3 ms·

"Men as a sex have had advantageous circumstances and treatment for a long time, yes. That has absolutely nothing to do with men who are alive today." Let's ta

by Steuard 14y ago

"Men as a sex have had advantageous circumstances and treatment for a long time, yes. That has absolutely nothing to do with men who are alive today." Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs. Let's talk about the recent study showing that given identical (fake) resumes for a lab manager position, scientists on average offer lower salary and less mentoring to female candidates. http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/sexists-in-white-coats-men-favored-for-laboratory-jobs-47182/ http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/sexists-in-white-coats-... That's just a few examples; there are countless others. I completely agree that it's unfair to blame men today for the long history of inequality in our society. But 1) that history is not remotely over, and 2) the responsibility that we do have as men alive today is to find whatever ways we can to make progress in improving these issues for everyone. I honestly don't know the best ways to do that; none of them seem entirely good or entirely effective. But if we know that there is a vast invisible finger of society tipping the scales against women in a given context, it does not strike me as necessarily immoral to put explicit structures in place designed to tip things a little bit back the other way. (I'm sure it could be implemented poorly.) We have to break the self-reinforcing cycle somehow, and maybe an admittedly clumsy counter-push against those social pressures can help.

papsosouid 14y ago
>Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs Sure. But lets also talk about the gender ratio of prisoners, the homeless, suicides, workplace deaths, etc. It is fallacious to look only at the top 0.0001% of men and declare that men as a group have things better as a result. Men have a much greater variance in virtually every measurable aspect. Look at the entire spectrum. http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
visarga 14y ago
> Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs. The few male at the top are supported by an army of women in leading positions, such as project manager and director. Under these women are many, many more men with lesser roles. Women have it good in the middle to upper regions of corporate and politics. In those roles they are very appreciated and have lots of real power (and get to boss around other men). It should be interesting to know how many have women as direct superiors vs viceversa.
obviouslygreen 14y ago
But if we know that there is a vast invisible finger of society tipping the scales against women in a given context, it does not strike me as necessarily immoral to put explicit structures in place designed to tip things a little bit back the other way. Seriously? A "vast invisible finger?" No, I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. I'm all for social equality. Equality of opportunity. The way to implement equality is not through further inequality in another direction. That means opportunity starting all the way at the bottom, with basic education, moving up towards higher education, government, and business. That does NOT mean "hey, we're going to fix this RIGHT NOW, and if women/blacks/pygmys/minority x are underrepresented in any way, we're going to 'tip the scales' in your favor until someone arbitrarily decides thing are 'equal' enough!" It is unfair to blame men for this situation. It's also unfair to everyone to try and solve the problem of discrimination with more discrimination.

by Steuard 14y ago

papsosouid 14y ago

>Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs Sure. But lets also talk about the gender ratio of prisoners, the homeless, suicides, workplace deaths, etc. It is fallacious to look only at the top 0.0001% of men and declare that men as a group have things better as a result. Men have a much greater variance in virtually every measurable aspect. Look at the entire spectrum. http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

visarga 14y ago

> Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs. The few male at the top are supported by an army of women in leading positions, such as project manager and director. Under these women are many, many more men with lesser roles. Women have it good in the middle to upper regions of corporate and politics. In those roles they are very appreciated and have lots of real power (and get to boss around other men). It should be interesting to know how many have women as direct superiors vs viceversa.

obviouslygreen 14y ago

But if we know that there is a vast invisible finger of society tipping the scales against women in a given context, it does not strike me as necessarily immoral to put explicit structures in place designed to tip things a little bit back the other way. Seriously? A "vast invisible finger?" No, I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. I'm all for social equality. Equality of opportunity. The way to implement equality is not through further inequality in another direction. That means opportunity starting all the way at the bottom, with basic education, moving up towards higher education, government, and business. That does NOT mean "hey, we're going to fix this RIGHT NOW, and if women/blacks/pygmys/minority x are underrepresented in any way, we're going to 'tip the scales' in your favor until someone arbitrarily decides thing are 'equal' enough!" It is unfair to blame men for this situation. It's also unfair to everyone to try and solve the problem of discrimination with more discrimination.