3 ms·
When it comes to issues that affect one of the genders, the structure of academia tends to basically ignore things unique to men. I think this is because every
by JPKab 4y ago
When it comes to issues that affect one of the genders, the structure of academia tends to basically ignore things unique to men. I think this is because every University researcher has a brigade of gender activists who only care about female issues ready to raise hell.
The delta between likelihood of attending college between males and females is higher now than it was before title IX was enforced. It's simply shifted in the other direction where females are far more likely to go to university than males.
Males are far less likely to graduate high school. They are far more likely to commit suicide and use drugs.
Nobody cares. There are tons of programs like "girls code" but nobody bothers to volunteer for programs like "boys graduate".
I have both a son and a daughter and it's obvious which one the school system is designed to cater to versus the one who is essentially flawed by design.
Our society and academia are fixated on inequalities amongst the top top tier of high status humans. As if the fact that a disproportionate number of Fortune 500 CEOs are males means anything to the 99.999% of males who will never be remotely that status.
It's just very odd that we have decided to divide humans into categories we care about based on identity.
- nico 4y agoYou are spot on. And it’s getting worse: https://www.profgalloway.com/a-fewer-good-men/ https://www.profgalloway.com/a-fewer-good-men/ Essentially, women want someone who is their equal or “higher status”. With big inequality, men at the bottom can’t get women, while most women compete for the small group of men at the top.
- maxbond 4y ago
- KptMarchewa 4y agoNo one argues that every women have a right to very high paying top status jobs, yet we try to structure society so that more women achieve that.
- tenebrisalietum 4y agoIn the US, you aren't supposed to accept handouts and are expected to work, because work is a virtue. However, it's OK and totally virtuous for someone to give you a job, or maintain a company structure to keep a job around so a person who "needs it" can keep their job, such as positions that tend to be filled by elderly. So structuring to give out jobs like rewards is not something exclusive to giving them to women, it happens to the elderly and politically connected all the time.
- maxbond 4y agoI'm not sure what you're implying and how you're relating this to my point, so I can't address it in relation to that unless you'd like to elaborate. Society is structured in a way that marginalizes women (among others) and denies them opportunity, and feminists have fought to enfranchise women economically and politically for more than a hundred years. As this movement picks up steam, people who were privileged under this system (mostly men like myself) can perceive this as "losing" rights. But what we're actually observing is increased parity. Let's say there are two objects moving parallel to each other, one moving faster than the other. Let's say we impart a force on the lagging object and it starts to catch up. If you're looking from the frame of reference of the leading object, than without anything else to compare to, you might look at this object catching up and perceive yourself to be slowing down. But we know this is an illusion, because we imparted no force to the leading object; it's moving at the same speed. It's important to broaden one's perspective.
- notch656a 4y agoHow on earth is this comment grey. Basic biology is women, with a higher reproductive burden, to be more selective.
- berjin 4y agoI suspect males tend to have a wider bell curve in income so when you combine the data from both sexes males will dominate the winning end (e.g. CEOs) as well as the bottom end (e.g. prisons). Nobody pays any attention to the bottom of the pyramid so all they see is a distorted view of a few alpha males dominating in the top half of the pyramid.