3 ms·

One nitpick: It is not the fault of anybody that any of their intrinsic member groups (e.g. race, gender) have historically been advantaged, regardless of age (

One nitpick: It is not the fault of anybody that any of their intrinsic member groups (e.g. race, gender) have historically been advantaged, regardless of age (until they decide to explicitly fight for that bias). I not only agree that doing this kind of social bias correction based on symptom addressal has eventual negative effects on others, I think holistically it's a net negative. Human nature makes this an almost impossible argument to present, but I really think it's just as damaging to actively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically advantaged group as it is to passively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically disadvantaged group.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I mostly agree with you. And yet... Let's say you have one group that is being left behind because of lack of social capital. (I think that's a decent term to describe the issue.) You don't want to discriminate against the other group, because that's unjust and has negative effects. But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. You say "don't reverse discriminate", and I think I agree. But then... what? What should we do?
- schmorptron 2y ago
  Yes, I feel like this hits the nail on the head. It's completely understandable that something had to be done. This might not be the ideal solution, but it's extremely good that it happened and is happening to stop women from being the under group. If the alternative is doing nothing, this is definitely the preferable outcome. The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done.
  - mattlondon 2y ago
    > The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done. Yeah I think this is part of the problem. Young boys have been given the message (implicitly, but also at times explicitly) that academic pursuits and achievement and learning are not for them. "Sorry you're a boy - this is not for you. Only girls get the support and encouragement and guidance and opportunities to achieve. Run a long and go play in the dirt or whatever it is boys do. You'll be fine on your own without any help." We've raised a generation or two of men who have been taught to not strive or aim high, and we're reaping what we've sown in that regard, with what was noted in the article of economically inactive males.
    - schmorptron 2y ago
      I've definitely felt this. I don't know how much of this feeling is legitimate and how much is just me seeking excuses externally, but the sentiment you mentioned is definitely felt and demotivating. Still, this isn't the women's fault who are engaging with and benefiting from these programs, so the solution isn't to go bash them for it. (not that I think you implied that) It's gotta be something different, uplifting. The most helpful sentiment might be "It's super cool that you're finally getting the opportunities that you deserved for years, and the support and coaching networks that have sprung up out of it are great. I'd like that as well."
- atmavatar 2y ago
  > But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. The point of the article is that women are no longer the "under" group. In the 80s and 90s, sure - the ratio of college graduates was something like 60:40 men to women, but now, it's the reverse. We should have started gradually taking the thumb off the scale as they approached parity, and we definitely should start taking the thumb off the scale now that the ratio is at least as lop-sided in favor of women as it was in the past for men. Of course, that's a bit overly-simplistic, as there are certainly fields where we should probably maintain advocacy programs for women (e.g., CS), but perhaps there's a need to start up advocacy programs for men in other fields to balance things out.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

I mostly agree with you. And yet... Let's say you have one group that is being left behind because of lack of social capital. (I think that's a decent term to describe the issue.) You don't want to discriminate against the other group, because that's unjust and has negative effects. But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. You say "don't reverse discriminate", and I think I agree. But then... what? What should we do?

schmorptron 2y ago
Yes, I feel like this hits the nail on the head. It's completely understandable that something had to be done. This might not be the ideal solution, but it's extremely good that it happened and is happening to stop women from being the under group. If the alternative is doing nothing, this is definitely the preferable outcome. The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done.
- mattlondon 2y ago
  > The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done. Yeah I think this is part of the problem. Young boys have been given the message (implicitly, but also at times explicitly) that academic pursuits and achievement and learning are not for them. "Sorry you're a boy - this is not for you. Only girls get the support and encouragement and guidance and opportunities to achieve. Run a long and go play in the dirt or whatever it is boys do. You'll be fine on your own without any help." We've raised a generation or two of men who have been taught to not strive or aim high, and we're reaping what we've sown in that regard, with what was noted in the article of economically inactive males.
  - schmorptron 2y ago
    I've definitely felt this. I don't know how much of this feeling is legitimate and how much is just me seeking excuses externally, but the sentiment you mentioned is definitely felt and demotivating. Still, this isn't the women's fault who are engaging with and benefiting from these programs, so the solution isn't to go bash them for it. (not that I think you implied that) It's gotta be something different, uplifting. The most helpful sentiment might be "It's super cool that you're finally getting the opportunities that you deserved for years, and the support and coaching networks that have sprung up out of it are great. I'd like that as well."
atmavatar 2y ago
> But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. The point of the article is that women are no longer the "under" group. In the 80s and 90s, sure - the ratio of college graduates was something like 60:40 men to women, but now, it's the reverse. We should have started gradually taking the thumb off the scale as they approached parity, and we definitely should start taking the thumb off the scale now that the ratio is at least as lop-sided in favor of women as it was in the past for men. Of course, that's a bit overly-simplistic, as there are certainly fields where we should probably maintain advocacy programs for women (e.g., CS), but perhaps there's a need to start up advocacy programs for men in other fields to balance things out.