6 ms·

It’s funny, for men to think society is against them, when in reality they define society. As a straight white male, there are very few rooms, very few jobs, v

by Zetice 4y ago

It’s funny, for men to think society is against them, when in reality they define society. As a straight white male, there are very few rooms, very few jobs, very few situations where I don’t have absolute confidence that I belong there. Is it so bad to think everybody should feel that way? Your son will be fine.

stuckinhell 4y ago
You sure have a lot of assumptions there. Generational changes are occurring, he won't live the life you or I did. Also my son isn't white.
- Zetice 4y ago
  [dead]
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
What are your thoughts on the study GP linked to? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- DSMan195276 4y ago
  The thing about these statistics is that the size of the underlying groups are not the same, and there's a whole lot of factors that impact them in complicated ways. The article you linked even gives a direct explanation of why the data is hard to interpret and suggests that the solution is encouraging more females to apply, because females are likely to self-select out of the field unless they are very likely to go further: > [See SI Appendix for descriptions of other audits of actual hiring that accord with this view, some dating back to the 1980s. Many studies have argued (see ref. 14) that because only the very top women persist in math-intensive fields, their advantage in being hired is justified because they are more competent than the average male applicant. This is why an accurate evaluation of gender preference in hiring depends on data from an experiment in which competence is held constant.] Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings. The FA has the same thing going on, it says that females are 3-15 times more likely to be elected, but _also_ that they only make up 40% of elected members, so not even half. The only way that's possible is if significantly less of them are apply to begin with, and it's reasonable to assume there's some self-selecting going (or at the very least, since the groups are so different in size they're not directly comparable in terms of qualifications) on the same as the article you linked. The issue of men and women acceptance rates in college is even the exact example given on the Simpson's paradox Wikipedia page, because it's such a simple one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
dasil003 4y ago
No one group defines society. It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power, and its admirable to acknowledge your own privilege as you are doing here, but it's critical to not start believing that the cultural narrative du jour is somehow the ground truth. The minute we do this, we feed political polarization between genuinely good people, and open the door for liars and sociopaths to manipulate us like herd animals to their own ends.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  > It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair. A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power. People always confuse these things. Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.
  - dasil003 4y ago
    I feel you are fundamentally in agreement with my point and splitting hairs to satisfy a pedantic desire to make a very specific semantic distinction. It might feel good, but you're not going to win anyone over with this type of nitpicking.
    - norwalkbear 4y ago
      It's not pedantic. It's a damn good point. Most men are shit out of luck just like most women beholden to whims of those with money and power.
      - dasil003 4y ago
        It is pedantic because it's nitpicking my choice of words to make a completely separate point. This attracts people with the same concern (like you), but does nothing to bridge the gap to people with an alternate viewpoint (like the OP I responded to). Put another way, I could have made my point with a different choice of words that would not have drawn the response from mpweiher (and you). The problem is, any choice of words is open to be misinterpreted by someone with an axe to grind. If you want to be angry and find like-minded angry individuals, be my guest. If you want to build empathy and mutual understanding, then it's worth it to try to engage with people's primary point rather than seizing on an uncharitable interpretation of a particular phrasing or choice of words.

by Zetice 4y ago

stuckinhell 4y ago

You sure have a lot of assumptions there. Generational changes are occurring, he won't live the life you or I did. Also my son isn't white.

Zetice 4y ago
[dead]

ed25519FUUU 4y ago

What are your thoughts on the study GP linked to? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DSMan195276 4y ago
The thing about these statistics is that the size of the underlying groups are not the same, and there's a whole lot of factors that impact them in complicated ways. The article you linked even gives a direct explanation of why the data is hard to interpret and suggests that the solution is encouraging more females to apply, because females are likely to self-select out of the field unless they are very likely to go further: > [See SI Appendix for descriptions of other audits of actual hiring that accord with this view, some dating back to the 1980s. Many studies have argued (see ref. 14) that because only the very top women persist in math-intensive fields, their advantage in being hired is justified because they are more competent than the average male applicant. This is why an accurate evaluation of gender preference in hiring depends on data from an experiment in which competence is held constant.] Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings. The FA has the same thing going on, it says that females are 3-15 times more likely to be elected, but _also_ that they only make up 40% of elected members, so not even half. The only way that's possible is if significantly less of them are apply to begin with, and it's reasonable to assume there's some self-selecting going (or at the very least, since the groups are so different in size they're not directly comparable in terms of qualifications) on the same as the article you linked. The issue of men and women acceptance rates in college is even the exact example given on the Simpson's paradox Wikipedia page, because it's such a simple one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

dasil003 4y ago

No one group defines society. It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power, and its admirable to acknowledge your own privilege as you are doing here, but it's critical to not start believing that the cultural narrative du jour is somehow the ground truth. The minute we do this, we feed political polarization between genuinely good people, and open the door for liars and sociopaths to manipulate us like herd animals to their own ends.

mpweiher 4y ago
> It's fair to say men hold a disproportionate amount of power No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair. A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power. People always confuse these things. Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.
- dasil003 4y ago
  I feel you are fundamentally in agreement with my point and splitting hairs to satisfy a pedantic desire to make a very specific semantic distinction. It might feel good, but you're not going to win anyone over with this type of nitpicking.
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    It's not pedantic. It's a damn good point. Most men are shit out of luck just like most women beholden to whims of those with money and power.
    - dasil003 4y ago
      It is pedantic because it's nitpicking my choice of words to make a completely separate point. This attracts people with the same concern (like you), but does nothing to bridge the gap to people with an alternate viewpoint (like the OP I responded to). Put another way, I could have made my point with a different choice of words that would not have drawn the response from mpweiher (and you). The problem is, any choice of words is open to be misinterpreted by someone with an axe to grind. If you want to be angry and find like-minded angry individuals, be my guest. If you want to build empathy and mutual understanding, then it's worth it to try to engage with people's primary point rather than seizing on an uncharitable interpretation of a particular phrasing or choice of words.