jobs are better paid, women get promoted less) and thus clear solutions (stop discriminating against women at hiring/promotion time, or improve women's retention thus allowing them to stick in a job for longer, improving their chances at a promotion), even if these solutions are easier said than done. the life expectancy gap instead... what are the reasons? I suspect that in some cultures it can be because of gender-specific abuse of alcohol... but if that's the reason ( or even if otherwise if the reason is biological) I'm not sure that we have an obvious solution to the problem. Also, I presume that language test score could be as concerning as math test scores... but the latter will help students pursue a STEM career, which is better remunerated than a career that makes use of knowledge of languages. From that point of view, to improve opportunities later in life, fixing math scores can have priority.

throwgender123 6y ago
> ... better remunerated than a career that makes use of knowledge of languages. "Good oral and written communication skills" are a requirement of virtually all high-paying careers, including STEM.
bopbeepboop 6y ago
Your explanation of the wage gap is wrong. The supposed wage gap is actually a reflection of the effort gap (men work substantially more) and death gap (men die at work 10x as often, in the US). Feminists just want equal pay for unequal contribution. The wage gap would disappear if women closed the effort and death gaps.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]