But isn’t this mentality just flawed in general? Comment sections aren’t representative of society since they tend to attract the loudest, angriest voices. They’re usually not a balanced sample of public opinion. Using them as proof creates a circular argument where hostility toward feminism is treated as both the cause and the evidence of its necessity. It also mistakes correlation for causation and can shut down nuanced discussion by treating all criticism as misogyny.
Maybe it doesn’t represent the public opinion, but it still does show that there are plenty of dickheads out there somewhere. And sometimes those dickheads find their way into governments and positions where they turn more people into dickheads.
I think people like this are unable to see structural inequality. If you take away structural inequality and squint, it can almost look like women have it better than men.
Tragically, this means they are unable to mentally critique the system they exist in, and therefore will remain slaves to it.
It’s two different arguments. Individually there are many people who see women having it better then themselves and of course they will be upset when society is saying they don’t. Empathy here is understanding both sides have some valid points. Men do have a lot of problems in society. An entire generation left behind because many social programs focused only on boosting women while forgetting men. Telling those men to suck it up or that they’re wrong isn’t the answer. It’s only going to radicalize sides. Both sides should be addressed.
Well I wouldn’t say an entire generation, but apparently in the urbanite Western Gen Z population, the wage gap has reversed with women earning more than men due to how modern education and gender roles interact.
So if you were to be born in this millennium, the “most privileged” demographic is Western urbanite women.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
Well I wouldn’t say an entire generation, but apparently in the urbanite Western Gen Z population, the wage gap has reversed with women earning more than men due to how modern education and gender roles interact.
"for those working full-time between the ages of 16 and 24, the gender pay gap has reversed. This means that for much of Gen Z – including those who have recently left university – women on average are slightly higher paid than men. In later life, this is expected to reverse and widen in favour of men, a gap that is usually attributed to greater male participation in higher-paying fields and the “motherhood penalty”, which reflects the disproportionate share of childcare undertaken by women. "
The trends of children do not reflect the reality of adulthood employment and social constructs. This has been the case for a while now.
I’m reminded of how outraged feminists were about the inequality when men had a significant majority of college degrees[1], but in the present day, after the myriad of programs/grants/scholarships exclusive to women got it to the point where women are now significantly more than half of college graduates, and men are in the minority, suddenly feminists aren’t concerned with that inequality anymore.
One of the many reasons the claims that feminism was for everyone and that there was no need for male-focused advocacy (and that, in fact, such advocacy was inherently misogynistic) because feminists ‘had it covered’, always rang hollow.
An actual egalitarian would care about a significant imbalance in either direction that’s caused by bigotry/prejudice, regardless of who’s got the short end of the stick.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
Yes, this is actual egalitarian thinking. Special interests who don’t care about inequalities that benefit ‘their group’, or stop caring when an inequality that affected ‘their group’ now favors ‘their group’, are not forces for equality/fairness.
Garbage article confusing classism with sexism. Ultimately DEI only helped a small percentage of women access jobs they would not be considered for in the past. It is called competition, but this guy wants to try and create a narrative that doesn’t exist except in his head.
Whether it is another male or a well qualified woman it doesn’t change you were not in the right spot at the right time. Blaming a competitive employment space on DEI is just stupid. There are hundreds if not thousands of candidates that all want that job.
The statistics don’t lie as well ~45 percent low level managers are women. So men still have an advantage, but it gets worse with seniors management only about ~35 percent. Even worse CEO ~10 percent. Doesn’t look like DEI was an advantage after all.
Do people actually believe something like this?
The comments in this post certainly justify a lot of things.
But isn’t this mentality just flawed in general? Comment sections aren’t representative of society since they tend to attract the loudest, angriest voices. They’re usually not a balanced sample of public opinion. Using them as proof creates a circular argument where hostility toward feminism is treated as both the cause and the evidence of its necessity. It also mistakes correlation for causation and can shut down nuanced discussion by treating all criticism as misogyny.
Maybe it doesn’t represent the public opinion, but it still does show that there are plenty of dickheads out there somewhere. And sometimes those dickheads find their way into governments and positions where they turn more people into dickheads.
I definitely agree with you. I’m shaking my head at the comments and tagging which accounts to be wary of.
We really need a way to publicly name and shame these people.
I think people like this are unable to see structural inequality. If you take away structural inequality and squint, it can almost look like women have it better than men.
Tragically, this means they are unable to mentally critique the system they exist in, and therefore will remain slaves to it.
It’s two different arguments. Individually there are many people who see women having it better then themselves and of course they will be upset when society is saying they don’t. Empathy here is understanding both sides have some valid points. Men do have a lot of problems in society. An entire generation left behind because many social programs focused only on boosting women while forgetting men. Telling those men to suck it up or that they’re wrong isn’t the answer. It’s only going to radicalize sides. Both sides should be addressed.
Where is the source for this?
Well I wouldn’t say an entire generation, but apparently in the urbanite Western Gen Z population, the wage gap has reversed with women earning more than men due to how modern education and gender roles interact.
So if you were to be born in this millennium, the “most privileged” demographic is Western urbanite women.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
"for those working full-time between the ages of 16 and 24, the gender pay gap has reversed. This means that for much of Gen Z – including those who have recently left university – women on average are slightly higher paid than men. In later life, this is expected to reverse and widen in favour of men, a gap that is usually attributed to greater male participation in higher-paying fields and the “motherhood penalty”, which reflects the disproportionate share of childcare undertaken by women. "
The trends of children do not reflect the reality of adulthood employment and social constructs. This has been the case for a while now.
I’m reminded of how outraged feminists were about the inequality when men had a significant majority of college degrees[1], but in the present day, after the myriad of programs/grants/scholarships exclusive to women got it to the point where women are now significantly more than half of college graduates, and men are in the minority, suddenly feminists aren’t concerned with that inequality anymore.
One of the many reasons the claims that feminism was for everyone and that there was no need for male-focused advocacy (and that, in fact, such advocacy was inherently misogynistic) because feminists ‘had it covered’, always rang hollow.
An actual egalitarian would care about a significant imbalance in either direction that’s caused by bigotry/prejudice, regardless of who’s got the short end of the stick.
Yes, this is actual egalitarian thinking. Special interests who don’t care about inequalities that benefit ‘their group’, or stop caring when an inequality that affected ‘their group’ now favors ‘their group’, are not forces for equality/fairness.
And this difference only became significant when the GI Bill became a thing, allowing men in the military to get a college education for free, which imo is the least the government could do for men after conscripting them, something women never had to deal with. In 1940, the difference in the college graduation rate between men and women was negligible, a measly 1.7% (5.5% male and 3.8% female). ↩︎
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/
Garbage article confusing classism with sexism. Ultimately DEI only helped a small percentage of women access jobs they would not be considered for in the past. It is called competition, but this guy wants to try and create a narrative that doesn’t exist except in his head.
Whether it is another male or a well qualified woman it doesn’t change you were not in the right spot at the right time. Blaming a competitive employment space on DEI is just stupid. There are hundreds if not thousands of candidates that all want that job.
The statistics don’t lie as well ~45 percent low level managers are women. So men still have an advantage, but it gets worse with seniors management only about ~35 percent. Even worse CEO ~10 percent. Doesn’t look like DEI was an advantage after all.
Don’t they usually end up doing it themselves?