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.
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.
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.
The problem I see with this line of reasoning is, among other things, is that just telling these young men to suck it up won’t cut it.
The current layoff tsunami is hurting men more than women since male-dominated fields are more affected. We live in “unprecedented times”, promises are kinda worthless.
These men are expected to marry and father children today, and find mates in a society that ties their value to their salary. According to data from dating apps, that isn’t happening, women are still marrying up, to older men, and this cohort of men is just getting shut out.
But what they can do and will do in the next few years is vote for people who present a solution to them for today, instead of marginalizing their problem.
Today, that’s fuckheads like Trump and Tate.
So yeah, we can argue with them or listen to them. My point is if we as a society make an effort to listen to the ones that try to speak to us, we can get them out of this hole.
Or if we just go and argue that their problems don’t matter as much, there will just be more of them in crisis and they will eventually start murdering people that argue with them today if they get told that’s their way out.
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.
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). ↩︎
"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.
The problem I see with this line of reasoning is, among other things, is that just telling these young men to suck it up won’t cut it.
The current layoff tsunami is hurting men more than women since male-dominated fields are more affected. We live in “unprecedented times”, promises are kinda worthless.
These men are expected to marry and father children today, and find mates in a society that ties their value to their salary. According to data from dating apps, that isn’t happening, women are still marrying up, to older men, and this cohort of men is just getting shut out.
But what they can do and will do in the next few years is vote for people who present a solution to them for today, instead of marginalizing their problem.
Today, that’s fuckheads like Trump and Tate.
So yeah, we can argue with them or listen to them. My point is if we as a society make an effort to listen to the ones that try to speak to us, we can get them out of this hole.
Or if we just go and argue that their problems don’t matter as much, there will just be more of them in crisis and they will eventually start murdering people that argue with them today if they get told that’s their way out.