> It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress women, to pigeonhole them into an impoverished gender role concerned only with housekeeping and child rearing.
It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress men, to pigeonhole them into an overworked, hyper-stressed, diseased, prematurely fatal gender role concerned only with selfless providing for and protecting the women and children in their lives.
Feminists look at the 0.1% of men at the top of society throughout history, and willfully ignore the 99.9% of men at the bottom. Those men at the top of society are useful for shoring up sympathy for women; those men at the bottom of society are not.
> Who wants to, as a woman, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy
What a sophomoric, hand-wavy thing to say. Who wants to, as a man, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy, who is actually, literally a powerful boss who says bullying things toward men who don't toe the third-wave feminist line:
Plus, the man you're trying to ridicule is correct, as a recent large study shows beyond all reasonable doubt ("Penn Medicine Brain Imaging Study Helps Explain Different Cognitive Strengths in Men and Women"):
When in life do men's and women's brains diverge? Not during their youngest, most plastic years. Nope. During the surge of sex hormones in puberty. It doesn't mean men or worse or women are worse. It just means that like all other intelligent species, humans have different psychological tendencies between sexes.
> The solution to gender inequality issues is to simply hire women. Hire women and promote women.
This is a terrible idea, unless you only care about ensuring that every company has at least one vagina for every penis. History (and the present) shows us that this sort of widespread coddling is guaranteed to help privileged, connected women at the expense of underprivileged, unconnected men.
Hyper-privileged, connected, powerful men like yourself will have no issues finding a job either way. But young men—who are already out-educated and out-earned by young women—are badly affected, especially those without connections. Considering the lack of personal repercussions, it's little surprise that it's trendy for old, rich men to throw young, poor men under the bus. It's par for the course for history, in fact.
> employers tend to treat similar resumes with male versus female names differently.
Why shouldn't they, especially in the world you want?
Why do you feel the need to diminish a counter viewpoint (however misguided it may be) in such a confrontational way? By reducing it to a buzzwordy opponent identity, you've pretty much nullified any chance of constructive discussion there was.
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe the MensRights folks are the way they are because they felt discriminated against at some point in their life? And now they've found support by being there for each other? Who are you to mock them?
tptacek, you've been in the IT industry long enough, you should know by now that there actually are a considerable amount of men in this field who were made fun of when they younger, who were rejected by their peers and made to feel that no women would ever want them. They've lived their childhood, their adolescence thinking they're nerdy and unattractive, and there was no hope. Try and understand where they might be coming from.
I'm reasonably certain your intentions are good, but please understand that your insensitive demeanor on gender issues threads is more polarizing and inflammatory than anything that's likely to bring people together in any sort of conciliatory way. I implore you to really take a moment and reflect on this. Think about what you can do to really bring people together, rather than pushing them away and antagonizing them.
I did think about it. I thought about it briefly. Then I decided that the idea that men are somehow oppressed by feminism (or, really, by any other kind of force directed solely at men) is fucking ridiculous and unworthy of point-by-point debate.
You show me the startup that carefully considers whether or not to hire 20-something men for fear that they might have children and need to take time off or work less than 60 hours a week. That happens, and I'll carefully consider the notion that men are oppressed in our workforce.
Why is it impossible? Nothing about women oppressing men, doesn't sound as ludicrous than vice-versa? Human capacity for evil is evenly distributed between genders.
Don't forget that there was a thing like matriarchy. I'm pretty sure that oppression on some level occurred even then, but since there was little written evidence, its just hard to prove.
As for hiring someone that might have children, and need to take time off, that part should be handled by the state. If someone leaves, the state pays employer and/or women caring for her 1year child. You are effectively down a one person but they are not to blame for things running their course.
That thing shouldn't come into equation at any point.
It's like homosexual supporter saying that because penguins can be gay that homosexuality is natural. It being socially acceptable has no connection to naturallity, and attempting to pretend so is a disservice to your position.
I think women in a company do have a rather special quality, to smooth some of the misunderstandings and lessen certain conflicts. That plus a unique woman perspective is invaluable when it comes to generating ideas.
> It's like homosexual supporter saying that because penguins can be gay that homosexuality is natural. It being socially acceptable has no connection to naturallity, and attempting to pretend so is a disservice to your position.
That's a bad analogy for you to use, since people who defend that it should be socially unacceptable use the claim that it is "unnatural" to support their position. It therefore is quite appropriate for people who disagree with that position to (among other arguments) point out evidence that contradicts the "unnatural" claim.
I do not understand your dilemma. I never said, don't use penguins as examples to counter people calling homosexuality unnatural. I said don't use penguins as examples to prove it "natural".
My response was to noticed trend that few homosexuals and their supporters use statements like the above to justify their rights and even worse, their right to exist. I was truly shocked! I do understand what it is to live in a conservative environment, and get hammered in that certain group X is bad, and that it shouldn't exist, but at no point should you justify your existence (wtf?! you have every right to exist if you don't invade other people's liberties) with bad examples that are easily countered. It's like watching someone self straw-man themselves.
If my post came across as a generic "men's rights" post, rather than a direct response to the parent, then I didn't do a good enough job of tying it together.
Western culture's hypersensitivity toward women's issues, combined with its blindness toward men's issues, create an environment in which it's socially acceptable (even socially rewarded) to propose draconian measures that further throw young men under the bus that's carrying young women.
We should aim to help people who are suffering in society, rather than aim to help people with vaginas. And we absolutely shouldn't continue obsessing about leveling evening every single predominately male field without doing something to help the young men who are increasingly being left behind.
It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress men, to pigeonhole them into an overworked, hyper-stressed, diseased, prematurely fatal gender role concerned only with selfless providing for and protecting the women and children in their lives.
Feminists look at the 0.1% of men at the top of society throughout history, and willfully ignore the 99.9% of men at the bottom. Those men at the top of society are useful for shoring up sympathy for women; those men at the bottom of society are not.
> Who wants to, as a woman, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy
What a sophomoric, hand-wavy thing to say. Who wants to, as a man, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy, who is actually, literally a powerful boss who says bullying things toward men who don't toe the third-wave feminist line:
http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun
Plus, the man you're trying to ridicule is correct, as a recent large study shows beyond all reasonable doubt ("Penn Medicine Brain Imaging Study Helps Explain Different Cognitive Strengths in Men and Women"):
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2013/12/verma/
When in life do men's and women's brains diverge? Not during their youngest, most plastic years. Nope. During the surge of sex hormones in puberty. It doesn't mean men or worse or women are worse. It just means that like all other intelligent species, humans have different psychological tendencies between sexes.
> The solution to gender inequality issues is to simply hire women. Hire women and promote women.
This is a terrible idea, unless you only care about ensuring that every company has at least one vagina for every penis. History (and the present) shows us that this sort of widespread coddling is guaranteed to help privileged, connected women at the expense of underprivileged, unconnected men.
Hyper-privileged, connected, powerful men like yourself will have no issues finding a job either way. But young men—who are already out-educated and out-earned by young women—are badly affected, especially those without connections. Considering the lack of personal repercussions, it's little surprise that it's trendy for old, rich men to throw young, poor men under the bus. It's par for the course for history, in fact.
> employers tend to treat similar resumes with male versus female names differently.
Why shouldn't they, especially in the world you want?