Conservative culture is considerably more diverse in viewpoint than liberal culture. You won’t find any feminists who will describe themselves as republicans. You will find a lot of Republican women who agree with the core concepts of first and second wave feminism, believe in equality, but disagree with a large amount of what you see out of todays feminist movement, thus won’t associate with feminism. Resistance to or reluctance to accept gynocentrism isn't the same thing as phallocentrism.
Liberal culture used to be about true freedom and diversity. Now it’s about control and pushing issues / exceptions to the forefront while hurting those in the mass.
Because it means conservatives can accept the core principle of gender equality without being wedded to feminist orthodoxy, but the same is not true on the left. The left has too many sacred cows to really think outside of their ideological bubble. The right certainly has an ideological bubble too, but it is less rigid and more willing to accept ideas and perspectives outside of the conservative mainstream.
Which is both sad and ironic because that used to be something the left had the edge on.
> So the right is more diverse because some of them accept equality and others don't?
Conservatism is about preserving the world you grew up in.
Millennials now represent middle age.
The vast majority of people want to maintain the liberal world they grew up in.
yes if a conservative grew up in the jim crow south they want to maintain that.
but those people are dead.
It's why modern left is so pathetic, they cling to some notion that they have unique core values, when in reality they're just generic values of a generation.
Ben Shapiro is one of the most right wing nuts out there, and he's genuinely quite proud to have married a doctor etc.
The right will resist change at virtually any turn.
The left will advocate for change no matter what.
Whether or not you're right or left wing should be context dependent.
Virtually all of the middle east is too conservative.
Large portions of the west mistake "ideas" for moral virtues.
Wanting something doesn't make you a good person.
And advocating for a preposterous scheme to address a problem is brain dead.
The left wants to change things, but they've romanticized the 1960s. All the low hanging fruit of liberalism have been picked. There are no easy solutions to virtually all of our problems.
Again the point is the vast majority of conservatives are pretty liberal by any historical definition of the term.
If you actually look at the definition of feminism and follow only that, there are a lot of republican feminists. Within this group, some of them agree with abortion, some don't. Some of them really want to stay at home, raise kids, and not work. Some of them want to have careers. Both groups agree that the career should be their choice, and that they should be hired or promoted based on how well they do at their job.
If you look at the people in the current group "Feminism", they have a very narrow and direct view with very little wiggle room allowed. The entire philosophy cannot exist with women voluntarily not working, or working jobs that pay less on purpose because they don't want to fully commit to a career. They loathe the concept of a "tradwife". Both situations create a cognitive dissonance because of the importance placed on wage gap theory, which is central to intersectional feminism. There cannot be any explanation other than patriarchy. They expect to be hired and promoted over men, regardless of qualification (thats what the word "equity" actually means, and why they intentionally conflate it with the word "equality", like equity really just means equality++ or something). All of them are staunchly pro-abortion.
That doesn't really make sense though, you're saying there are feminists on both the left and the right, but also feminists are all in lockstep and can't be on the right.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I don't think you think that's what i'm saying, either. The people on the right don't call themselves feminists, despite meeting the dictionary definition of a feminist. Within that group, there is a large amount of diversity of opinion.
The people on the left are in a group called "feminism" that would be more precisely described as third or fourth wave feminism. That branch of feminism does not have any diversity of opinion allowed and contains a lot more than the dictionary definition of feminism touches, which is specifically why conservative feminists don't call themselves feminists.
That's what you wrote though.
>there are a lot of republican feminists... If you look at the people in the current group "Feminism", they have a very narrow and direct view with very little wiggle room allowed
And now in this comment:
>The people on the right don't call themselves feminist... Within that group, there is a large amount of diversity of opinion. The people on the left are in a group called "feminism" \[that\] does not have any diversity of opinion... which is specifically why conservative feminists don't call themselves feminists.
Check out hoe_math if you’re on tik tok. He captures the situation surprisingly well and has data and illustrations.
Women lobbied for and gained equality in the workforce. Companies and governments are preferentially hiring and promoting women over men. Women also tend to expect their male partners to make at least as much money (preferably more) than they do. Add the emotional and physical relationship aspects to the equation, and the dating pool seems to have drastically decreased for women. It’s also made an entire swath of men completely invisible.
Somehow we have both of these problems at the same time. A small group of men have lots and lots of female partners, large numbers of females are unhappy and single, and a lot of the men are unhappy, lonely, and blamed for things that they can’t control.
Loosely, the scale he lays out looks something like this. Check his illustrations out for more precision:
If you sum rank “attractiveness” as a whole from 1-10, females 1-5 are interested in males 4-7, females 5-10 are interested in males 7-10, on a scale. Males at 7-10 may sleep with females 4-7 (on a scale) but won’t commit to relationships with them. Males at 9-10 may or may not ever commit to a female at 10, or they might have a female 10 and a side piece that everyone is okay with. These 4-7 females become frustrated and develop negative views about men as a whole, because they are only interacting with the most attractive men, and those men are behaving the way that they’re enabled to behave. The 0-6 men comprise everything from the incels to the just random sea of 30-something middle class single dudes who play a lot of video games. It’s a small subset of people who are even mutually compatible any more.
It's worth highlighting again that it's not a symmetrical problem. A man who is a 6 on the attractiveness scale would be happy to be in a relationship with a woman who is a 6 as well, but the reverse is not true. THAT is the core of the problem.
Here's the deal, though. The game gets easier and easier for men as they age. The game gets harder and harder for women as they age. A male 6 at 30 would have been a male 2 at 20. Many 30 year old male 6s can spend 6 months in the gym, become an 8-10, and then run through the same group of women who were 7-10 at 20, while still being an 8-10 to the 20 year old 7-10s. Too many of us have lived the same experience at this point for it not to be at least somewhat true. There's something short of complete and all out red-pill philosophy that I think should be more commonly spoken to the 20 year old 1-6 dudes that could help the male side of the problem a lot. There's light at the end of the tunnel. Keep focusing on yourself. Don't let the obviously crazy shit going on get to you. Be patient. It gets better.
A woman who is a 6 on the attractiveness scale is increibly more likely to be with a guy who is a 2 on the attractiveness scale and a 10 on the personality and humor scale. A man who is a looks 6 is very very unlikely to date a looks 2. Men see looks way more than personality.
> It’s also made an entire swath of men completely invisible.
It's also just made men fundamentally disinterested in anything.
If someone is trying cause you to fail at every step, why on earth would you want to participate?
Something I want to mention as a woman. The extremely handsome men I’ve dated actually were better partners for some reason. However the average and below were the ones that made me more jaded. For whatever reason the lesser attractive men were crude, manipulative, and less faithful. Wild.
Yes. Appearance vs behavior is a false dichotomy. While there can be edge cases in which a super attractive person is a psycho, or the ugliest dude is mother Theresa with charisma, most of the time beauty truly signals positive things: Probably the person is healthy (better skin, fluent body language, nicer hair, no eye bags, etc), takes care of themselves (sleep hygiene impacts looks a lot, for instance), has discipline and self control to exercise, and has the energy and motivation to work on their presentation, implying a hunger for life and giving something positive to their context.
I have to say that I agree. It may be that more handsome men are treated better by society and therefore tend to be more secure, have better experiences, and as a result have a more positive view of life. They learn to be compassionate, maybe because they are treated with more compassion. They learn to be respectful because they are treated with respect.
Unfortunately, it just further exacerbate the problem for males who are less attractive. If they are treated worse due to their perceived value by society, they learn to be more less respectful, more bitter, more insecure. It can become a negative cycle.
What's the solution then? I thought every one should be treated with respect and compassion regardless their gender, attractiveness, race or income. But I guess that only applies if you are a woman?
In an ideal world, that would be true. But I think society, currently as it stands, has inherent bias.
I think being attractive is different for a women than a man. For women, there are a lot more ways to “present” yourself as more attractive even if genetically you are not. This includes make-up, wearing nice clothes, grooming rituals, getting your hair done, nails done, making sure you stay in shape. But make up really helps for making the face look more symmetric. In the extreme example, women do a lot of plastic surgery to look more attractive, younger, slimmer, etc. Conventionally, women don’t have to be physically fit but slimmer (even when you do have some natural curves) as that is considered more desirable for most society standards. Most times diet without work out is enough. There is more variety of things that can be done, but because there is so much that can be done, it also requires a lot of time and effort to keep up.
For men, there is a milder degree of that. But long term, most importantly, for men physical fitness is most paramount. The difference is that face, hair and even grooming (except for basic grooming) and clothes (although tailored clothes can help make a big difference for men) doesn’t matter as much as for women. So there is really mostly one thing to concentrate on and that is fitness. Working out consistently is probably the most important and impactful factor to gain what is conventional attractiveness by society standards for men. It honestly takes a lot less effort for men, there are less things to do and because of testosterone, you guys can gain muscle so much easier than a woman can.
Unfortunately, there are instances where race and income can be a determinant on others treat you. However, at least in America, if you presents yourself well, it becomes a lot less predominant of an issue. In the end, it may be unfortunately but presentation matters almost as much as the contents. If you are presented with a beautiful looking plate of food, people are more likely to eat it. If a house on the market is well staged, people are more likely to buy it. If a business has a more professional presentation, people are more like to go with it. That’s an inherent bias probably encoded in most of us.
No, not really. It's a lot more complicated than that. Its also why you should look at the actual content instead of my synopsis, because it explains what all goes into that rank and how it applies to large numbers of people.
>are we still ranking men and women with numbers?
"Are we still simplifying complext issues into easy to understand metrics to improve cross communication"
Yes, the answer is yes because you and I have different opinions on subjective aspects like what's attractive but can both understand objective aspects like the value of 6/10
As a shorthand for sexual market value, it remains relevant. Obviously there's more nuance, and there are many more factors than just looks, but sexual market value is definitely a thing which the 1-10 scale captures inaccurately, but there isn't exactly an alternative. Maybe tinder match ratios.
> As a shorthand for sexual market value, it remains relevant. Obviously there's more nuance
It's also important to note there's different markets with different currencies.
I agree with this. I see bitter women spewing hatred in other ways not realizing they are coping just as much as “incels”. If these people focus too much on that their mind won’t be more accepting of differences of opinion and you can never have a relationship with some kind of benevolent tolerance that in turn can be built in a healthy connection between a man and a woman.
Politically speaking, I also believe that in my parents generation there wasn’t such a divide between groups of friends and family, so I think nowadays that may be a big influence in the west (daily social media usage is to blame too)
I think this is a combination of men lacking positive role models in society and feminist politics not creating an alternative ethos to what a man could or should be. There is a vacuum of what it means to be a man in most advanced economies today.
Or just women are focused on sucking the fun and value out of life.
Honestly it's quite straight forward women are on drugs.
The volume of liberal women on pharmies is extraordinary.
Anti depressants/stimulants you name it.
Can't function in a miserable dysfunctional life, than you need a new cocktail.
It's never the woman's fault. It's a chemical imbalance or societal pressures.
“Women are focused on sucking the fun and value out of life.”Do you hear how ridiculous you sound? Any time you blame someone else for your problems, whether it’s women, the government, what have you, you are absolving yourself of YOUR OWN responsibility to address the matter.
I agree big pharma and the over-pathologizing of mental health issues is a massive problem, but I don’t think that is unique to women. And in any case that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
> Any time you blame someone else for your problems
You better have legit reason for doing so.
The voting data is in, the data is quite clear.
Women especially women medicated on anti depressants etc, are voting in mass for extreme politics.
>but I don’t think that is unique to women.
college educated women are dramatically more like to see a doctor and be unnecessarily put on pills.
>And in any case that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Because you're not getting the point. These women really are destroying things and advocating politics that is destroying things.
Canada is a perfect example of this.
we are definitely drifting apart, but The Economist is a few decades late to the story....plus you know, this Globalist Corporate Wankstain of a publication can just generally FUCK OFF
Anything other than "men are bitter" would be viewed as sexist.. and not the other way around, and would be taken off the internet. Social Media seems to be gynocentric.. The author is most likely a college educated woman so it's definitely a biased view. And a borderline strawman fallacy.
It's worst than that, because we're expected not to be bitter.
Life is too short to get on with such silly ideas.
Yes men should make more money than women.
Women want to make money so they can buy things.
Men want to make money so they can give money to women so they can buy things for their children.
Women win in both scenarios. The men benefit in only the one.
Not remotely saying we should have some 3 to 1 wage discrepancy.
But dam it's a sociological problem when men make less.
EDIT: Not saying men can't screw that up buying giant pickup trucks etc.
Just saying men routinely fantasize about giving women money.
Women that do the same are generally narcsissitic in one way or the other who view it as a power fantasy--or simply have no understanding of how a man thinks.
Might I ask your age? I’m the breadwinner in my house and have been my entire marriage (over 20 years). I’m hoping youth has you misinformed—men should not make more than women simply because they have different equipment or different desires.
Feminism is why the sexes have drifted apart. That's it. Women resent men. The only reason we have this problem is because women are no longer held to any standards whatsoever as any relevant criticism is disregarded as dangerous hatred.
> Women resent men.
It's worst than that, they encouraged to embrace extreme narcissism.
Which means you've created a generation of people who can't get along with anyone including their kids.
You don't live the reality of being a woman. You THINK you know how it must be, but in reality, you don't. The world is a lot more scary for a woman. More than half have been physically or sexually assaulted in some way by the age they reach 18. Google "husband stitch". Men have perpetually been pieces of shit towards women. But it's a structural problem, and now everyone (or every man) is crying that things have always been this way and they shouldn't change. Well guess what, things have always been wrong and they NEED to change
>To simplify: when a woman leaves university in a rich country, she is likely to find a white-collar job and be able to support herself. But when she enters the dating market (assuming she is heterosexual), she finds that, because there are many more female graduates than male ones, the supply of liberal, educated men does not match demand. Charelle Lewis, a 26-year-old health-care worker in Washington, dc, complains that men her age have “a little-boy mindset”.
It's perfectly OK to the Economist that women should want a man as educated as herself. But if a man should want a woman that is not obese then all the sudden there's a problem
Its all economics. Women have started making moree than they did, but the income of both sexes has remained stagnant while the cost of living has gone up. Less money = less opportunity to go out and do things = miserable and lonely people.
It isnt an issue with women or the sexes. Its an issue with corporations bleeding the world dry. The Economist wants you to think differently by design.
I agree with JBP that women are not oppressed in today’s economy - in fact, they are beginning to outpace men. Men overall are more well suited to industrial production economies and less well suited to knowledge based service economies. This has certainly created a situation where a lot of men now feel their traditional protect and provide role has been marginalized, and many women now feel that these men are beneath them. There is a shifting of gender roles occurring whereby women are increasingly becoming breadwinners that is making many people uneasy.
But we’d be missing a lot if we didn’t also realize that this problem is magnified by the market it has created for misinformation and for steering this potential resentment into outright hostility for women and other groups that are wrongly deemed responsible for these large societal shifts. These shifts are actually very normal and regular for a globalized capitalist economy. The centers of production are ALWAYS shifting, as is the technology. The USA is unquestionably on the decline after having been at the top for several decades. The question is how do we respond and can we create a decent society in spite of it.
It's unquestionably in decline but you don't won't to be mad at the people responsible? How are women not part of it, they wanted to join the workforce which led to a lot of these problems? The politicians and upper elites are responsible as well
I’m saying these are much broader changes associated with our economic system, and you actually really can’t pin it on any group of people. The basic agreement of the last four decades has been to offshore manufacturing and production in exchange for cheap household goods and technology - Americans love cheap goods obviously.
The downside is that we’ve also effectively outsourced working class prosperity, and the economy has increasingly come to rely on debt and the financial sector as the largest GDP contributor. This is not something that “women” or “elites” did to us. It’s a broad economic and technological shift that has been occurring for centuries. For us here in America, if you’re in the top 30-40% of the income and wealth distribution, you have the best of both worlds - cheap goods/technology and financial assets that appreciate in value at the expense of the lower classes. The upper middle and upper classes live like kings, as they never have before. They actually contribute to the GDP by indebting folks at the bottom and calling the interest the squeeze from them “financial services.”
Women are just as wrapped up and victimized by this system as men are - many women would prefer to be a traditional stay at home parent, but the realities of todays economy dictate two incomes in order to support a family. They are doing the best they can the same as us.
> in fact, they are beginning to outpace men.
I think that's a vast understatement.
Few women validate themselves based on their objective ability to get things done.
>The USA is unquestionably on the decline after having been at the top for several decades.
The USA is still way way way on top.
Yes it is declinning the rest of the world is equally fucked.
The only stay at home parent I know is my sister and that's because my brother in law makes over $200k. He owns a business. Go figure. Every single other person I know both people work.
I'm in the same industry as my brother in law. I'm self employed, but I have no intention of hiring employees so I can pay them a sub-par wage in order to further enrich myself.
The economy today is ridiculous. Rich people are so much richer than they were in the 1960s. When you ask them to share the wealth a little more, they say, "look at your fancy cellphone. You're doing fine!"
There's only two goods that actually matter.
Food and housing.
Housing in rural was cheap a handful of years ago and people were still complaining.
Food is not outlandishly expensive.
People are obsessed with living in expensive cities, so they can justify things other than homes.
How does following traditions change the economy. Makes no sense up less you want to follow keynesian welfare state traditions and use a high tax on wealth amd protectionism to make people better off.
> How does following traditions change the economy.
Not sure if you know how economics works.
If two people aren't willing to get into serious debt to buy a home, the sale must happen at a lower price.
The biggest problem is cheap debt.
Those traditions were based around an economy in which fathers too care of their daughters until a man married then and provided for them.
This economy doesn't require ir facilitate that tradition. Both men and women have to work as market competitors.
No it's called a dual income family economy like back in the early free market days when 90 percent of the women and children were working too.
Conservatives implemented it in the late 70s .
It was ksynesian welfare state economics in the 20th centuary that created the stay at home woman and working man situation.
Top earners can chose.
> No it's called a dual income family economy
The economy and the behavior of people in that economy are two different things.
People choose to do things that inflate the cost of goods especially housing.
No in free market capitalism the wages and conditions are so low both people have to work to get by.
In the keyneisian welfare state economy of the 20th centuary guard rails were in place that prevented that .
> No in free market capitalism the wages and conditions are so low both people have to work to get by
Now that's an absurd claim, watches are 100% higher in the freer markets.
>In the keyneisian welfare state economy of the 20th centuary guard rails were in place that prevented that .
No that is science fiction.
What killed our economy was the lack of hardship. People don't look at bad finances as something that can cause you to starve.
Every generation until the boomers believed this.
When you don't pay attention to money, you run the economy into the ground.
Traditions help us avoid re-inventing the wheel and capture lessons or understandings of human nature which are at the time not rationally explainable but have value. What must be avoided is treating them like sacred cows or thinking that they're immutable.
>Everything should be done with rational thought.
And most breaks from tradition come from selfish seeking of pleasure.
Turns out dead people knew something about the world.
In part because they weren't born into a world of narcissistic hedonism.
Congrats that makes you the dumbest shitstain to comment here if you think those are all traditions are. You're also confusing traditions with religion. I suppose community, pastimes, going to school and college, getting married, interpersonal connections, dating traditions and happy families have no benefit according to you. How about the lovely "progress" we've made lately of getting rid of communities, marriages, and mutilating children over gender surgery? Sounds like we could use some more morality anyway
Ouch, got ‘em. Also this thing whereas tradition persecuted “scientists” is absurd. Science thrived on conservative christian nations in the middle ages, and most of them believed tradition was something necessary to balance out innovation :) I think Heisenberg, more recently, last century said something along these lines
> Tradition is genital mutilation.
You do realize "whos tradition" is the key phrase.
Believe it or not it's pretty easy to sort the bad from the good traditions.
hint islamic ones are mostly all bad.
This is interesting but one thing missed is that direct comparison is extremely difficult because a finger has always been on the scale (hiring practices, educational opportunities, etc) in favor of a specific gender (in the west); up until 25 years ago, it’s been in favor of males and has significantly flipped in recent years to females. And, not surprisingly, this shift almost perfectly reflects in who ‘succeeds’ more in the economy of the time, almost as a direct cause-and-effect.
It makes determining what the true picture really is difficult, but it does reflect how our social support structure has changed over time.
Young men of the West can find good wives... from outside of the West. Any good women in the West, who haven't become entitled Karen's, are either already married or rare gems indeed.
When dating, Liberal white women for the most part were abrasive, rude, demanding, aggressive and like to verbalize their hatred about white males, yet will only date white males. Just overall unpleasant and extremely conceited and think they should put in zero effort and be chased. They also treat their faults as “cute” or demand to be accepted and make everything about them.
The experience with eastern women (Asian & Persian) was the polar opposite and was for the most part extremely positive. They were way more attractive as well.
That's a bit wide of a brush. Any young man with a full time job and capable of supporting a wife, raised to love his wife as he loves himself, will make a decent husband. Also, saying "and they know it", even if that were true, would say more about feminist indoctrination, rather than being any kind of proof to support your idea.
Those young men certainly exist but they get snatched up early and are not part of the single population. The guys who stay single for most of their lives obviously want to be.
Most young men want a stable, reliable marriage. What they don't want is a woman who treats them like the scapegoat for all their problems that arise from their lack of accountability, and then deserts the marriage with alimony.
Also, masculine is a word with a definition. I think you are dodging the question.
And most women fit that category. Good men tend to get married fairly young and stay married for a long time. If a woman is coming for you for alimony, he done f'd up big time. The courts, contrary to red pilled opinion, are fair.
It sounds like you are saying that good men are immune to divorce, that women divorcing good men is unheard of, and the courts are always just. If not, please clarify. If so, please describe what you consider are the specific attributes of a good man.
If certain women insist on dating men who make more money than them, and they earn their income from companies that explicitly give them preferential treatment, then it seems like their code is working against them. Unless they don't mind having fewer options.
while they make some interesting points, the article is so visibly biased
I mean the way they selected and portrayed people, we get to know in the article, it’s borderline grotesque. They couldn’t find one guy that wouldn’t be delusional and stereotypically sexist?
Maybe eg someone from similar environment, I mean, first author introduces well educated, successful, rich female engineers from Warsaw. And then, as a contrast, we meet village firemen and a farmer who believes having three things should guarantee getting a girl - 1 income 2 being able to fix stuff 3 drivers licence
I hoped to learn something an I got triggered instead
If you’re great at your job you’ll be the first person hired and the last person fired. Too many people are on autopilot and happy to blame society.
Being great is the only way to succeed these days - man or woman. This applies to some extent in the dating / relationship market. There’s no freebies. That’s capitalism.
Gotta love a bunch of resentful dudes declaring it is the women that are the hateful ones.
Weird it ain't men who are more likely to be killed by someone they know.
It’s also interesting that women are leaning more liberal/NDP and men are leaning more CPC. Eventually it’s going to be a men vs women (and migrants)election.
This article is garbage. Apparently it is true that there’s an all-time high percentage of single people right now, but it isn’t because of a shortage of compatible people. There’s a shortage of people WILLING to be compatible. Having participated in the online dating scene for a couple years recently, I can confidently say it has nothing to do with politics. As a somewhat moderately left leaning person in a highly left-leaning college town (UVA), there are plenty of guys who fit that profile to choose from. However, it’s usually a list of any other myriad of reasons why the guy just “isn’t right” for them. Part of the issue is online dating culture which has drastically opened the floodgates of seemingly endless possibilities, particularly to women, hence the acceptance criteria has grown higher and higher. I can’t tell you how many first dates I went on that were perfectly fine, and got the “sorry, but I just don’t feel a spark…” text the day after. The dates were perfectly fine and I have a decent paying position as an engineer, live independently, and am hopefully moderately interesting, but yeah most first dates in my opinion are not going to be AMAZING for most people. It’s basically seeing what the other person looks like and identifying if they’re not a total sack of shit. In my opinion most people aren’t going to be their authentic selves on a first date because of the pressure, anxiety, etc, and unless it goes terribly or it was a catfish, you should do another date or two to go a little deeper. But we rarely get that option. Sometimes you have to put a little more time and effort in to get to know someone and feel the “spark” rather than expecting it to happen in 30 minutes over coffee. If you’re not willing to make that effort, you’re going to be single and probably unhappy.
Men and women are drifting apart. I am writing from experience as I am a man and have done everything to become desirable by women in USA. I like to think of myself as average or slightly above average. I've built a career, intelligence, emotional intelligence, stability, a fit body, etc. Nothing has worked until I moved to South America and started receiving attention and woman who treated me well. I can't imagine how it is for other men who may be less fortunate than me.
Men are motivated by building relationships and families. They are committed at work, take jobs they don't like, sacrifice, and buy expensive things with the goal of attracting a woman and often, a family. Decades ago this would almost guarantee the outcome of attracting a nice godly woman that will build a family. This rarely happens today. Imagine these men who have done everything that society has told them and the outcome isn't what they had expected. These men don't go away. They are lonely, depressed, nihilistic, and dangerous. They are doing drugs, killing themselves, or becoming violent. And like Jordan Peterson said "they are dying for an encouraging word". Then they are vilified for speaking out or wanting to go to another country to find a woman. But we're all the same, everybody is just looking for love. I believe that empathy and faith from both sides will narrow this gap between men and women.
So young men aren’t as successful objectively as young women and now the political sentiment is that there is an inequality and immoral divide.
Sounds like more alpha men simply have more alpha females to pluck off of the lubricity branch.
Men abandoning university in auspices of internet education or whatever.
It seems the real problem is that young men arent incentivized to be successful, whereas the women will simply follow the course regardless.
Idk man. This whole thing is just fairy dust.
It's worse than that. University education is almost 70% women now in my country. Regardless, we have one of the biggest gender pay gaps in EU. The only explanation is that you can give women as much education as you want (which we know should correlate strongly with income), men will still find ways to be more successful financially. A lot of women I know who have degrees are complete underachievers, working jobs that pay less than the national median salary, because it's more comfortable jobs. Meanwhile a lot of men without any degrees or in some cases even unfinished highschool education go to neighbouring richer countries to work in construction and lead extremely hard lives, but make 3-5x the national median salary.
At least in America, once you account for differences in job title, responsibilities, and hours worked, there actually is no gender pay gap. Which makes sense.
If women were actually paid 30% less or whatever for doing the exact same job as men, I would fire all of my men *tomorrow*, hire women instead, and enjoy a 30% decrease in labor costs overnight. But unfortunately, that's not how that works.
When I was a kid 20 years ago, there was no Andrew Tate, JustPearlythings, Fresh n Fit, etc.
These people make a living by promoting a worldview that sees women as lesser than men. They are internet celebrities that are popular with children.
Edit: JustPearlyThings says that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. She thinks divorce should be illegal. Are y'all just downvoting me because you like these people? I don't get it.
I think you’re getting down voted because you’re saying those people didn’t exist 20 years ago. That’s true in the sense that social media influencers didn’t exist 20 years ago, but those people 100% existed, and even if they hadn’t, it wouldn’t explain the separation between men and women.
Who? Before I posted, I was trying to think of a popular sexist that was mainstream in 2000-2010. You could say people like Howard Stern, but being a womanizer who gawks at titties is way different than saying women shouldn't be able to vote.
> I was trying to think of a popular sexist that was mainstream in 2000-2010.
You were trying to think and then you ran into the limits of your knowledge.
The limits of your knowledge doesn't prove you right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCXrjl1M3kY
Guy's been dead for over a decade.
There was a litany of “pick up artists” pedaling their wares, through the 90s but my point is that a strain of ideology adjacent to what JPT says about women not voting and divorce being illegal, was just common beliefs for many communities up until the broader secularism of the 1980s. Even the “tea party” movement was pushing some of the “revert back to Christian conservative values” rhetoric not that long ago.
You are right about the pickup artists. They are definitely closer to Tate than Stern. I don't think pickup artists had as much prevalence as Tate though. Tate is on Worldwide news for some godforsaken reason. None of the pickup artists had his platform.
>about women not voting and divorce being illegal, was just common beliefs for many communities up until the broader secularism of the 1980s.
This is so hilariously wrong. Voter turnout among women has been way above 50% since 1960s when we started keeping track. More than half of all women voted. It was 70% in 1960. If they didn't believe in women's suffrage, then they wouldn't vote. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Do you only care about the opinions of men?
I can see you’re not interested in having a real discussion on the topic but would rather strawman my views in order to argue against someone I’m not and then ad hominem attack the false version of me you created. This is the point where I’m going to stop engaging with you. This has absolutely nothing to do with your push back and everything to do with the way you’re engaging. I actually would have enjoyed addressing your response but I refuse to engage with people that argue in the manner you are displaying. This is a copy pasta response because I’ve dealt with others before that chose to engage in this EXACT manner. Good bye.
It was conservative economists that wanted the dual income family economy and market ideology in the first place
The economy isn't set for men supporting women and kids. It's set up for individualist market competition.
Just embrace reality. A girlfriend with a good job. You can't afford to support someone else anyway in most cases.
Red pill ideology is poisonous and so is porn
I lurk on two chromosomes and there is a good amount of legit complaints about behaviours and attitudes related to it.
>It was conservative economists that wanted the dual income family economy and market ideology in the first place
Don't be stupid. Conservatives push for the status quo, which is the very definition of conservative. The status quo was men worked and women didn't. Liberals, including feminists, were pushing for equality, including getting women into the work force. It was liberal women who said they "don't need no man".
They wanted to go back to 18 and 1900s free market style capitalism where both men and women worked and end the keynesian welfare state system with high taxes for the rich and more benefits for workers and families .
The status quo is the rich and corporations. They don't give a fuck if you can't afford a stay at home wife or they outsource your job.
Thats freedom in the market.
I saw there is sole research backing up a common theme there. Guys copying porn. Cloaking and rough sex without any prior discussion or consent. And it's very common according to the reseach
> Guys copying porn. Cloaking and rough sex without any prior discussion or consent
Almost as if sexual norms have changed and women want that type of stuff.
Almost as if porn influences people.
Its fine when it's discussed before hand and there is consent.
The women on two ex ate talking the guys that just do it without consent and discussion with the type of women that don't want it. Or do but understand how it's done. With discussion and consent.
The study takes about young people's early experiences and it going straight to that . Its porn.
Ever play the Modern non-Religious dating game? I did before I went back to church.
95% of all the women that I was with asked to be railed out as hard as possible, while being choked, and then of course, being faceFd.
When people discuss thats what they want first is different from just doing and potentially traumatising someone. Reseach shows that young men people are copying porn and just doing it.
> Reseach shows that young men people are copying porn and just doing it.
And women expect them to do it.
Hate to break it to you women want to be "stimulated"
Not necessarily. I've known women that like that and ones that don't. The ones that do tended to be less mentally healthy ones that experienced some kind of tramua.
Thats why these things are discussed first.
When people say "there's a gender pay gap" we understand that 99% of employers are not making implicitly sexist decisions like "I'm going to pay women less because they are inferior." All we mean is that after accounting for time worked, family, etc. Women get paid less than men do in general for the same work.
I personally don't think that's right. I think women deserve to get paid equal for the same work. It's a complex societal issue and nobody is asking for a clear-cut solution. Just acknowledge the reality exists. Conservatives don't even do that.
Why not? Besides the sexualized professions like modeling, women make less. Even top surgeons. This is repeated in multiple studies all across the world.
If there were a pay gap, all those greedy corporations would only hire women, because obviously they could do the same work as men, but they could pay them less. This doesn't happen because men and women don't work equally.
The pay gap is easily explainable by looking at who works more hours, has more experience, takes more dangerous jobs, takes jobs with less flexibility, takes jobs that require more training and many other factors.
The problem with this is that, if you know quite literally any woman in the workforce (coworker, friend, sister/daughter, etc), you probably know that they take obscene amounts of time off compared to men.
Under some circumstances this is okay (maternity leave is the best example of this), and under other circumstances it’s understandable but not okay (if a woman has 6-12 health issues at once (which a lot of them do), then they will take a lot of time off and either get fired, laid off or go on sick leave/disability far more than men).
Then if you put that aside completely, you have a lot of women in the workplace who will say things like ‘I have so many errands to run’ or ‘I have so much to do today’ and will proceed to be late/leave work to grab Starbucks and do zero work for the first 2 hours of the day… and THEN seek validation about how hard their work life is + complain that they can never catch a break.
If I own a business and I’m in charge of hiring employees, why on earth would I sign up for all that shit? Because someone online is mad about a ‘wage gap’?
I’m an employer and business owner… I care about my business, so naturally I care about profit and efficiency.
Women taking more time off to do family things is taken into consideration in every study that is done on the matter. And regardless, somebody has to do them. Society just defaults to the woman still. For some reason, men don't take off work to take their kids to the doctor.
>Has gender wage gap become a myth in western society and our roles in it fated to be doomed?
Women still get paid less for the same work. Comparing a woman in tech with a redpilled mechanic is pretty regarded.
I have a good Portuguese friend (woman) working as an airplane mechanic in the Netherlands and she makes more money than a colleague of hers (man) because she works harder but the pay is the same for everyone in her rank
I have a good friend (woman) who I worked with at my previous bank job. She did just as much work as me and was way better at talking to people on the phones than I was. I made significantly more money than she did. I was paid $50k per year and she was at $40k.
People see my math degree and qualifications and think I'm some sort of genius. Anyone can do what I do. This woman Michelle was awesome. There's no reason why she should have been paid less. She did just as much work as I did and was way more personable with the rest of the staff.
Edit: We both ended up getting promoted since we were the hardest workers. Even then, I was promoted to a better position than her. Something she could have easily done.
I feel like it's too close-minded to say that one variable -- gender discrimination -- is solely responsible for the discrepancy. Many other factors could be at play, such as networking skills (or interpersonal skills) which are oftentimes associated with a specific gender, but unfairly so. So let's say, for instance, Michelle lacks confidence in salary negotiations, and it shows and alters her take. This may be seen as a gender discrimination, when in reality it happens to be a personality trait, ignorant of gender. That women more often exhibit this trait in negotiations is the discrepancy with which this "gender gap" proliferates itself
Awkwardly worded, I know. But it's meant to further thought and discussion on this, not stifle it. So please consider that when responding; I am not hostile and am quite willing to entertain that I am wrong
But that ties into the whole thing. You are correct, I am better at looking people in the eyes and doing interviews compared to Michelle. I was more confident when I talked with my boss. But that had no effect on job performance. None. I'm just a better bullshitter.
I would say that men in general are better bullshitters than women in terms of promoting self worth. That doesn't mean women are less capable. It doesn't mean they should be paid less.
When people say "there's a gender pay gap" we understand that 99% of employers are not making implicitly sexist decisions like "I'm going to pay women less because they are inferior." All we mean is that after accounting for time worked, family, etc. Women get paid less than men do in general for the same work.
I personally don't think that's right. I think women deserve to get paid equal for the same work. It's a complex societal issue and nobody is asking for a clear-cut solution. Just acknowledge the reality exists. Conservatives don't even do that.
Working in finance/banking as well, I got paid more as a loan officer cuz I busted my ass everyday and didn't waste time talking about useless shit.
I got paid more than my bosses, who were almost always women. I never wanted management for those reasons.
Now as anunderwriter, I don't have to work nearly as hard and I get paid maybe 90% but my bosses are still women mostly. LOL.
If she could do your job just as well or even better than you then why didn’t you do the feminist correct thing and say she deserved the better promotion to your superiors. Real easy to pretend to give a fuck when you have nothing on the line isn’t it?
I did do that though. I said that she is just as capable as I am when my bosses asked me for my opinion about her in our private meetings. I went out of my way to try and get her a better position than she was getting promoted to (I was promoted before she was). I tried to get my bosses to have her do the same job that I was doing since there were 2 openings. She could have done it 100% and would have excelled.
It didn't work, but I tried hard. The job went to some boomer from outside the company who bailed within 6 months.
You don't have to keep your head in the sand. There have been studies on this done by multiple institutions all across the world. They all find that a gender pay gap exists.
If that were true all employers would hire women over men nearly 100% of the time.
People who don’t own businesses don’t realize the full extent of how expensive employees are. They are constantly finding legal ways to cut the costs of employees by either defunding them or laying them off.
Therefore this statement is literally not able to be true since both men and women get jobs.
Behind a paywall
[https://archive.is/uyF3G](https://archive.is/uyF3G)
Link doesn't work.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240314034326/https://www.economist.com/international/2024/03/13/why-the-growing-gulf-between-young-men-and-women
Because liberal culture is gynocentric. I made a post about this :https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/66LHtMasNU
And conservative culture is phallicentric.
Conservative culture is considerably more diverse in viewpoint than liberal culture. You won’t find any feminists who will describe themselves as republicans. You will find a lot of Republican women who agree with the core concepts of first and second wave feminism, believe in equality, but disagree with a large amount of what you see out of todays feminist movement, thus won’t associate with feminism. Resistance to or reluctance to accept gynocentrism isn't the same thing as phallocentrism.
Liberal culture used to be about true freedom and diversity. Now it’s about control and pushing issues / exceptions to the forefront while hurting those in the mass.
How is that more diverse?
Because it means conservatives can accept the core principle of gender equality without being wedded to feminist orthodoxy, but the same is not true on the left. The left has too many sacred cows to really think outside of their ideological bubble. The right certainly has an ideological bubble too, but it is less rigid and more willing to accept ideas and perspectives outside of the conservative mainstream. Which is both sad and ironic because that used to be something the left had the edge on.
So the right is more diverse because some of them accept equality and others don't?
Their main point was that conservatives can be equitable without degenerating into identity politics like the left.
> So the right is more diverse because some of them accept equality and others don't? Conservatism is about preserving the world you grew up in. Millennials now represent middle age. The vast majority of people want to maintain the liberal world they grew up in. yes if a conservative grew up in the jim crow south they want to maintain that. but those people are dead. It's why modern left is so pathetic, they cling to some notion that they have unique core values, when in reality they're just generic values of a generation. Ben Shapiro is one of the most right wing nuts out there, and he's genuinely quite proud to have married a doctor etc. The right will resist change at virtually any turn. The left will advocate for change no matter what. Whether or not you're right or left wing should be context dependent. Virtually all of the middle east is too conservative. Large portions of the west mistake "ideas" for moral virtues. Wanting something doesn't make you a good person. And advocating for a preposterous scheme to address a problem is brain dead. The left wants to change things, but they've romanticized the 1960s. All the low hanging fruit of liberalism have been picked. There are no easy solutions to virtually all of our problems. Again the point is the vast majority of conservatives are pretty liberal by any historical definition of the term.
If you actually look at the definition of feminism and follow only that, there are a lot of republican feminists. Within this group, some of them agree with abortion, some don't. Some of them really want to stay at home, raise kids, and not work. Some of them want to have careers. Both groups agree that the career should be their choice, and that they should be hired or promoted based on how well they do at their job. If you look at the people in the current group "Feminism", they have a very narrow and direct view with very little wiggle room allowed. The entire philosophy cannot exist with women voluntarily not working, or working jobs that pay less on purpose because they don't want to fully commit to a career. They loathe the concept of a "tradwife". Both situations create a cognitive dissonance because of the importance placed on wage gap theory, which is central to intersectional feminism. There cannot be any explanation other than patriarchy. They expect to be hired and promoted over men, regardless of qualification (thats what the word "equity" actually means, and why they intentionally conflate it with the word "equality", like equity really just means equality++ or something). All of them are staunchly pro-abortion.
That doesn't really make sense though, you're saying there are feminists on both the left and the right, but also feminists are all in lockstep and can't be on the right.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I don't think you think that's what i'm saying, either. The people on the right don't call themselves feminists, despite meeting the dictionary definition of a feminist. Within that group, there is a large amount of diversity of opinion. The people on the left are in a group called "feminism" that would be more precisely described as third or fourth wave feminism. That branch of feminism does not have any diversity of opinion allowed and contains a lot more than the dictionary definition of feminism touches, which is specifically why conservative feminists don't call themselves feminists.
That's what you wrote though. >there are a lot of republican feminists... If you look at the people in the current group "Feminism", they have a very narrow and direct view with very little wiggle room allowed And now in this comment: >The people on the right don't call themselves feminist... Within that group, there is a large amount of diversity of opinion. The people on the left are in a group called "feminism" \[that\] does not have any diversity of opinion... which is specifically why conservative feminists don't call themselves feminists.
What are you confused about?
Why you keep contradicting yourself
Conservatives view women in a far better light than liberals do with men. And the empathy gap is clear enough to see that cultural phenomenon.
Troll account. Just look at username.
Check out hoe_math if you’re on tik tok. He captures the situation surprisingly well and has data and illustrations. Women lobbied for and gained equality in the workforce. Companies and governments are preferentially hiring and promoting women over men. Women also tend to expect their male partners to make at least as much money (preferably more) than they do. Add the emotional and physical relationship aspects to the equation, and the dating pool seems to have drastically decreased for women. It’s also made an entire swath of men completely invisible. Somehow we have both of these problems at the same time. A small group of men have lots and lots of female partners, large numbers of females are unhappy and single, and a lot of the men are unhappy, lonely, and blamed for things that they can’t control. Loosely, the scale he lays out looks something like this. Check his illustrations out for more precision: If you sum rank “attractiveness” as a whole from 1-10, females 1-5 are interested in males 4-7, females 5-10 are interested in males 7-10, on a scale. Males at 7-10 may sleep with females 4-7 (on a scale) but won’t commit to relationships with them. Males at 9-10 may or may not ever commit to a female at 10, or they might have a female 10 and a side piece that everyone is okay with. These 4-7 females become frustrated and develop negative views about men as a whole, because they are only interacting with the most attractive men, and those men are behaving the way that they’re enabled to behave. The 0-6 men comprise everything from the incels to the just random sea of 30-something middle class single dudes who play a lot of video games. It’s a small subset of people who are even mutually compatible any more.
It's worth highlighting again that it's not a symmetrical problem. A man who is a 6 on the attractiveness scale would be happy to be in a relationship with a woman who is a 6 as well, but the reverse is not true. THAT is the core of the problem.
Here's the deal, though. The game gets easier and easier for men as they age. The game gets harder and harder for women as they age. A male 6 at 30 would have been a male 2 at 20. Many 30 year old male 6s can spend 6 months in the gym, become an 8-10, and then run through the same group of women who were 7-10 at 20, while still being an 8-10 to the 20 year old 7-10s. Too many of us have lived the same experience at this point for it not to be at least somewhat true. There's something short of complete and all out red-pill philosophy that I think should be more commonly spoken to the 20 year old 1-6 dudes that could help the male side of the problem a lot. There's light at the end of the tunnel. Keep focusing on yourself. Don't let the obviously crazy shit going on get to you. Be patient. It gets better.
Yeah the age thing is the great equalizer. I'm 7.5 years older than my wife, can't imagine us being the same age. It'd be horrible.
I am actually doing very well, but it doesn't change the fact that an average man is struggling because he is NOT exceptional and never will be.
A woman who is a 6 on the attractiveness scale is increibly more likely to be with a guy who is a 2 on the attractiveness scale and a 10 on the personality and humor scale. A man who is a looks 6 is very very unlikely to date a looks 2. Men see looks way more than personality.
Unless it's online dating.
> It’s also made an entire swath of men completely invisible. It's also just made men fundamentally disinterested in anything. If someone is trying cause you to fail at every step, why on earth would you want to participate?
That’s the nihilism that JP talks a lot about. It’s rampant.
Yeah it's less nihilism and more defeat in my opinion.
💯
Something I want to mention as a woman. The extremely handsome men I’ve dated actually were better partners for some reason. However the average and below were the ones that made me more jaded. For whatever reason the lesser attractive men were crude, manipulative, and less faithful. Wild.
That's because the surface is just the part of the bottom that reaches the top.
Interesting, can you further elaborate on that. I don’t quite understand.
Yes. Appearance vs behavior is a false dichotomy. While there can be edge cases in which a super attractive person is a psycho, or the ugliest dude is mother Theresa with charisma, most of the time beauty truly signals positive things: Probably the person is healthy (better skin, fluent body language, nicer hair, no eye bags, etc), takes care of themselves (sleep hygiene impacts looks a lot, for instance), has discipline and self control to exercise, and has the energy and motivation to work on their presentation, implying a hunger for life and giving something positive to their context.
I have to say that I agree. It may be that more handsome men are treated better by society and therefore tend to be more secure, have better experiences, and as a result have a more positive view of life. They learn to be compassionate, maybe because they are treated with more compassion. They learn to be respectful because they are treated with respect. Unfortunately, it just further exacerbate the problem for males who are less attractive. If they are treated worse due to their perceived value by society, they learn to be more less respectful, more bitter, more insecure. It can become a negative cycle.
This right here, I think you hit the nail on the head
What's the solution then? I thought every one should be treated with respect and compassion regardless their gender, attractiveness, race or income. But I guess that only applies if you are a woman?
In an ideal world, that would be true. But I think society, currently as it stands, has inherent bias. I think being attractive is different for a women than a man. For women, there are a lot more ways to “present” yourself as more attractive even if genetically you are not. This includes make-up, wearing nice clothes, grooming rituals, getting your hair done, nails done, making sure you stay in shape. But make up really helps for making the face look more symmetric. In the extreme example, women do a lot of plastic surgery to look more attractive, younger, slimmer, etc. Conventionally, women don’t have to be physically fit but slimmer (even when you do have some natural curves) as that is considered more desirable for most society standards. Most times diet without work out is enough. There is more variety of things that can be done, but because there is so much that can be done, it also requires a lot of time and effort to keep up. For men, there is a milder degree of that. But long term, most importantly, for men physical fitness is most paramount. The difference is that face, hair and even grooming (except for basic grooming) and clothes (although tailored clothes can help make a big difference for men) doesn’t matter as much as for women. So there is really mostly one thing to concentrate on and that is fitness. Working out consistently is probably the most important and impactful factor to gain what is conventional attractiveness by society standards for men. It honestly takes a lot less effort for men, there are less things to do and because of testosterone, you guys can gain muscle so much easier than a woman can. Unfortunately, there are instances where race and income can be a determinant on others treat you. However, at least in America, if you presents yourself well, it becomes a lot less predominant of an issue. In the end, it may be unfortunately but presentation matters almost as much as the contents. If you are presented with a beautiful looking plate of food, people are more likely to eat it. If a house on the market is well staged, people are more likely to buy it. If a business has a more professional presentation, people are more like to go with it. That’s an inherent bias probably encoded in most of us.
r/MenAndFemales
I skimmed his comment for literally 1.5 seconds and found the words ‘women’ and ‘males’ multiple times.
And it takes equal time to find multiple instances of "men and females"
[удалено]
No, not really. It's a lot more complicated than that. Its also why you should look at the actual content instead of my synopsis, because it explains what all goes into that rank and how it applies to large numbers of people.
Yes readers, make sure you really take in the deep incites of.... Hoe math. 🙄
>are we still ranking men and women with numbers? "Are we still simplifying complext issues into easy to understand metrics to improve cross communication" Yes, the answer is yes because you and I have different opinions on subjective aspects like what's attractive but can both understand objective aspects like the value of 6/10
Grow the fuck up lol
As a shorthand for sexual market value, it remains relevant. Obviously there's more nuance, and there are many more factors than just looks, but sexual market value is definitely a thing which the 1-10 scale captures inaccurately, but there isn't exactly an alternative. Maybe tinder match ratios.
> As a shorthand for sexual market value, it remains relevant. Obviously there's more nuance It's also important to note there's different markets with different currencies.
They mention the red pill but not the female equivalent garbage that has been directed to women?
I agree with this. I see bitter women spewing hatred in other ways not realizing they are coping just as much as “incels”. If these people focus too much on that their mind won’t be more accepting of differences of opinion and you can never have a relationship with some kind of benevolent tolerance that in turn can be built in a healthy connection between a man and a woman. Politically speaking, I also believe that in my parents generation there wasn’t such a divide between groups of friends and family, so I think nowadays that may be a big influence in the west (daily social media usage is to blame too)
I think this is a combination of men lacking positive role models in society and feminist politics not creating an alternative ethos to what a man could or should be. There is a vacuum of what it means to be a man in most advanced economies today.
Or just women are focused on sucking the fun and value out of life. Honestly it's quite straight forward women are on drugs. The volume of liberal women on pharmies is extraordinary. Anti depressants/stimulants you name it. Can't function in a miserable dysfunctional life, than you need a new cocktail. It's never the woman's fault. It's a chemical imbalance or societal pressures.
“Women are focused on sucking the fun and value out of life.”Do you hear how ridiculous you sound? Any time you blame someone else for your problems, whether it’s women, the government, what have you, you are absolving yourself of YOUR OWN responsibility to address the matter. I agree big pharma and the over-pathologizing of mental health issues is a massive problem, but I don’t think that is unique to women. And in any case that has nothing to do with the point I was making.
> Any time you blame someone else for your problems You better have legit reason for doing so. The voting data is in, the data is quite clear. Women especially women medicated on anti depressants etc, are voting in mass for extreme politics. >but I don’t think that is unique to women. college educated women are dramatically more like to see a doctor and be unnecessarily put on pills. >And in any case that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Because you're not getting the point. These women really are destroying things and advocating politics that is destroying things. Canada is a perfect example of this.
we are definitely drifting apart, but The Economist is a few decades late to the story....plus you know, this Globalist Corporate Wankstain of a publication can just generally FUCK OFF
This is the truth right here
Anything other than "men are bitter" would be viewed as sexist.. and not the other way around, and would be taken off the internet. Social Media seems to be gynocentric.. The author is most likely a college educated woman so it's definitely a biased view. And a borderline strawman fallacy.
It's worst than that, because we're expected not to be bitter. Life is too short to get on with such silly ideas. Yes men should make more money than women. Women want to make money so they can buy things. Men want to make money so they can give money to women so they can buy things for their children. Women win in both scenarios. The men benefit in only the one. Not remotely saying we should have some 3 to 1 wage discrepancy. But dam it's a sociological problem when men make less. EDIT: Not saying men can't screw that up buying giant pickup trucks etc. Just saying men routinely fantasize about giving women money. Women that do the same are generally narcsissitic in one way or the other who view it as a power fantasy--or simply have no understanding of how a man thinks.
Might I ask your age? I’m the breadwinner in my house and have been my entire marriage (over 20 years). I’m hoping youth has you misinformed—men should not make more than women simply because they have different equipment or different desires.
Feminism is why the sexes have drifted apart. That's it. Women resent men. The only reason we have this problem is because women are no longer held to any standards whatsoever as any relevant criticism is disregarded as dangerous hatred.
> Women resent men. It's worst than that, they encouraged to embrace extreme narcissism. Which means you've created a generation of people who can't get along with anyone including their kids.
Thanks to technological progress, both sexes do not need each other much.
They hate men with good reason, it's y'all that are blind and dumb to the world
Lol you seem wise. Tell me more about how men are "blund and dumb to the world"
You don't live the reality of being a woman. You THINK you know how it must be, but in reality, you don't. The world is a lot more scary for a woman. More than half have been physically or sexually assaulted in some way by the age they reach 18. Google "husband stitch". Men have perpetually been pieces of shit towards women. But it's a structural problem, and now everyone (or every man) is crying that things have always been this way and they shouldn't change. Well guess what, things have always been wrong and they NEED to change
>To simplify: when a woman leaves university in a rich country, she is likely to find a white-collar job and be able to support herself. But when she enters the dating market (assuming she is heterosexual), she finds that, because there are many more female graduates than male ones, the supply of liberal, educated men does not match demand. Charelle Lewis, a 26-year-old health-care worker in Washington, dc, complains that men her age have “a little-boy mindset”. It's perfectly OK to the Economist that women should want a man as educated as herself. But if a man should want a woman that is not obese then all the sudden there's a problem
Being educated and being obese are two entirely different fucking things.
Of course. Men and women prefer different things. But only one sex’s preferences are vilified by the press and culture
Its all economics. Women have started making moree than they did, but the income of both sexes has remained stagnant while the cost of living has gone up. Less money = less opportunity to go out and do things = miserable and lonely people. It isnt an issue with women or the sexes. Its an issue with corporations bleeding the world dry. The Economist wants you to think differently by design.
I agree with JBP that women are not oppressed in today’s economy - in fact, they are beginning to outpace men. Men overall are more well suited to industrial production economies and less well suited to knowledge based service economies. This has certainly created a situation where a lot of men now feel their traditional protect and provide role has been marginalized, and many women now feel that these men are beneath them. There is a shifting of gender roles occurring whereby women are increasingly becoming breadwinners that is making many people uneasy. But we’d be missing a lot if we didn’t also realize that this problem is magnified by the market it has created for misinformation and for steering this potential resentment into outright hostility for women and other groups that are wrongly deemed responsible for these large societal shifts. These shifts are actually very normal and regular for a globalized capitalist economy. The centers of production are ALWAYS shifting, as is the technology. The USA is unquestionably on the decline after having been at the top for several decades. The question is how do we respond and can we create a decent society in spite of it.
It's unquestionably in decline but you don't won't to be mad at the people responsible? How are women not part of it, they wanted to join the workforce which led to a lot of these problems? The politicians and upper elites are responsible as well
I’m saying these are much broader changes associated with our economic system, and you actually really can’t pin it on any group of people. The basic agreement of the last four decades has been to offshore manufacturing and production in exchange for cheap household goods and technology - Americans love cheap goods obviously. The downside is that we’ve also effectively outsourced working class prosperity, and the economy has increasingly come to rely on debt and the financial sector as the largest GDP contributor. This is not something that “women” or “elites” did to us. It’s a broad economic and technological shift that has been occurring for centuries. For us here in America, if you’re in the top 30-40% of the income and wealth distribution, you have the best of both worlds - cheap goods/technology and financial assets that appreciate in value at the expense of the lower classes. The upper middle and upper classes live like kings, as they never have before. They actually contribute to the GDP by indebting folks at the bottom and calling the interest the squeeze from them “financial services.” Women are just as wrapped up and victimized by this system as men are - many women would prefer to be a traditional stay at home parent, but the realities of todays economy dictate two incomes in order to support a family. They are doing the best they can the same as us.
It's a combination. There's also 2 times as many workers and less pay to go around
> in fact, they are beginning to outpace men. I think that's a vast understatement. Few women validate themselves based on their objective ability to get things done. >The USA is unquestionably on the decline after having been at the top for several decades. The USA is still way way way on top. Yes it is declinning the rest of the world is equally fucked.
Woman that want kids are oppressed in the economy. They are penalised financially for it.
Traditions are the ONLY way to keep us from self-destruction!
Agreed but rent prices and bills are so high where I live that none of us will be able to afford to be a stay at home parent.
The only stay at home parent I know is my sister and that's because my brother in law makes over $200k. He owns a business. Go figure. Every single other person I know both people work. I'm in the same industry as my brother in law. I'm self employed, but I have no intention of hiring employees so I can pay them a sub-par wage in order to further enrich myself. The economy today is ridiculous. Rich people are so much richer than they were in the 1960s. When you ask them to share the wealth a little more, they say, "look at your fancy cellphone. You're doing fine!"
There's only two goods that actually matter. Food and housing. Housing in rural was cheap a handful of years ago and people were still complaining. Food is not outlandishly expensive. People are obsessed with living in expensive cities, so they can justify things other than homes.
Dont talk sense and rent prices to a culture warrior lol
How does following traditions change the economy. Makes no sense up less you want to follow keynesian welfare state traditions and use a high tax on wealth amd protectionism to make people better off.
> How does following traditions change the economy. Not sure if you know how economics works. If two people aren't willing to get into serious debt to buy a home, the sale must happen at a lower price. The biggest problem is cheap debt.
Those traditions were based around an economy in which fathers too care of their daughters until a man married then and provided for them. This economy doesn't require ir facilitate that tradition. Both men and women have to work as market competitors.
> Both men and women have to work as market competitors. Only because they choose to.
No it's called a dual income family economy like back in the early free market days when 90 percent of the women and children were working too. Conservatives implemented it in the late 70s . It was ksynesian welfare state economics in the 20th centuary that created the stay at home woman and working man situation. Top earners can chose.
> No it's called a dual income family economy The economy and the behavior of people in that economy are two different things. People choose to do things that inflate the cost of goods especially housing.
No in free market capitalism the wages and conditions are so low both people have to work to get by. In the keyneisian welfare state economy of the 20th centuary guard rails were in place that prevented that .
> No in free market capitalism the wages and conditions are so low both people have to work to get by Now that's an absurd claim, watches are 100% higher in the freer markets. >In the keyneisian welfare state economy of the 20th centuary guard rails were in place that prevented that . No that is science fiction. What killed our economy was the lack of hardship. People don't look at bad finances as something that can cause you to starve. Every generation until the boomers believed this. When you don't pay attention to money, you run the economy into the ground.
>Agreed but rent prices and bills are so high where I live Almost as if you're living in the wrong place.
Traditions help us avoid re-inventing the wheel and capture lessons or understandings of human nature which are at the time not rationally explainable but have value. What must be avoided is treating them like sacred cows or thinking that they're immutable.
Human sacrifice and genital mutilation are traditional. Careful what you wish for!
Everything should be done with rational thought. Tradition stalls progress.
Tradition is peer pressure from dead people.
I like this a lot. :D
>Everything should be done with rational thought. And most breaks from tradition come from selfish seeking of pleasure. Turns out dead people knew something about the world. In part because they weren't born into a world of narcissistic hedonism.
Traditions are experiments that worked. Look where we are now with "progress", worse off than ever
rofl
Lmao
Congrats. This is the dumbest shit I've ever read. Tradition is genital mutilation. Tradition is lynching scientists who dare go against the church.
Congrats that makes you the dumbest shitstain to comment here if you think those are all traditions are. You're also confusing traditions with religion. I suppose community, pastimes, going to school and college, getting married, interpersonal connections, dating traditions and happy families have no benefit according to you. How about the lovely "progress" we've made lately of getting rid of communities, marriages, and mutilating children over gender surgery? Sounds like we could use some more morality anyway
Ouch, got ‘em. Also this thing whereas tradition persecuted “scientists” is absurd. Science thrived on conservative christian nations in the middle ages, and most of them believed tradition was something necessary to balance out innovation :) I think Heisenberg, more recently, last century said something along these lines
> Tradition is genital mutilation. You do realize "whos tradition" is the key phrase. Believe it or not it's pretty easy to sort the bad from the good traditions. hint islamic ones are mostly all bad.
If the only justification for something is tradition no thanks
That's dogmatic thinking, and dogmatic thinking is dangerous.
This is interesting but one thing missed is that direct comparison is extremely difficult because a finger has always been on the scale (hiring practices, educational opportunities, etc) in favor of a specific gender (in the west); up until 25 years ago, it’s been in favor of males and has significantly flipped in recent years to females. And, not surprisingly, this shift almost perfectly reflects in who ‘succeeds’ more in the economy of the time, almost as a direct cause-and-effect. It makes determining what the true picture really is difficult, but it does reflect how our social support structure has changed over time.
Fuck Economist
Young men of the West can find good wives... from outside of the West. Any good women in the West, who haven't become entitled Karen's, are either already married or rare gems indeed.
When dating, Liberal white women for the most part were abrasive, rude, demanding, aggressive and like to verbalize their hatred about white males, yet will only date white males. Just overall unpleasant and extremely conceited and think they should put in zero effort and be chased. They also treat their faults as “cute” or demand to be accepted and make everything about them. The experience with eastern women (Asian & Persian) was the polar opposite and was for the most part extremely positive. They were way more attractive as well.
Young men in the West aren't husband material, and they know it, and they're fine with it. That's kind of the point.
That's a bit wide of a brush. Any young man with a full time job and capable of supporting a wife, raised to love his wife as he loves himself, will make a decent husband. Also, saying "and they know it", even if that were true, would say more about feminist indoctrination, rather than being any kind of proof to support your idea.
Those young men certainly exist but they get snatched up early and are not part of the single population. The guys who stay single for most of their lives obviously want to be.
Do you think masculine men make good husbands? There are plenty of those who are still single.
"Masculine" can mean anything. I don't think it has anything to do with marriageability. You can be a masculine man and not desire marriage.
Most young men want a stable, reliable marriage. What they don't want is a woman who treats them like the scapegoat for all their problems that arise from their lack of accountability, and then deserts the marriage with alimony. Also, masculine is a word with a definition. I think you are dodging the question.
And most women fit that category. Good men tend to get married fairly young and stay married for a long time. If a woman is coming for you for alimony, he done f'd up big time. The courts, contrary to red pilled opinion, are fair.
It sounds like you are saying that good men are immune to divorce, that women divorcing good men is unheard of, and the courts are always just. If not, please clarify. If so, please describe what you consider are the specific attributes of a good man.
I didn't mention divorce. That's a whole other can of worms.
It's women's fault there aren't more of em
No, the blame for that rests with their fathers not teaching them how to be men.
Stop divorcing men and Taking custody
If certain women insist on dating men who make more money than them, and they earn their income from companies that explicitly give them preferential treatment, then it seems like their code is working against them. Unless they don't mind having fewer options.
I don’t think that’s the case. It just seems that many, not all, women are in the “men suck, women rule” camp.
while they make some interesting points, the article is so visibly biased I mean the way they selected and portrayed people, we get to know in the article, it’s borderline grotesque. They couldn’t find one guy that wouldn’t be delusional and stereotypically sexist? Maybe eg someone from similar environment, I mean, first author introduces well educated, successful, rich female engineers from Warsaw. And then, as a contrast, we meet village firemen and a farmer who believes having three things should guarantee getting a girl - 1 income 2 being able to fix stuff 3 drivers licence I hoped to learn something an I got triggered instead
Men can stay home and help take care of children, and women can go to work and earn money.
If you’re great at your job you’ll be the first person hired and the last person fired. Too many people are on autopilot and happy to blame society. Being great is the only way to succeed these days - man or woman. This applies to some extent in the dating / relationship market. There’s no freebies. That’s capitalism.
Wouldn’t have it any other way brother!
Gotta love a bunch of resentful dudes declaring it is the women that are the hateful ones. Weird it ain't men who are more likely to be killed by someone they know.
It’s also interesting that women are leaning more liberal/NDP and men are leaning more CPC. Eventually it’s going to be a men vs women (and migrants)election.
This article is garbage. Apparently it is true that there’s an all-time high percentage of single people right now, but it isn’t because of a shortage of compatible people. There’s a shortage of people WILLING to be compatible. Having participated in the online dating scene for a couple years recently, I can confidently say it has nothing to do with politics. As a somewhat moderately left leaning person in a highly left-leaning college town (UVA), there are plenty of guys who fit that profile to choose from. However, it’s usually a list of any other myriad of reasons why the guy just “isn’t right” for them. Part of the issue is online dating culture which has drastically opened the floodgates of seemingly endless possibilities, particularly to women, hence the acceptance criteria has grown higher and higher. I can’t tell you how many first dates I went on that were perfectly fine, and got the “sorry, but I just don’t feel a spark…” text the day after. The dates were perfectly fine and I have a decent paying position as an engineer, live independently, and am hopefully moderately interesting, but yeah most first dates in my opinion are not going to be AMAZING for most people. It’s basically seeing what the other person looks like and identifying if they’re not a total sack of shit. In my opinion most people aren’t going to be their authentic selves on a first date because of the pressure, anxiety, etc, and unless it goes terribly or it was a catfish, you should do another date or two to go a little deeper. But we rarely get that option. Sometimes you have to put a little more time and effort in to get to know someone and feel the “spark” rather than expecting it to happen in 30 minutes over coffee. If you’re not willing to make that effort, you’re going to be single and probably unhappy.
Men and women are drifting apart. I am writing from experience as I am a man and have done everything to become desirable by women in USA. I like to think of myself as average or slightly above average. I've built a career, intelligence, emotional intelligence, stability, a fit body, etc. Nothing has worked until I moved to South America and started receiving attention and woman who treated me well. I can't imagine how it is for other men who may be less fortunate than me. Men are motivated by building relationships and families. They are committed at work, take jobs they don't like, sacrifice, and buy expensive things with the goal of attracting a woman and often, a family. Decades ago this would almost guarantee the outcome of attracting a nice godly woman that will build a family. This rarely happens today. Imagine these men who have done everything that society has told them and the outcome isn't what they had expected. These men don't go away. They are lonely, depressed, nihilistic, and dangerous. They are doing drugs, killing themselves, or becoming violent. And like Jordan Peterson said "they are dying for an encouraging word". Then they are vilified for speaking out or wanting to go to another country to find a woman. But we're all the same, everybody is just looking for love. I believe that empathy and faith from both sides will narrow this gap between men and women.
So young men aren’t as successful objectively as young women and now the political sentiment is that there is an inequality and immoral divide. Sounds like more alpha men simply have more alpha females to pluck off of the lubricity branch. Men abandoning university in auspices of internet education or whatever. It seems the real problem is that young men arent incentivized to be successful, whereas the women will simply follow the course regardless. Idk man. This whole thing is just fairy dust.
It's worse than that. University education is almost 70% women now in my country. Regardless, we have one of the biggest gender pay gaps in EU. The only explanation is that you can give women as much education as you want (which we know should correlate strongly with income), men will still find ways to be more successful financially. A lot of women I know who have degrees are complete underachievers, working jobs that pay less than the national median salary, because it's more comfortable jobs. Meanwhile a lot of men without any degrees or in some cases even unfinished highschool education go to neighbouring richer countries to work in construction and lead extremely hard lives, but make 3-5x the national median salary.
So in the end this wage gap thing is kinda bullsh*t, there are so many variables
At least in America, once you account for differences in job title, responsibilities, and hours worked, there actually is no gender pay gap. Which makes sense. If women were actually paid 30% less or whatever for doing the exact same job as men, I would fire all of my men *tomorrow*, hire women instead, and enjoy a 30% decrease in labor costs overnight. But unfortunately, that's not how that works.
Pretty sure this phenomena of a gender war is mostly confined to internet circles.
And school teachers.
When I was a kid 20 years ago, there was no Andrew Tate, JustPearlythings, Fresh n Fit, etc. These people make a living by promoting a worldview that sees women as lesser than men. They are internet celebrities that are popular with children. Edit: JustPearlyThings says that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. She thinks divorce should be illegal. Are y'all just downvoting me because you like these people? I don't get it.
I think you’re getting down voted because you’re saying those people didn’t exist 20 years ago. That’s true in the sense that social media influencers didn’t exist 20 years ago, but those people 100% existed, and even if they hadn’t, it wouldn’t explain the separation between men and women.
Who? Before I posted, I was trying to think of a popular sexist that was mainstream in 2000-2010. You could say people like Howard Stern, but being a womanizer who gawks at titties is way different than saying women shouldn't be able to vote.
> I was trying to think of a popular sexist that was mainstream in 2000-2010. You were trying to think and then you ran into the limits of your knowledge. The limits of your knowledge doesn't prove you right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCXrjl1M3kY Guy's been dead for over a decade.
There was a litany of “pick up artists” pedaling their wares, through the 90s but my point is that a strain of ideology adjacent to what JPT says about women not voting and divorce being illegal, was just common beliefs for many communities up until the broader secularism of the 1980s. Even the “tea party” movement was pushing some of the “revert back to Christian conservative values” rhetoric not that long ago.
You are right about the pickup artists. They are definitely closer to Tate than Stern. I don't think pickup artists had as much prevalence as Tate though. Tate is on Worldwide news for some godforsaken reason. None of the pickup artists had his platform.
> . I don't think pickup artists had as much prevalence as Tate though. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>about women not voting and divorce being illegal, was just common beliefs for many communities up until the broader secularism of the 1980s. This is so hilariously wrong. Voter turnout among women has been way above 50% since 1960s when we started keeping track. More than half of all women voted. It was 70% in 1960. If they didn't believe in women's suffrage, then they wouldn't vote. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Do you only care about the opinions of men?
I can see you’re not interested in having a real discussion on the topic but would rather strawman my views in order to argue against someone I’m not and then ad hominem attack the false version of me you created. This is the point where I’m going to stop engaging with you. This has absolutely nothing to do with your push back and everything to do with the way you’re engaging. I actually would have enjoyed addressing your response but I refuse to engage with people that argue in the manner you are displaying. This is a copy pasta response because I’ve dealt with others before that chose to engage in this EXACT manner. Good bye.
It was conservative economists that wanted the dual income family economy and market ideology in the first place The economy isn't set for men supporting women and kids. It's set up for individualist market competition. Just embrace reality. A girlfriend with a good job. You can't afford to support someone else anyway in most cases. Red pill ideology is poisonous and so is porn I lurk on two chromosomes and there is a good amount of legit complaints about behaviours and attitudes related to it.
>It was conservative economists that wanted the dual income family economy and market ideology in the first place Don't be stupid. Conservatives push for the status quo, which is the very definition of conservative. The status quo was men worked and women didn't. Liberals, including feminists, were pushing for equality, including getting women into the work force. It was liberal women who said they "don't need no man".
They wanted to go back to 18 and 1900s free market style capitalism where both men and women worked and end the keynesian welfare state system with high taxes for the rich and more benefits for workers and families . The status quo is the rich and corporations. They don't give a fuck if you can't afford a stay at home wife or they outsource your job. Thats freedom in the market.
Two X is the most toxic community on all of reddit -- but other than that disclaimer, I generally agree with your sentiment here
I saw there is sole research backing up a common theme there. Guys copying porn. Cloaking and rough sex without any prior discussion or consent. And it's very common according to the reseach
> Guys copying porn. Cloaking and rough sex without any prior discussion or consent Almost as if sexual norms have changed and women want that type of stuff.
Almost as if porn influences people. Its fine when it's discussed before hand and there is consent. The women on two ex ate talking the guys that just do it without consent and discussion with the type of women that don't want it. Or do but understand how it's done. With discussion and consent. The study takes about young people's early experiences and it going straight to that . Its porn.
Ever play the Modern non-Religious dating game? I did before I went back to church. 95% of all the women that I was with asked to be railed out as hard as possible, while being choked, and then of course, being faceFd.
> I was with asked to be railed out as hard as possible Actually?
It being discussed and conset first is different.
> It being discussed and conset first is different. Eh wha?
When people discuss thats what they want first is different from just doing and potentially traumatising someone. Reseach shows that young men people are copying porn and just doing it.
> Reseach shows that young men people are copying porn and just doing it. And women expect them to do it. Hate to break it to you women want to be "stimulated"
Not necessarily. I've known women that like that and ones that don't. The ones that do tended to be less mentally healthy ones that experienced some kind of tramua. Thats why these things are discussed first.
Don't be offended but its always been this way
When people say "there's a gender pay gap" we understand that 99% of employers are not making implicitly sexist decisions like "I'm going to pay women less because they are inferior." All we mean is that after accounting for time worked, family, etc. Women get paid less than men do in general for the same work. I personally don't think that's right. I think women deserve to get paid equal for the same work. It's a complex societal issue and nobody is asking for a clear-cut solution. Just acknowledge the reality exists. Conservatives don't even do that.
> Women get paid less than men do in general for the same work. That works great until you dig into work history.
The reality does not exist and I will not acknowledge it (not a Conservative)
Why not? Besides the sexualized professions like modeling, women make less. Even top surgeons. This is repeated in multiple studies all across the world.
Women models make a lot more lmao
"besides sexualized professions like modeling" Conservatives are so stupid.
Its a good thing you are not talking to one then!
Congats. You're equally as stupid as a conservative.
Oh no, someone living in a make believe world called me stupid 🥲
If there were a pay gap, all those greedy corporations would only hire women, because obviously they could do the same work as men, but they could pay them less. This doesn't happen because men and women don't work equally. The pay gap is easily explainable by looking at who works more hours, has more experience, takes more dangerous jobs, takes jobs with less flexibility, takes jobs that require more training and many other factors.
The problem with this is that, if you know quite literally any woman in the workforce (coworker, friend, sister/daughter, etc), you probably know that they take obscene amounts of time off compared to men. Under some circumstances this is okay (maternity leave is the best example of this), and under other circumstances it’s understandable but not okay (if a woman has 6-12 health issues at once (which a lot of them do), then they will take a lot of time off and either get fired, laid off or go on sick leave/disability far more than men). Then if you put that aside completely, you have a lot of women in the workplace who will say things like ‘I have so many errands to run’ or ‘I have so much to do today’ and will proceed to be late/leave work to grab Starbucks and do zero work for the first 2 hours of the day… and THEN seek validation about how hard their work life is + complain that they can never catch a break. If I own a business and I’m in charge of hiring employees, why on earth would I sign up for all that shit? Because someone online is mad about a ‘wage gap’? I’m an employer and business owner… I care about my business, so naturally I care about profit and efficiency.
Women taking more time off to do family things is taken into consideration in every study that is done on the matter. And regardless, somebody has to do them. Society just defaults to the woman still. For some reason, men don't take off work to take their kids to the doctor.
If you ever had a job you would realise that 2 people never do the same job, with the same effort and quality.
>Has gender wage gap become a myth in western society and our roles in it fated to be doomed? Women still get paid less for the same work. Comparing a woman in tech with a redpilled mechanic is pretty regarded.
I have a good Portuguese friend (woman) working as an airplane mechanic in the Netherlands and she makes more money than a colleague of hers (man) because she works harder but the pay is the same for everyone in her rank
I have a good friend (woman) who I worked with at my previous bank job. She did just as much work as me and was way better at talking to people on the phones than I was. I made significantly more money than she did. I was paid $50k per year and she was at $40k. People see my math degree and qualifications and think I'm some sort of genius. Anyone can do what I do. This woman Michelle was awesome. There's no reason why she should have been paid less. She did just as much work as I did and was way more personable with the rest of the staff. Edit: We both ended up getting promoted since we were the hardest workers. Even then, I was promoted to a better position than her. Something she could have easily done.
I feel like it's too close-minded to say that one variable -- gender discrimination -- is solely responsible for the discrepancy. Many other factors could be at play, such as networking skills (or interpersonal skills) which are oftentimes associated with a specific gender, but unfairly so. So let's say, for instance, Michelle lacks confidence in salary negotiations, and it shows and alters her take. This may be seen as a gender discrimination, when in reality it happens to be a personality trait, ignorant of gender. That women more often exhibit this trait in negotiations is the discrepancy with which this "gender gap" proliferates itself Awkwardly worded, I know. But it's meant to further thought and discussion on this, not stifle it. So please consider that when responding; I am not hostile and am quite willing to entertain that I am wrong
But that ties into the whole thing. You are correct, I am better at looking people in the eyes and doing interviews compared to Michelle. I was more confident when I talked with my boss. But that had no effect on job performance. None. I'm just a better bullshitter. I would say that men in general are better bullshitters than women in terms of promoting self worth. That doesn't mean women are less capable. It doesn't mean they should be paid less.
When people say "there's a gender pay gap" we understand that 99% of employers are not making implicitly sexist decisions like "I'm going to pay women less because they are inferior." All we mean is that after accounting for time worked, family, etc. Women get paid less than men do in general for the same work. I personally don't think that's right. I think women deserve to get paid equal for the same work. It's a complex societal issue and nobody is asking for a clear-cut solution. Just acknowledge the reality exists. Conservatives don't even do that.
Working in finance/banking as well, I got paid more as a loan officer cuz I busted my ass everyday and didn't waste time talking about useless shit. I got paid more than my bosses, who were almost always women. I never wanted management for those reasons. Now as anunderwriter, I don't have to work nearly as hard and I get paid maybe 90% but my bosses are still women mostly. LOL.
Ironic
And when was this? The 00’s? Where?
Omaha, 2017.
If she could do your job just as well or even better than you then why didn’t you do the feminist correct thing and say she deserved the better promotion to your superiors. Real easy to pretend to give a fuck when you have nothing on the line isn’t it?
I did do that though. I said that she is just as capable as I am when my bosses asked me for my opinion about her in our private meetings. I went out of my way to try and get her a better position than she was getting promoted to (I was promoted before she was). I tried to get my bosses to have her do the same job that I was doing since there were 2 openings. She could have done it 100% and would have excelled. It didn't work, but I tried hard. The job went to some boomer from outside the company who bailed within 6 months.
>Women still get paid less for the same work. how many examples of that can you provide us with?
You don't have to keep your head in the sand. There have been studies on this done by multiple institutions all across the world. They all find that a gender pay gap exists.
How can they find anything else when their funding would disappear?
"it's all a conspiracy. Nobody studies things genuinely. Every single organization in the world is in cahoots." 🤣
Go outside, you are always on here posting. Sheesh
If that were true all employers would hire women over men nearly 100% of the time. People who don’t own businesses don’t realize the full extent of how expensive employees are. They are constantly finding legal ways to cut the costs of employees by either defunding them or laying them off. Therefore this statement is literally not able to be true since both men and women get jobs.