Maybe 'fault' is too strong, but it appears to at least lay the burden on men. > The article repeatedly says that no-one knows why these things are so: they ar

Maybe 'fault' is too strong, but it appears to at least lay the burden on men. > The article repeatedly says that no-one knows why these things are so: they are symptoms, not causes. Well, I have some ideas as I suggested. I'm not going to claim it fully explains the current situation we are in, but I think it could be at least partly be attributed to these biased systems that were supposed to address bias. I'm mostly against the use of "positive discrimination" (putting 'positive' in front of something terrible doesn't make it good), but one of the largest concerns is that there is no plan in place to either measure acceptable levels of balance or a system to transition into after. For example, if we now find men are struggling (which they are), do we now implement "positive discrimination" until men are equally represented in education? Do we reject perfectly capable females from the application process in order to address the balancing, eventually over correcting and needing to re-balance again? Where does this end? > The article also says figuring out the causes is a fairly urgent and important problem, yet it is being ignored. And it will continue to be ignored. The many systems involved have zero incentive to change. They quiet the small vocal activists by implementing their bias. You may ask "well, why don't men become activists?". They tried, look at how the men's rights activist groups were treated. > This was never true. That is pure nostalgia. I'm not suggesting meritocracy was implemented fairly across all people everywhere in the past, but for small pockets of society it has been. Like many systems, it cannot work without some oversight, but the nudges should be minimalist.