4 ms·

Allow me to correct the two logical distortions in your proposition. Distortion 1) You can't take the outliers of a flatter distribution and generalize that to

Allow me to correct the two logical distortions in your proposition. Distortion 1) You can't take the outliers of a flatter distribution and generalize that to the entire population. You can't even compare the averages of two separate distributions without qualifiers. It is true, most of the people who run governments are men. Most of the people who own companies are men. Most of the people who dominate C levels are men. Most highly paid professionals are mostly held by men. Most of the top outliers of capital ownership are men. But it is also true most men don't run governments. Most men are not even remotely close to running companies. Most men are not C level execs. Most men don't have high paying jobs. Most men don't have any capital (if not negative). Distortion 2) Even if it was true that it was exclusively powerful men's fault that boys are failing, it is completely irrelevant to bring it up when talking about men as victims, unless one would also suggest that boys somehow deserve to suffer educational disadvantages because of those men have a lot of capital, or there is some hidden variable that connects the two events.

cjohnson318 5y ago
So, what is your take on this? Do we ignore the fact that the top of our society is dominated by men and only focus on the men in the 40th to 60th percentile of income? Even then, you would see a similar pattern between the earning potential between men and women. I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here. Start with men suffering ~90% of workplace fatalities? https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf Why is there no push for women to be equally represented in the jobs that SUCK? Where are the feminists advocating for 50% of coal miners and loggers to be female? Nowhere to be found....because they want to secure the benefits that accrue to a small fraction of men, produced by the whole civilization (C-level positions, etc.) without sharing the bone-crushing burdens endured by the larger swathe of the male population that actually enables it.
  - madaxe_again 5y ago
    >> Start with men suffering ~90% of workplace fatalities? Well, given that we’re talking about labour… And how many men die in childbirth? Men have a choice to take dangerous jobs. Women don’t have a choice to have medical complications during labour.
    - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
      > And how many men die in childbirth? I'd say about 50% of the neonatal death rate. :) Seriously though, US has an unexpectedly high maternal death rate for a western country: https://www.statista.com/chart/23541/maternal-mortality-developed-countries/ https://www.statista.com/chart/23541/maternal-mortality-deve...
    - CapricornNoble 5y ago
      >>>And how many men die in childbirth? 100% of the males who get naturally pregnant. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. It's almost like there are biological differences between men and women, and that these organisms are largely optimized for distinct roles in the human system. >>>Men have a choice to take dangerous jobs. If men flat-out refused to do dangerous work....our entire industrialized economy would collapse, because at the end of the day all of it is built on top of natural resource extraction. Are you suggesting that all those men digging rare earth metals out of the ground should just #learntocode? >>>Women don’t have a choice to have medical complications during labour. But they DO have choice to not get pregnant at all, right? If men are accountable for their choice of profession and the inherent risks, are women not accountable for their reproductive choices and inherent risks? If reducing (obviously gender-skewed) labor complications is a valid societal concern, than shouldn't reducing (also gender-skewed) workplace fatalities also be a valid societal concern? I'm not really sure what you are arguing here with the pregnancy angle.
      - anoncake 5y ago
        > 100% of the males who get naturally pregnant. Almost, some trans men can get pregnant. But I am being pedantic.
- zizee 5y ago
  If you want to look at improving people's economic success, why not group people by that metric? Far better to send economic help to the poor, instead of by gender/race/religion etc.
- acituan 5y ago
  My take is that we ought to be careful about framing biases. I don't think "men" is the most useful variable to formulate every problem with. Unless we have evidence that there is an essence to every man that manifests itself in every one of these instances, we can't reduce solving these problems to "solving men". > Do we ignore the fact that the top of our society is dominated by men and only focus on the men in the 40th to 60th percentile of income? Like I said, we have to be careful not to treat them as joint issues. Unless proven otherwise, problems regarding a lack diversity of representation at executive classes is not related to economic problems of lower income percentiles, or educational prospects of young boys for that matter. The other framing bias is to treat as if can only fix one problem and we can only focus on that. It is actually a blessing that these are disjoint issues and we can multitask as a society and make incremental progress. > I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here. I think again this is because of attaching too much valence to category "men". You sound like a compassionate person and I think you wouldn't disagree if we formulated the problem as "any individual who is suffering raw deals should be treated fairly", even if those individuals happened to be low-income men or undereducated boys. I think true justice can only happen if no one is left behind. And treating men as a monolithic category will have the consequence of leaving some behind that shouldn't have been.

cjohnson318 5y ago

So, what is your take on this? Do we ignore the fact that the top of our society is dominated by men and only focus on the men in the 40th to 60th percentile of income? Even then, you would see a similar pattern between the earning potential between men and women. I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here. Start with men suffering ~90% of workplace fatalities? https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf Why is there no push for women to be equally represented in the jobs that SUCK? Where are the feminists advocating for 50% of coal miners and loggers to be female? Nowhere to be found....because they want to secure the benefits that accrue to a small fraction of men, produced by the whole civilization (C-level positions, etc.) without sharing the bone-crushing burdens endured by the larger swathe of the male population that actually enables it.
- madaxe_again 5y ago
  >> Start with men suffering ~90% of workplace fatalities? Well, given that we’re talking about labour… And how many men die in childbirth? Men have a choice to take dangerous jobs. Women don’t have a choice to have medical complications during labour.
  - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
    > And how many men die in childbirth? I'd say about 50% of the neonatal death rate. :) Seriously though, US has an unexpectedly high maternal death rate for a western country: https://www.statista.com/chart/23541/maternal-mortality-developed-countries/ https://www.statista.com/chart/23541/maternal-mortality-deve...
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>And how many men die in childbirth? 100% of the males who get naturally pregnant. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. It's almost like there are biological differences between men and women, and that these organisms are largely optimized for distinct roles in the human system. >>>Men have a choice to take dangerous jobs. If men flat-out refused to do dangerous work....our entire industrialized economy would collapse, because at the end of the day all of it is built on top of natural resource extraction. Are you suggesting that all those men digging rare earth metals out of the ground should just #learntocode? >>>Women don’t have a choice to have medical complications during labour. But they DO have choice to not get pregnant at all, right? If men are accountable for their choice of profession and the inherent risks, are women not accountable for their reproductive choices and inherent risks? If reducing (obviously gender-skewed) labor complications is a valid societal concern, than shouldn't reducing (also gender-skewed) workplace fatalities also be a valid societal concern? I'm not really sure what you are arguing here with the pregnancy angle.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      > 100% of the males who get naturally pregnant. Almost, some trans men can get pregnant. But I am being pedantic.
zizee 5y ago
If you want to look at improving people's economic success, why not group people by that metric? Far better to send economic help to the poor, instead of by gender/race/religion etc.
acituan 5y ago
My take is that we ought to be careful about framing biases. I don't think "men" is the most useful variable to formulate every problem with. Unless we have evidence that there is an essence to every man that manifests itself in every one of these instances, we can't reduce solving these problems to "solving men". > Do we ignore the fact that the top of our society is dominated by men and only focus on the men in the 40th to 60th percentile of income? Like I said, we have to be careful not to treat them as joint issues. Unless proven otherwise, problems regarding a lack diversity of representation at executive classes is not related to economic problems of lower income percentiles, or educational prospects of young boys for that matter. The other framing bias is to treat as if can only fix one problem and we can only focus on that. It is actually a blessing that these are disjoint issues and we can multitask as a society and make incremental progress. > I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here. I think again this is because of attaching too much valence to category "men". You sound like a compassionate person and I think you wouldn't disagree if we formulated the problem as "any individual who is suffering raw deals should be treated fairly", even if those individuals happened to be low-income men or undereducated boys. I think true justice can only happen if no one is left behind. And treating men as a monolithic category will have the consequence of leaving some behind that shouldn't have been.