7 ms·

I skimmed the first quarter of it and read through the rest; a decent read that touches on a lot of good points. I found this particularly interesting: The mi

I skimmed the first quarter of it and read through the rest; a decent read that touches on a lot of good points. I found this particularly interesting: The mistake of many modern feminists, he writes, is that they “look only at the top of society and draw conclusions about society as a whole. Yes, there are mostly men at the top. But if you look at the bottom, really at the bottom, you’ll find mostly men there, too.” His examples: The homeless; the imprisoned; the people who die at work, 92 percent of whom are male. The popular modern view is that it’s women who are most poorly valued by culture. But, ever the contrarian, Baumeister says men are demonstrably “more expendable than women.” Also this: Susan remembers hearing about a theory that the most successful people in life are those who are still searching for their parents’ unconditional regard. Sound like any famous (recently deceased) CEO?

maaaats 12y ago
> a decent read that touches on a lot of good points. Too bad the title is really off-putting. Sounds like any clickbait website, not a good journalistic piece.
- meesterdude 12y ago
  thats why i skimmed the first quarter of it :)
erikb 12y ago
The idea that men are on the top and the bottom and women somewhere in the middle is something I also experienced when learning about China. There are so many men who are completely unable to find a decent job and nor any wife at all, and on the other end of the spectrum men so rich that one of them has more money/power than a small country. The point that women completely ignore the men on the bottom and fight each other about the men on the top, who in turn have so much choice and so little punishment for bad behaviour that they don't regard women as breathing human beings, seems to add up to a picture that looks quite realistic. It's probably a little too simplified, though. While the percentages vary between top and bottom men and women, you have both on each level. Beside the amount of people one would also need to look at the impact on each gender's life. And the result might still be that a woman on the bottom might have a much harder life than a man, and a woman at the top might not gain as many rewards as a man. It's rather hard to get a complete picture, right?
- Tycho 12y ago
  I've never seen those two ideas combined before: the skewness of the male population towards failure, and the resulting misogyny of the "spoilt for choice" men at the other end of the distribution. Very interesting.
- saraid216 12y ago
  Notably, the men at the bottom are considered failures for failing to acquire a wife. That's also one of those things that feminism takes issue with. Poor males are not saints; they just aren't in a position to actually change the overall status quo. If wife acquisition stopped being an indicator of success in China, you'd have a lot fewer men being considered at the bottom.
  - erikb 12y ago
    That's an interesting view. My English is not so good. What I meant was that getting a wife is the result of being successful for the Chinese guys I know. If you have a stable job, an apartment and a car you are quite likely to get a wife. But there are many people applying for the jobs, and cars/apartments are more expensive than in the west. Or was your comment linked to that in some way?
    - saraid216 12y ago
      That isn't congruous to what I know. From what I've seen and heard, getting a wife was the goal, and since women had actual choices, they'd be choosing someone with a stable job, apartment, etc., so the men feel compelled to get those things. They're not accidentally tripping over wives; they're actively seeking them out.
      - erikb 12y ago
        That's interesting. From what I've seen I would guess that Chinese women seek marriage partners above else, but Chinese men choose financial success above else. Losing a wife to get rich is okay for them. But failing to get a car and house can not be compensated by having a wife. I would agree that marriage is more important to Chinese men than to western men. The idea of marriage is also different, though.
adekok 12y ago
> The mistake of many modern feminists, he writes, is that they “look only at the top of society..." And see themselves as deserving of the same. As entitled to it. Without doing the 20 years of 16 hour days which helped the CEO get there. There's a large amount of narcissism in such declarations.
leoc 12y ago
> Susan remembers hearing about a theory that the most successful people in life are those who are still searching for their parents’ unconditional regard. BBC correspondent Robert Peston made a short radio documentary http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nh06m http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nh06m about this after being left with the same impression after interviewing many successful business people as part of his job. There's also the idea that the experience of an (in some way) absent parent during childhood is strongly correlated with narcissism, which in turn is strongly correlated with success in the entertainment industry. (I can't find a good link which discusses this atm.)
geogra4 12y ago
>The mistake of many modern feminists, he writes, is that they “look only at the top of society and draw conclusions about society as a whole This is a critique that a lot of feminists make as well. Google the phrase 'white feminism' to see
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
His criticism of feminism is terrible and nothing new at all. I wish he would just shut up and try to draw inferences from his data instead of speculating on a movement he hasn't made any actual attempts to understand. Feminism deserves competent critique from outside its own movement, but it's sure not coming from him. Feminism has more than enough explanation for the expendability of males, he just doesn't know that because he's working from a caricature.
- graeme 12y ago
  Could you link a feminist discussion of the expendibility of males, skewness of male outcomes, or a critique of Baumeister? I read Baumeister's essay a little while ago, and went looking for critiques. All I found was name calling. I'd like to read an actual response. (for anyone reading, I'm actually very interested in reading a critique. I'm not just passively calling out the parent post.)
  - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
    I don't have any offhand but let me give you one. The social construction of "men" is that men are made (this is in contrast to social construction of women as natural e.g. babymakers.) You have to work to be a man, you don't have innate value. To be a man you compete with other males for resources and reputation. This is the basis of hierarchy, part of male society, the so-called Patriarchy. In competition there are of course losers. They are not men, so much as they are failed men. This is a natural state, there are winners and losers in life. So the theory goes, feminism wants to free men from this destructive social order. This is a feminist theory that explains why there are men on the top and men on the bottom but masculinity is still the underlying principle. That is one theory, there are other theories. You can poke holes in this theory, but it's not just a handwave that feminists haven't thought about this or recognized that men are disposable. I mean, feminism knows about this thing called "war." My major problem with feminism is that there is a large gap between theory and activism which results in time and energy being spent on CEO equality and ignoring feminism's own arguments about how mistreated many males are in the lower rungs of society. But that is a problem with practice, not theory.
rlthomas 12y ago
I think a large part of the reason that men are more likely to end up "on the bottom" of society is that men have smaller support systems/friend networks than women. Some of the reasons for this are stigma against men expressing vulnerability, stigma against men seeking help, homophobia around close male friendships, gender expectations that women should do more "emotional work" than men, and stereotypes that women are social and men are not. Feminism seeks to dismantle all of the above, so in that sense, it would make it possible for men to have much stronger support networks. Additionally, many (most?) feminists believe in "intersectionality", the belief that sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism act in intersecting ways, and that all need to be dismantled together (for instance, this is why most feminists support reform of the US prison system, even though this is something that primarily effects men). Dismantling these oppressive systems would very much help those on the bottom. The exclusive-focus-on-more-white-woman-as-CEOs brand of feminism is actually a minority of feminists (although they seem to get the most coverage in the popular press) and is widely critiqued within feminism.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  > "Additionally, many (most?) feminists believe in "intersectionality", the belief that sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism act in intersecting ways" Yes, of course they intersect, at their core they're all the same thing; judgements made based on human traits. What does it matter whether people are judged based on gender, skin colour, etc... ? The point is, the judgements are being made whilst we build a picture of the world around us. The danger only comes when irrational traits are associated, when those being judged are not careful about self-fulfilling prophecies, and when people forget that stereotypes are a shortcut, never the whole picture.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    While I was going to tell you to look up the term "kyriarchy", I decided to verify my spelling and instead found this write-up: https://rancom.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/why-no-one-should-use-that-word-kyriarchy-instead-of-patriarchy/ https://rancom.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/why-no-one-should-us... It has the double-barreled utility of both sufficiently explaining the term I wanted to introduce to you and provide a reasonable critique of it at the same time.
saturnine 12y ago
"[T]here are mostly men at the top [and] at the bottom" That's consistent with analysis by Howard Wainer[1] on gender differences: "[I]t has been well established that there is an overabundance of boys at the high end of test score distributions. [S]ome observers have used such results to make inferences about differences in intelligence between the sexes. [H]owever, most enlightened investigators have seen that it is not necessarily a difference in level but a difference in variance that separates the sexes. Thus, while there are more boys at the high end, there are also more at the low end." [1] The Most Dangerous Equation http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf
facepalm 12y ago
Here is a transcript of a speech he gave on the subject of men: http://triggeralert.blogspot.de/2010/10/is-there-anything-good-about-men.html http://triggeralert.blogspot.de/2010/10/is-there-anything-go... I think it's well worth a read.
barry-cotter 12y ago
>Susan remembers hearing about a theory that the most successful people in life are those who are still searching for their parents’ unconditional regard. Sound like any famous (recently deceased) CEO? If this is a reference to Steve Jobs it arguues with great strength against your point. Jobs was raised by a working class couple who adopted him. From reading Isaacson's biography they seem to have been proud but bemused parents. Comparing Jobs to his biological sister (His grad student parents later married and had her.) and his adoptive sister would suggest heredity is pretty powerful.

maaaats 12y ago

> a decent read that touches on a lot of good points. Too bad the title is really off-putting. Sounds like any clickbait website, not a good journalistic piece.

meesterdude 12y ago
thats why i skimmed the first quarter of it :)

erikb 12y ago

The idea that men are on the top and the bottom and women somewhere in the middle is something I also experienced when learning about China. There are so many men who are completely unable to find a decent job and nor any wife at all, and on the other end of the spectrum men so rich that one of them has more money/power than a small country. The point that women completely ignore the men on the bottom and fight each other about the men on the top, who in turn have so much choice and so little punishment for bad behaviour that they don't regard women as breathing human beings, seems to add up to a picture that looks quite realistic. It's probably a little too simplified, though. While the percentages vary between top and bottom men and women, you have both on each level. Beside the amount of people one would also need to look at the impact on each gender's life. And the result might still be that a woman on the bottom might have a much harder life than a man, and a woman at the top might not gain as many rewards as a man. It's rather hard to get a complete picture, right?

Tycho 12y ago
I've never seen those two ideas combined before: the skewness of the male population towards failure, and the resulting misogyny of the "spoilt for choice" men at the other end of the distribution. Very interesting.
saraid216 12y ago
Notably, the men at the bottom are considered failures for failing to acquire a wife. That's also one of those things that feminism takes issue with. Poor males are not saints; they just aren't in a position to actually change the overall status quo. If wife acquisition stopped being an indicator of success in China, you'd have a lot fewer men being considered at the bottom.
- erikb 12y ago
  That's an interesting view. My English is not so good. What I meant was that getting a wife is the result of being successful for the Chinese guys I know. If you have a stable job, an apartment and a car you are quite likely to get a wife. But there are many people applying for the jobs, and cars/apartments are more expensive than in the west. Or was your comment linked to that in some way?
  - saraid216 12y ago
    That isn't congruous to what I know. From what I've seen and heard, getting a wife was the goal, and since women had actual choices, they'd be choosing someone with a stable job, apartment, etc., so the men feel compelled to get those things. They're not accidentally tripping over wives; they're actively seeking them out.
    - erikb 12y ago
      That's interesting. From what I've seen I would guess that Chinese women seek marriage partners above else, but Chinese men choose financial success above else. Losing a wife to get rich is okay for them. But failing to get a car and house can not be compensated by having a wife. I would agree that marriage is more important to Chinese men than to western men. The idea of marriage is also different, though.

adekok 12y ago

> The mistake of many modern feminists, he writes, is that they “look only at the top of society..." And see themselves as deserving of the same. As entitled to it. Without doing the 20 years of 16 hour days which helped the CEO get there. There's a large amount of narcissism in such declarations.

leoc 12y ago

> Susan remembers hearing about a theory that the most successful people in life are those who are still searching for their parents’ unconditional regard. BBC correspondent Robert Peston made a short radio documentary http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nh06m http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nh06m about this after being left with the same impression after interviewing many successful business people as part of his job. There's also the idea that the experience of an (in some way) absent parent during childhood is strongly correlated with narcissism, which in turn is strongly correlated with success in the entertainment industry. (I can't find a good link which discusses this atm.)

geogra4 12y ago

>The mistake of many modern feminists, he writes, is that they “look only at the top of society and draw conclusions about society as a whole This is a critique that a lot of feminists make as well. Google the phrase 'white feminism' to see

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

His criticism of feminism is terrible and nothing new at all. I wish he would just shut up and try to draw inferences from his data instead of speculating on a movement he hasn't made any actual attempts to understand. Feminism deserves competent critique from outside its own movement, but it's sure not coming from him. Feminism has more than enough explanation for the expendability of males, he just doesn't know that because he's working from a caricature.

graeme 12y ago
Could you link a feminist discussion of the expendibility of males, skewness of male outcomes, or a critique of Baumeister? I read Baumeister's essay a little while ago, and went looking for critiques. All I found was name calling. I'd like to read an actual response. (for anyone reading, I'm actually very interested in reading a critique. I'm not just passively calling out the parent post.)
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  I don't have any offhand but let me give you one. The social construction of "men" is that men are made (this is in contrast to social construction of women as natural e.g. babymakers.) You have to work to be a man, you don't have innate value. To be a man you compete with other males for resources and reputation. This is the basis of hierarchy, part of male society, the so-called Patriarchy. In competition there are of course losers. They are not men, so much as they are failed men. This is a natural state, there are winners and losers in life. So the theory goes, feminism wants to free men from this destructive social order. This is a feminist theory that explains why there are men on the top and men on the bottom but masculinity is still the underlying principle. That is one theory, there are other theories. You can poke holes in this theory, but it's not just a handwave that feminists haven't thought about this or recognized that men are disposable. I mean, feminism knows about this thing called "war." My major problem with feminism is that there is a large gap between theory and activism which results in time and energy being spent on CEO equality and ignoring feminism's own arguments about how mistreated many males are in the lower rungs of society. But that is a problem with practice, not theory.

rlthomas 12y ago

I think a large part of the reason that men are more likely to end up "on the bottom" of society is that men have smaller support systems/friend networks than women. Some of the reasons for this are stigma against men expressing vulnerability, stigma against men seeking help, homophobia around close male friendships, gender expectations that women should do more "emotional work" than men, and stereotypes that women are social and men are not. Feminism seeks to dismantle all of the above, so in that sense, it would make it possible for men to have much stronger support networks. Additionally, many (most?) feminists believe in "intersectionality", the belief that sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism act in intersecting ways, and that all need to be dismantled together (for instance, this is why most feminists support reform of the US prison system, even though this is something that primarily effects men). Dismantling these oppressive systems would very much help those on the bottom. The exclusive-focus-on-more-white-woman-as-CEOs brand of feminism is actually a minority of feminists (although they seem to get the most coverage in the popular press) and is widely critiqued within feminism.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
> "Additionally, many (most?) feminists believe in "intersectionality", the belief that sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism act in intersecting ways" Yes, of course they intersect, at their core they're all the same thing; judgements made based on human traits. What does it matter whether people are judged based on gender, skin colour, etc... ? The point is, the judgements are being made whilst we build a picture of the world around us. The danger only comes when irrational traits are associated, when those being judged are not careful about self-fulfilling prophecies, and when people forget that stereotypes are a shortcut, never the whole picture.
- saraid216 12y ago
  While I was going to tell you to look up the term "kyriarchy", I decided to verify my spelling and instead found this write-up: https://rancom.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/why-no-one-should-use-that-word-kyriarchy-instead-of-patriarchy/ https://rancom.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/why-no-one-should-us... It has the double-barreled utility of both sufficiently explaining the term I wanted to introduce to you and provide a reasonable critique of it at the same time.

saturnine 12y ago

"[T]here are mostly men at the top [and] at the bottom" That's consistent with analysis by Howard Wainer[1] on gender differences: "[I]t has been well established that there is an overabundance of boys at the high end of test score distributions. [S]ome observers have used such results to make inferences about differences in intelligence between the sexes. [H]owever, most enlightened investigators have seen that it is not necessarily a difference in level but a difference in variance that separates the sexes. Thus, while there are more boys at the high end, there are also more at the low end." [1] The Most Dangerous Equation http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf

facepalm 12y ago

Here is a transcript of a speech he gave on the subject of men: http://triggeralert.blogspot.de/2010/10/is-there-anything-good-about-men.html http://triggeralert.blogspot.de/2010/10/is-there-anything-go... I think it's well worth a read.

barry-cotter 12y ago

>Susan remembers hearing about a theory that the most successful people in life are those who are still searching for their parents’ unconditional regard. Sound like any famous (recently deceased) CEO? If this is a reference to Steve Jobs it arguues with great strength against your point. Jobs was raised by a working class couple who adopted him. From reading Isaacson's biography they seem to have been proud but bemused parents. Comparing Jobs to his biological sister (His grad student parents later married and had her.) and his adoptive sister would suggest heredity is pretty powerful.