5 ms·

Men still 100% rule the world and always will. It's just now a small group of elite men rather than power being more distributed. The entire "feminism" project

Men still 100% rule the world and always will. It's just now a small group of elite men rather than power being more distributed. The entire "feminism" project is mostly just social engineering for elite men to castrate their competition and consolidate power under the guise of equality.

qorrect 4y ago
> The entire "feminism" project is mostly just social engineering for elite men to castrate their competition and consolidate power under the guise of equality. How so ?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Not endorsing the argument, but for example 'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution' by Louise Perry could give you the opinions behind this. Her opinion is that men have co-opted and subverted feminism to ironically increase exploitation of women.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  At the tech companies I worked at in San Francisco, we set up diversity hiring initiatives aimed at increasing the share of women and PoC engineers. Recruiters were given bonuses and quotas for hiring favored demographics. In practice, this meant that men who didn't go to Ivys, MIT, Stanford, and other top colleges didn't even get interviewed. Most women were interviewed, and they got multiple chances to pass interviews. The end result of this system is that elite men were hired exclusively, while women of various classes were hired. I don't think this was some moustache-twirlingly evil plot to exclude non elite men. I think leadership just responding to pressure to increase the share of women, and the end result was this set of double standards. The end result of mandating a specific percent of women is that companies get more selective when choosing men. And FWIW, most women didn't like this situation. I'd say at most 1/3rd were supportive of these practices. The double standards were open secrets, and many women worried that this would affect perceptions of competence. Especially when equal promotion rates were also enforced. Since now you have a double standard at hiring and both groups were guaranteed equal numbers of promotions, which inevitably led to different standards in promotions too.
- Dma54rhs 4y ago
  Because women compare to themselves with the chosen few high power men while ignoring tge low caste men that are invisible. It's a numbers game. There are more women well off than men despite looking at some averages per sector. If course the men beneath them feel resentment.
cjbgkagh 4y ago
I've always figured a lot of the pressure for the status elevation of women has come from the elite men in order to make room for their daughters and mistresses. A few of my exes went on to be mistresses of elite men and were gifted executive roles at prestigious companies. They now advise women on how to be successful but somehow leave out the important details.
- origin_path 4y ago
  This seems common. I was surprised to discover at my last employer how many of the girls in marketing were the daughters of the rich CEO or his equally 'elite' friends. One of them was an extreme sjw feminist to the extent that she objected to men asking that men's day be celebrated as well as women's day. Needless to say they weren't especially good at their jobs, not that it mattered much.
luckylion 4y ago
And every powerful woman is a man for all intents and purposes, because "men have power"? Or do powerful woman simply not exist in your theory of reality and it's all a charade where some secret society hires women and everyone including them pretends that they are powerful?
- vinyl7 4y ago
  Yes, that's why companies prioritize diversity over meritocracy
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Thatcher or Merkel were famously elected because their respective parties prioritized diversity?
    - switch007 4y ago
      You think she was elected for merit? That’s not how politics works in the UK
      - luckylion 4y ago
        She was elected how every other politician ever got elected: by maneuvering smartly, building alliances, having a strong network and being lucky with getting the timing right and not getting tossed out because of circumstances beyond their control. And yet they obviously did get elected and had real power. "Men rule the world" as a serious statement is obviously nonsense and it's so easy to disprove I'm amazed that it was even claimed, unless it's with the modern sociological twist of "power is male, therefore these women were men while in power" and similar attempts to destroy all capability of language transporting information.
throwawaysleep 4y ago
> It's just now a small group of elite men It was ALWAYS just a small group of men. The group of men doing the ruling is the largest and most distributed in history.

qorrect 4y ago

> The entire "feminism" project is mostly just social engineering for elite men to castrate their competition and consolidate power under the guise of equality. How so ?

chrisseaton 4y ago
Not endorsing the argument, but for example 'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution' by Louise Perry could give you the opinions behind this. Her opinion is that men have co-opted and subverted feminism to ironically increase exploitation of women.
Manuel_D 4y ago
At the tech companies I worked at in San Francisco, we set up diversity hiring initiatives aimed at increasing the share of women and PoC engineers. Recruiters were given bonuses and quotas for hiring favored demographics. In practice, this meant that men who didn't go to Ivys, MIT, Stanford, and other top colleges didn't even get interviewed. Most women were interviewed, and they got multiple chances to pass interviews. The end result of this system is that elite men were hired exclusively, while women of various classes were hired. I don't think this was some moustache-twirlingly evil plot to exclude non elite men. I think leadership just responding to pressure to increase the share of women, and the end result was this set of double standards. The end result of mandating a specific percent of women is that companies get more selective when choosing men. And FWIW, most women didn't like this situation. I'd say at most 1/3rd were supportive of these practices. The double standards were open secrets, and many women worried that this would affect perceptions of competence. Especially when equal promotion rates were also enforced. Since now you have a double standard at hiring and both groups were guaranteed equal numbers of promotions, which inevitably led to different standards in promotions too.
Dma54rhs 4y ago
Because women compare to themselves with the chosen few high power men while ignoring tge low caste men that are invisible. It's a numbers game. There are more women well off than men despite looking at some averages per sector. If course the men beneath them feel resentment.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

I've always figured a lot of the pressure for the status elevation of women has come from the elite men in order to make room for their daughters and mistresses. A few of my exes went on to be mistresses of elite men and were gifted executive roles at prestigious companies. They now advise women on how to be successful but somehow leave out the important details.

origin_path 4y ago
This seems common. I was surprised to discover at my last employer how many of the girls in marketing were the daughters of the rich CEO or his equally 'elite' friends. One of them was an extreme sjw feminist to the extent that she objected to men asking that men's day be celebrated as well as women's day. Needless to say they weren't especially good at their jobs, not that it mattered much.

luckylion 4y ago

And every powerful woman is a man for all intents and purposes, because "men have power"? Or do powerful woman simply not exist in your theory of reality and it's all a charade where some secret society hires women and everyone including them pretends that they are powerful?

vinyl7 4y ago
Yes, that's why companies prioritize diversity over meritocracy
- luckylion 4y ago
  Thatcher or Merkel were famously elected because their respective parties prioritized diversity?
  - switch007 4y ago
    You think she was elected for merit? That’s not how politics works in the UK
    - luckylion 4y ago
      She was elected how every other politician ever got elected: by maneuvering smartly, building alliances, having a strong network and being lucky with getting the timing right and not getting tossed out because of circumstances beyond their control. And yet they obviously did get elected and had real power. "Men rule the world" as a serious statement is obviously nonsense and it's so easy to disprove I'm amazed that it was even claimed, unless it's with the modern sociological twist of "power is male, therefore these women were men while in power" and similar attempts to destroy all capability of language transporting information.

throwawaysleep 4y ago

> It's just now a small group of elite men It was ALWAYS just a small group of men. The group of men doing the ruling is the largest and most distributed in history.