5 ms·

It also fits into the larger societal trend of horribly underserving Zoomer and Alpha (maybe young Millennials too) young boys and men. I've heard someone put

• Dalewyn 2y ago
  I am forever unsympathetic to feminism so long as it's about forcing the pendulum to the other end. As someone who sincerely believes in gender equality, any argument (other than something stemming from unchangable facts of biology) that involves "men" or "women" specifically is hogwash. No, it should be for man as in mankind. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and equally.
  • dTal 2y ago
    >No, it should be for man as in mankind You undermined your own point with such impressive brevity that it could be satire.
    • Dalewyn 2y ago
      Thank you for beautifully illustrating my point, I could not ask for a better performance.
    • cheschire 2y ago
      I’m interested what you saw here that I clearly missed when I read it. Were you keying into something with the contemporary effort to replace a lot of language with gender neutral terms?
      • dTal 2y ago
        Yes. "Man" and "mankind" are already low key deprecated terms, because they reinforce a very strong historical bias towards male being the "default" sex. In this worldview, society is made of men, and women are accessories. Modern language prefers more egalitarian terms like "humans" and "humanity". The parent was arguing for "egalitarianism" in favor of so-called "reverse sexism" - a point of view I am very sympathetic with - but went out of their way to avoid contemporary sexually neutral terminology in favor of outdated and overtly sexist terminology. Pushback against the overwhelming backlog of casual male-dominating sexism that they deliberately exemplified is the entire reason for the "pushing the pendulum the other way" that they attack. Hence their point was immediately undermined. Given the overtness of the rhetorical maneuver and the response of the poster, I have to believe it was intentional and possibly bait.
        • Izkata 2y ago
          If we're going to go that kind of linguistic route, then "human" is also just a type of "man". Making "man" still the default. This kind of argument doesn't make sense to me.
          • dTal 2y ago
            The words "human" and "man" are etymologically unrelated. It's just a coincidence they both have m-a-n in them.
            • temporarely 2y ago
              "late Middle English humaine, from Old French humain(e), from Latin humanus, from homo ‘man, human being’. The present spelling became usual in the 18th century; compare with humane." and for man: "Old English man(n), (plural) menn (noun), mannian (verb), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch man, German Mann, and Sanskrit manu ‘mankind’." Interestingly enough, Manu was "the progenitor of mankind" and in Persian (which shares roots with Sanscrit) after Islam the equivalent "progenitor" Adam [aa-dam] is also commonly used to intend 'mankind'.
        • 2y ago
  • jorvi 2y ago
    I'd say we should strive for equal opportunity, not equal outcome. But a long as equal outcome is the goal, it is insanity that a 65/35 ratio is considered a societal emergency that billions of dollars have to be poured into to fix, but a 35/65 ratio is totally fine. I do trend libertarian so I'd say, spend another few billions to correct the overcorrection of the past decades, so everyone is on the same starting line in the rat race. Then outlaw any gender discrimination in either direction. Remove regulations for equal distribution in boardrooms or politics or whatever. Let people choose what they want, even if you end up with skewed ratios. And if research shows that after a decade, women or men are disadvantaged, apply small corrective action so that opportunity remains the same.
    • Dalewyn 2y ago
      In case I wasn't clear, I too believe in equal opportunity. Equal outcome is a farce that only brings everyone down to the floor.
  • Akronymus 2y ago
    That reminds me of the argument that feminism is for equality. Hell no, it isn't. Otherwise they'd advocate for mens issues as well, rather than taking any mens advocacy as being inherently misogynistic.
    • Llamamoe 2y ago
      The problem is that a lot of the time, at least online, any ground you give to men's issues is almost immediately overtaken by bad faith misogyny with the original, meaningful discourse drowning in it :/
      • Akronymus 2y ago
        It could be argued that because the ability to discuss mens issues openly is only in few places, because in other places such discussions are almost immediately overtaken by talk about womens issues, often by accusing the original discussion of being misogynistic, it leads to a certain hostility towards discussing womens issues. I have personally witnessed it multiple times when a discussion about mens issues was turned into a talk about womens issues via that very method. So I get why people turn hostile towards discussing womens issues at all, but I also get how that can come across as misogynistic.
    • Log_out_ 2y ago
      Its a thinly veiled social powergrab .. and not very different to what came before it. There is always a parade, there is always a priest caste, there is always original sin and martyrs. The ideas claim to be different, but the outcome stays the very same. If you see the world in social contracts, all attempts to fix it become a religion. And this synthetic religion violates the Separation between church and state.
  • renegat0x0 2y ago
    I have been discussing this topic many times, in various contexts. Some argue that some groups are oppressed, and require "help", or "boost". Without it they will not be able to break through. It is true, that some groups were wrongly marginalized. It is also true that some groups do have not integrated well into workforce because of their life decisions. Not everybody has to be CEO of company. It is impossible to make everyone equal. As someone from past-soviet country I know well who wants to make everyone equal. This topic often returns with actions of corporations, which try to fight inequalities. Corporations do not have morality, but they do have an image, and they want to have a good image. They need to have statistics that show that they are moral. They need equality programs. They need hiring quotas. All just to "appear" moral. It is all about perceived morality. PR. It is also a difficult discussion that requires a lot knowledge, and requires knowledge about many nuances. People like to shoot comments as bullets, but often these are not their own ideas, but ideas of political parties they align to. We may force, or bribe more women into work force. We may force, or bribe more marginalized social groups. I wonder how longer it will required, and what will happen if we stopped at some point. It is also a question about equality and equity, and while the latter is often discussed as more fair, for me it is also a PR engineering. It is all about reaching the right stats to not be attacked by leftist mob, that you do not have the right amount of X group. If you decided to treat equally people, you would not be able to integrate marginalized groups. So that is also a little bit disappointing. There is no easy answer in that. There need to be social programs to help people, but they should not harm our society. People need to be able to compete, and to do that you need environment based on abilities, not on gender, or skin color.
    • raxxorraxor 2y ago
      Equity, sometimes understood as total equality is a totalitarian nightmare. Not saying I don't favor a society where the bar for participation is lowered for all members of society. It should usually be a discussion in society itself, nobody can force any solidarity anyway. For me these secondary discussions around fairness only showed me political parties as well as companies that probably should not be trusted. I do forgive populism in political campaigns, but the opportunism I saw here hints to something quite ugly. In software I am thinking of a few companies here, mostly larger ones. They are very vocal about gender or racism issues and I believe it simply is a 100% hit rate to detect a very authoritarian leadership style. Most devs probably go there for the money, but it describes the opposite to a relaxed working environment and instead subjects to to some artificial and dogmatic way of thinking. Less of that please. And you never will seem tolerant of minority opinions if you cannot even restrain yourself from trying to police language. The equation will never resolve itself sensibly.
  • ejdhshsuwisjsh 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • faeriechangling 2y ago
    I usually hear feminism defined as "pro-equality", equality being defined by women.
• ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  > I've heard someone put it very succinctly: people like Andrew Tate are asking the right questions, but giving abominable answers. People like Andrew Tate are the only ones talking to men in those generations at all. As you said, we've left men behind in schooling which is a bad start in life. After that, we have a lot of programmes for women, both educational ("girls who code", etc.) to business things (women-owned businesses can get 3k eur to help them start in my country, many business-women awards, etc.), to healthcare (especially mental), economic (especially pensions, where up until recently men had to work more years and get lower pensions at same paychecks in my country... this has been fixed a bit recently, but men still live less on average but have to work the same years and get the same pensions even though they'll get them for less time). Also hollywood, where they replaced a lot of the traditional men roles with women (from superheroes to "fun nerds") while making men more and more incompetent (and that's not a new thing, just look at an average sitcom, especially from the 80s).... well, and lets not forget who has to die in wars, if the want to, or not. So yeah... after all that, there are a few people who actually talk to those men (be it Tate, Milo, or whoever), and give them men-oriented advice (good, or bad), that doesn't revolve around women. ... no shit the kids will like the only fw people who talk to them. A video version of this made in a fun way, but not far from truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQv8VuLpKN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQv8VuLpKN4
  • fwungy 2y ago
    Women often eventually discover they want children and are on a tight timeline. Men do too, but they are not on the timeline. They can start families at virtually any time in their life. By biasing work income towards men it gives women a larger selection of men to choose from to start families with while they are fertile. It also incents them to move sooner rather than work their own career longer to achieve their lifestyle goals, which conflicts with their fertility timeline. It's sad seeing my older female friends reaching the end of their fertility and realizing they don't want to live lives without children and families, but being at a disadvantage in the relationship market because the men they consider to be at their level are seeking younger women. "Woke-ism" is looking more and more like the inversion of reality. It is the denial of fundamental realities in the service of highly questionable ideals. In fact the ideals of "woke-ism" are so questionable that it only survives because they aren't allowed to be questioned.
• nlnn 2y ago
  What's the source for the 30/70 by the way? Someone else I spoke to recently mentioned that stat as well, but I couldn't see it reflected here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1345939/gender-distribution-world-leading-universities/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1345939/gender-distribut... I'm guessing it might be at smaller Universities, or country specific?
  • jorvi 2y ago
    Devil is in the details. Your source is about top universities, which are highly competitive. Any process that is highly competitive will trend male, which counterbiases for universities in general trending female for decades. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/mar/why-women-outnumber-men-college-enrollment https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2022/mar/why-women... > Since 1980, the female-to-male ratio in two-year college enrollment continued to increase until it hit about 1.4 in 1995, stabilizing at that point. The relative female-to-male ratio in four-year college enrollment, however, increased steadily throughout this time period, reaching 1.3 in the fall of 2019. https://pnpi.org/women-in-higher-education/ https://pnpi.org/women-in-higher-education/ > In Fall 2020, female students made up 58.6% of all postsecondary enrollment. If you look at the EU, its generally 45/55 to 40/60. But it gets iffy because within the EU, countries' their student populations are quite different. For example, the East Bloc has an outsized ratio of female STEM students because this was very normal in the Soviet Union. This is in large part because scientist wasn't seen as a prestigious job, just like computer scientist was an administrative job in the US in the 60s. That's a different conversation though.. Asia I don't know enough about to speak to with enough accuracy. Especially with how countries there are also very different from each other (say Japan/Korea/Singapore vs China vs Thailand/Vietnam vs Indonesia) In hindsight, "trending 35/65" would have been a more accurate statement. Thanks for checking me, I've added a correction to the OP :)
    • nlnn 2y ago
      Thank you for the links and update, much appreciated :)
• ejdhshsuwisjsh 2y ago
  I see this in stem areas and it clearly doesn't work.
• Akronymus 2y ago
  > constant talk of closing the gender wage gap for women. Which is mostly an artifact of bad statistics. As it is the average over all working men and women. Where men disproportionally take on dangerous but high paid jobs.
  • Izkata 2y ago
    I remember hearing over a decade ago that when correcting for that by comparing similar jobs, the gap actually flips - women out-earn men by a very small percent (like somewhere around 2-5%).
  • rurp 2y ago
    In addition to this, men value top line salary more than women relative to other benefits like PTO, medical, commute, etc. So in many cases men are actually taking worse jobs but get counted as increasing the wage gap.
• justonenote 2y ago
  If you accept a couple of other facts its even worse. Presuming you accept iq or related tests of cognitive ability as useful, (even if not capturing the entirety of human qualities) and you accept that males have higher variance in cognitive abilities, more around the extremes of low and high cognitive abilities, whereas women on average fall closer to the mean, then if higher education was based on ability you would expect to see more men in higher education. This is if course, verboten speak. I think as a society we have a lot to unpack.
  • sokoloff 2y ago
    If you accept those priors, men would be over-represented when attending college was rare and would become less dominant (and eventually a minority) when attending college became vastly more common.