Demographics decline - sustainability or catastrophe?

[Metalcat]

So funny how the men reading took my comment, when what was meant by it is that we women aren't really all that empowered to make those kind of changes.

But instead y'all took it as a criticism...

This gets back to what is, in my opinion, a root cause: Men only look to other men for guidance about how to be.

One way to interpret that observation is that women are powerless to influence men on how to be. The problems with this attitude are (a) that it is self-defeating, (b) it probably underestimates the power women could seize to help solve the problem alongside male allies, and (c) it comes across as "that's not my job, although I am the one with the most at stake" which signals, incorrectly, that there's must not be much at stake.

As concrete examples, women could spread about the meme about the obnoxious man-child and how undesirable such attitudes are, label the incels and misogynists accurately as self-defeating losers victims of their own social media bubble ideologies, define male attractiveness in terms of maturity and conscientiousness, and produce more content and consensus about the scarcity of these attractive traits. One must make a noise if one expects to be heard. Leaving it to the obviously men isn't going to work. That's what got us here in the first place.

Exactly this kind of content produced by women is alllll over Tiktok. And the comments sections of those videos are FILLED with guys shouting them down.

Those men aren't going to listen to women.

They aren't going to listen to men either.  Incels like that are just living in an angry bubble of hate.

They're like neo-nazis.  A neo-nazi is never going to listen to what a black guy has to say.  They might be more likely to immediately respect a white person . . . but once that white person says they should listen to black people, the conversation is over too.

Well... they *are* listening to men. That's kinda the point. They're listening to other men, telling them a version of what's going on that allows them to blame others (women) for their pain.

If there's going to be any correction to that, it's not going to come from women.

Yeah, this is just like how the neo nazis are listening to white people.  White people who are selling the nazi message that they want to hear.  While I agree that the black people are not going to start much conversation there . . . I dunno how much more effective the non-racist white people are going to be either.

Once they're full-blown nazis or incels the correction is a really hard uphill battle.  We need to start the fight much, much earlier than that to have much hope of success.  We need to identify vulnerable boys and help them before they get radicalized.  We need to provide them with a better sense of identity, a community, and a purpose.  We need to use real inclusion and empowerment to ward off the fake shit that your Andrew Tate's are selling.  It's super important that men are involved in (and probably leading) this process . . . but it's also important that there is buy-in and help from women.  I don't think it will work anywhere near as well being one-sided.

But what's super fucking sad is the enormous paucity of prominent male voices setting a better example.

[Metalcat]

Oh, and also, I'm literally a therapist who works with men and couples, I'm pretty sure I'm carrying my damn weight on this issue, thankyouverymuch

[Kris]

Oh, and also, I'm literally a therapist who works with men and couples, I'm pretty sure I'm carrying my damn weight on this issue, thankyouverymuch

Yeah. And it is far, far, far from being one-sided. Women have been talking about this stuff forever. Wayyyyy more than men. We are more than pulling our weight. This is not in any way a situation of something happening "without buy-in" from us. Until pretty recently we were just about the only ones talking about it. But again, men don't listen to women about this, as a rule. There is a much better chance they will listen to other men.

[RetiredAt63]

So funny how the men reading took my comment, when what was meant by it is that we women aren't really all that empowered to make those kind of changes.

But instead y'all took it as a criticism...

This gets back to what is, in my opinion, a root cause: Men only look to other men for guidance about how to be.

One way to interpret that observation is that women are powerless to influence men on how to be. The problems with this attitude are (a) that it is self-defeating, (b) it probably underestimates the power women could seize to help solve the problem alongside male allies, and (c) it comes across as "that's not my job, although I am the one with the most at stake" which signals, incorrectly, that there's must not be much at stake.

As concrete examples, women could spread about the meme about the obnoxious man-child and how undesirable such attitudes are, label the incels and misogynists accurately as self-defeating losers victims of their own social media bubble ideologies, define male attractiveness in terms of maturity and conscientiousness, and produce more content and consensus about the scarcity of these attractive traits. One must make a noise if one expects to be heard. Leaving it to the obviously men isn't going to work. That's what got us here in the first place.

Exactly this kind of content produced by women is alllll over Tiktok. And the comments sections of those videos are FILLED with guys shouting them down.

Those men aren't going to listen to women.

They aren't going to listen to men either.  Incels like that are just living in an angry bubble of hate.

They're like neo-nazis.  A neo-nazi is never going to listen to what a black guy has to say.  They might be more likely to immediately respect a white person . . . but once that white person says they should listen to black people, the conversation is over too.

Well... they *are* listening to men. That's kinda the point. They're listening to other men, telling them a version of what's going on that allows them to blame others (women) for their pain.

If there's going to be any correction to that, it's not going to come from women.

Yup.

Also, I've recently discovered The Speech Prof and I enjoy a lot of his "man commenting on toxic masculinity" content.

And he gets the same shit in his comments.

[Metalcat]

And he gets the same shit in his comments.

Oh, of course, but still more men are likely to listen to him than a woman saying the same thing.

Plus he probably gets a lot less rape and death threats.

[GuitarStv]

So what's a good way to loudly sell proper behaviour appealingly?  Your Andrew Tates can fall back on sex with lots of women, blaming problems on others, and authorizing any kind of childish behaviour that you want.  That's a powerful lure.  Long term contentment in a stable relationship with your equal is pretty fucking amazing (I'd argue way more enticing than the prior) . . . but it seems like it's a harder thing to push in our society.

It's like the difference between blowing all your money on useless cars, clothes, and houses that are too big vs early retirement.  The latter is obviously a better fit for the majority . . . but the former seems to have all the marketing and sex appeal.

[Kris]

So funny how the men reading took my comment, when what was meant by it is that we women aren't really all that empowered to make those kind of changes.

But instead y'all took it as a criticism...

This gets back to what is, in my opinion, a root cause: Men only look to other men for guidance about how to be.

One way to interpret that observation is that women are powerless to influence men on how to be. The problems with this attitude are (a) that it is self-defeating, (b) it probably underestimates the power women could seize to help solve the problem alongside male allies, and (c) it comes across as "that's not my job, although I am the one with the most at stake" which signals, incorrectly, that there's must not be much at stake.

As concrete examples, women could spread about the meme about the obnoxious man-child and how undesirable such attitudes are, label the incels and misogynists accurately as self-defeating losers victims of their own social media bubble ideologies, define male attractiveness in terms of maturity and conscientiousness, and produce more content and consensus about the scarcity of these attractive traits. One must make a noise if one expects to be heard. Leaving it to the obviously men isn't going to work. That's what got us here in the first place.

Exactly this kind of content produced by women is alllll over Tiktok. And the comments sections of those videos are FILLED with guys shouting them down.

Those men aren't going to listen to women.

They aren't going to listen to men either.  Incels like that are just living in an angry bubble of hate.

They're like neo-nazis.  A neo-nazi is never going to listen to what a black guy has to say.  They might be more likely to immediately respect a white person . . . but once that white person says they should listen to black people, the conversation is over too.

Well... they *are* listening to men. That's kinda the point. They're listening to other men, telling them a version of what's going on that allows them to blame others (women) for their pain.

If there's going to be any correction to that, it's not going to come from women.

Yup.

Also, I've recently discovered The Speech Prof and I enjoy a lot of his "man commenting on toxic masculinity" content.

Yeah, I like that guy a lot, too. But when you look in his comments, it's full of women saying, "YES PREACH!!!! But this needs to be showing up in my husband's feed! This needs to be showing up in men's feeds! How do we get this to show up in men's feeds?"

Because it's not, as a rule. The algorithm has determined that men don't want to watch/hear it.

[Kris]

So what's a good way to loudly sell proper behaviour appealingly?  Your Andrew Tates can fall back on sex with lots of women, blaming problems on others, and authorizing any kind of childish behaviour that you want.  That's a powerful lure.  Long term contentment in a stable relationship with your equal is pretty fucking amazing (I'd argue way more enticing than the prior) . . . but it seems like it's a harder thing to push in our society.

It's like the difference between blowing all your money on useless cars, clothes, and houses that are too big vs early retirement.  The latter is obviously a better fit for the majority . . . but the former seems to have all the marketing and sex appeal.

I dunno, man. Honestly, I think that might have to come from you guys, as well. You speak "guy," maybe you enlightened dudes need to figure out the magic language that makes sense to them. Because again, women have been trying to communicate this stuff for a while, but when we say it, they code it as "feminazi/man-hating/emasculating/society-destroying bullshit."

[ChpBstrd]

I get the concerns that you're fighting an uphill battle against algorithms trying to reach people who don't want to listen.

The people who spend the most time on the internet training those algorithms are exactly the kind of people who lack the self-accountability to be doing something better with hours of their day rather than complaining about life to strangers and bots. The less-sensitive term for such people is "loser". Their 7 hours per day on Facebook or YouTube or Reddit does a LOT more work to establish the algorithm's preferences than someone casually burning 30 minutes a day on these "services".

This is why as soon as YouTube or TikTok figures out you're a young male, it bombards you with toxic masculinity or adjacent videos. It's also why professional influencers and thousands of wannabes target the "loser" demographic instead of the 30 minutes demographic - you sell a lot more clicks that way.

But hey, it's either find a solution to break through that noise or give up. Giving up means being OK with the culture moving more and more in this direction. It means being OK with every young guy who signs up for a social media account getting bombarded with these ideas and there not being any counterargument. It means signalling to potential male allies that you don't care enough to do anything, join any organization, pay any dues, boycott, speak up at parties, or question your SO's immature and excuse-making behavior.

MMM managed to make a tiny break through the wall of consumerism - a similarly destructive attitude set - and launch an intellectual movement that made people's lives better. FIRE continues to attract criticism from the excuse-making crowd, but so what? Because content is out there, people keep finding it every day and changing themselves for the better. Where's the anti-toxic-masculinity movement to match the anti-consumerism movement?

[Kris]

I get the concerns that you're fighting an uphill battle against algorithms trying to reach people who don't want to listen.

The people who spend the most time on the internet training those algorithms are exactly the kind of people who lack the self-accountability to be doing something better with hours of their day rather than complaining about life to strangers and bots. The less-sensitive term for such people is "loser". Their 7 hours per day on Facebook or YouTube or Reddit does a LOT more work to establish the algorithm's preferences than someone casually burning 30 minutes a day on these "services".

This is why as soon as YouTube or TikTok figures out you're a young male, it bombards you with toxic masculinity or adjacent videos. It's also why professional influencers and thousands of wannabes target the "loser" demographic instead of the 30 minutes demographic - you sell a lot more clicks that way.

But hey, it's either find a solution to break through that noise or give up. Giving up means being OK with the culture moving more and more in this direction. It means being OK with every young guy who signs up for a social media account getting bombarded with these ideas and there not being any counterargument. It means signalling to potential male allies that you don't care enough to do anything, join any organization, pay any dues, boycott, speak up at parties, or question your SO's immature and excuse-making behavior.

MMM managed to make a tiny break through the wall of consumerism - a similarly destructive attitude set - and launch an intellectual movement that made people's lives better. FIRE continues to attract criticism from the excuse-making crowd, but so what? Because content is out there, people keep finding it every day and changing themselves for the better. Where's the anti-toxic-masculinity movement to match the anti-consumerism movement?

I…

How are…

I *do* actually pay dues to organizations that are trying to get these messages out. I absolutely do boycott. And speak up at parties. And question my SO’s, and any males in my vicinity’s, immature and excuse-making behavior.

I’m guessing that most of the other women in these comments do, too. Certainly all of the women in my immediate entourage do.

How on earth are you getting the impression that we are not?!

[Telecaster]

I totally 100% DISAGREE with this statement. As a woman who's worked almost exclusively with men my entire life in very male dominated roles I have found most to be kind, open minded, caring, supportive, positive individual humans with few, if any, of the issues you've listed. Sure some are dicks, just as many women are, but my experiences - both as in subordinate as well as superior positions over all male co-workers - has been full of positive experiences. Same in my personal life while dating and marriage.

I would agree with that too.   I was going to add a paragraph to my post explaining why I said what I did, but it was getting too long--and I'm not sure how true it is anyway--but here goes:

It has been my observation that for teens and younger adult men, nice guys tend to finish last in the dating pool, or at least have a tougher time with it.  But that kind of flips as you get older.   If you are a decent human being and have your stuff together, you seem to become a lot more desirable to women.   That cohort of older-ish males doesn't seem to stay single very long if they don't want to.    It appears the decent, stuff together cohort gets hoovered up pretty fast which leaves the non-decent, non-stuff together cohort available for dating.   

It doesn't seem to work that way for decent, stuff together older-ish women.   I have some theories why, but I don't know for sure.   

Again, I'm not sure if that is entirely true but that's been my personal observation for a long time.   

[Log]

Well the initial topic it was shoved off onto men to solve was having voices validating the hardships of men. There's a difference between that and what the conversation has turned to, about providing a positive vision for modern masculinity.

Yes we need more positive male role models countering the bullshit in the manosphere... and we also need women to push back against the "all men suck" voices in women's discourse, because those women won't listen to men, and they are pushing men right into the arms of the Andrew Tates of the world. If boys learn they're damned if they do and damned if they don't...

If we want to turn down the temperature on this adversarial nonsense across the gender divide, we all need to work together. We all benefit from women who will advocate for men when the discourse veers into "all men suck" territory. I'll really highlight a lot of what @spartana has said in this thread as a positive example. Liz Plank is an example more in the public eye.

Everyone remember how in The Discourse™️ it has been a whole thing for a while to make fun of any man who utters the phrase, "not all men?" How is shutting down men's voices and suppressing nuance like that supposed to be helpful? Again, just like men need to be hearing positive examples from other men, women need to be hearing positive examples from other women.

This is what Richard Reeves keeps saying: we need to be able to do two things at the same time.

It doesn't help in the slightest that this is seen in socially liberal circles as controversial to say women have any responsibility at all when it comes to these issues. Because gender issues are seen as this "original sin" of the patriarchy, it falls into this oppressed/oppressor dynamic where men are supposed to atone for the sins of our forebears while the poor, innocent women can do no wrong. Little things, like dismissive comments of "look how the men get all defensive" add up to an overall culture that tells the Good Men™️ to just shut up and not talk about men's issues at all. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I would probably never advocate this much about the male perspective to women in real life because it's so fraught. I understand it's frustrating in a world that is still so unfair to women to talk about men's issues. I'm comfortable doing so here in text with the ability to choose my words more carefully, and behind the veil of pseudonymity. But the fact that I wouldn't say this in person is exactly why it's important for women to be allies to men—just as it's important for men to be allies to women.

I should really cut this short, but I just have to add this obviously an incredibly generational thing. So much has changed so fast, and especially the internet and social media have done ridiculous harm to the quality of discourse. Everyone's generational perspective here is different and valid. What we need to be alarmed right now is how that progress seems to be slowing and reversing among Gen Z boys. This is not a problem that's going to be "solved" within our lifetimes (if ever), but we can at least try to keep pushing things in the right direction.

Would love to edit myself more here, but I've got to go so I'll put this out as it is (and expect someone to say I'm wrong and bad). Apologies I couldn't be more succinct.

[Metalcat]

I get the concerns that you're fighting an uphill battle against algorithms trying to reach people who don't want to listen.

The people who spend the most time on the internet training those algorithms are exactly the kind of people who lack the self-accountability to be doing something better with hours of their day rather than complaining about life to strangers and bots. The less-sensitive term for such people is "loser". Their 7 hours per day on Facebook or YouTube or Reddit does a LOT more work to establish the algorithm's preferences than someone casually burning 30 minutes a day on these "services".

This is why as soon as YouTube or TikTok figures out you're a young male, it bombards you with toxic masculinity or adjacent videos. It's also why professional influencers and thousands of wannabes target the "loser" demographic instead of the 30 minutes demographic - you sell a lot more clicks that way.

But hey, it's either find a solution to break through that noise or give up. Giving up means being OK with the culture moving more and more in this direction. It means being OK with every young guy who signs up for a social media account getting bombarded with these ideas and there not being any counterargument. It means signalling to potential male allies that you don't care enough to do anything, join any organization, pay any dues, boycott, speak up at parties, or question your SO's immature and excuse-making behavior.

MMM managed to make a tiny break through the wall of consumerism - a similarly destructive attitude set - and launch an intellectual movement that made people's lives better. FIRE continues to attract criticism from the excuse-making crowd, but so what? Because content is out there, people keep finding it every day and changing themselves for the better. Where's the anti-toxic-masculinity movement to match the anti-consumerism movement?

I…

How are…

I *do* actually pay dues to organizations that are trying to get these messages out. I absolutely do boycott. And speak up at parties. And question my SO’s, and any males in my vicinity’s, immature and excuse-making behavior.

I’m guessing that most of the other women in these comments do, too. Certainly all of the women in my immediate entourage do.

How on earth are you getting the impression that we are not?!

Yeah...WTF?

[Metalcat]

Well the initial topic it was shoved off onto men to solve was having voices validating the hardships of men. There's a difference between that and what the conversation has turned to, about providing a positive vision for modern masculinity.

Yes we need more positive male role models countering the bullshit in the manosphere... and we also need women to push back against the "all men suck" voices in women's discourse, because those women won't listen to men, and they are pushing men right into the arms of the Andrew Tates of the world. If boys learn they're damned if they do and damned if they don't...

If we want to turn down the temperature on this adversarial nonsense across the gender divide, we all need to work together. We all benefit from women who will advocate for men when the discourse veers into "all men suck" territory. I'll really highlight a lot of what @spartana has said in this thread as a positive example. Liz Plank is an example more in the public eye.

Everyone remember how in The Discourse™️ it has been a whole thing for a while to make fun of any man who utters the phrase, "not all men?" How is shutting down men's voices and suppressing nuance like that supposed to be helpful? Again, just like men need to be hearing positive examples from other men, women need to be hearing positive examples from other women.

This is what Richard Reeves keeps saying: we need to be able to do two things at the same time.

It doesn't help in the slightest that this is seen in socially liberal circles as controversial to say women have any responsibility at all when it comes to these issues. Because gender issues are seen as this "original sin" of the patriarchy, it falls into this oppressed/oppressor dynamic where men are supposed to atone for the sins of our forebears while the poor, innocent women can do no wrong. Little things, like dismissive comments of "look how the men get all defensive" add up to an overall culture that tells the Good Men™️ to just shut up and not talk about men's issues at all. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I would probably never advocate this much about the male perspective to women in real life because it's so fraught. I understand it's frustrating in a world that is still so unfair to women to talk about men's issues. I'm comfortable doing so here in text with the ability to choose my words more carefully, and behind the veil of pseudonymity. But the fact that I wouldn't say this in person is exactly why it's important for women to be allies to men—just as it's important for men to be allies to women.

I should really cut this short, but I just have to add this obviously an incredibly generational thing. So much has changed so fast, and especially the internet and social media have done ridiculous harm to the quality of discourse. Everyone's generational perspective here is different and valid. What we need to be alarmed right now is how that progress seems to be slowing and reversing among Gen Z boys. This is not a problem that's going to be "solved" within our lifetimes (if ever), but we can at least try to keep pushing things in the right direction.

Would love to edit myself more here, but I've got to go so I'll put this out as it is (and expect someone to say I'm wrong and bad). Apologies I couldn't be more succinct.

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I said that I'm literally a therapist who helps men with their mental health???

And before that I was a medical professional who was extremely well known for being able to validate and connect with young men, particularly teens, and was able to encourage them to care more about health habits and preventive care? Or the fact that I was even better known for being comfortable handling verbally abusive, aggressive male patients who no one else could handle, because I could make them feel emotionally safe???

I've spent my entire fucking life making men feel safe and comfortable. It's actually what I'm really, really good at.

But yeah, I will also freely share within my community how *poorly* I've been treated by men when the topic comes up.

Because I DO MY FUCKING PART and I'm also allowed to share my lived experience and be unhappy about it.

[Log]

I will add that a lot of this discourse seems to revolve around "someone should do X," about something in which lots of people are already doing X, and it just doesn't solve the issue instantaneously.

That applies to what I'm complaining about, what ChpBstrd said, to what Kris and Mal are saying that men need to be out there speaking on these issues more... it's all happening already! We're living in a world of progress. But progress takes time, and alas, we are mortal. So we keep saying "someone should do X," because we want the progress to happen faster.

---

Re above: yes ty for all you do Mal. I have not said enough how much I appreciate all you offer here on these forums, and that includes incredibly thoughtful and empathetic contributions any time the Gender Discourse™️ comes up. I did not intend to say that you are not saying and doing the right things in the slightest.

Upon re-reading the post you were quoting from mathlete I see our misunderstanding. I read your "men should ABSOLUTELY do this" in response to where mathlete said we need people who will validate men's struggles, and I firmly believe that's something we need everyone to get on board with. But you were actually responding to where mathlete said we've not done such a great job of highlighting alternatives to toxic masculinity, to which I fully agree with you. Silly misunderstanding 🙃

ETA: I should have read more carefully before posting, though my points still stand about men and women confronting each others' struggles in solidarity, and the need for women to push back against toxic adversarial gender discourse from other women, just as men should.

[Metalcat]

Ah yes, thank you for going back and identifying the misunderstanding, I appreciate it.

And I'm emotionally tired from being present for other people's emotional pain all day, particularly trying to undo the toxic fucking damage that parents do to young men.

It's fucking daunting sometimes.

And these are the men willing to go to therapy. They're already several steps ahead in terms of coming to grips with the toxicity they've been inundated with.

[jrhampt]

I very much appreciate the gentle and kind responses from Frugal Toque and Treeleaf to my exasperated comment earlier in this thread.  I was very upset over the murders I mentioned on top of other recent events and used language that was unnecessary and unhelpful. It's not constructive to go around man bashing (or be perceived as man bashing).

But yeah, I think I and others have been pretty clear that "not all men" is something that we already subscribe to.  And Idk how we could possibly advocate harder for a good model of masculinity.  I took a hard look at my parents' relationship and the men around me growing up (the southern Baptist culture and the equally awful secular sexist culture) and decided exactly what I did not want in a man and what I did want.  Then I went out and found that man and the equal partnership that I wanted.  We are not rewarding bad male behavior; we are uplifting good male behavior.  Until we are blue in the face.

I think the real catastrophe here is not demographics decline - that may or may not be a symptom of the larger problem -- the catastrophe is how we treat women.  The patriarchy is not a great option for men either, but women suffer the most because we are short on power.  And power corrupts.  Look at the response to the demographic issue - wanting more babies here.  Women have chosen to opt out in increasing numbers, so instead of understanding that choice and making the world better, we have decided to take away the choice.  That's not good.

[Metalcat]

I very much appreciate the gentle and kind responses from Frugal Toque and Treeleaf to my exasperated comment earlier in this thread.  I was very upset over the murders I mentioned on top of other recent events and used language that was unnecessary and unhelpful. It's not constructive to go around man bashing (or be perceived as man bashing).

But yeah, I think I and others have been pretty clear that "not all men" is something that we already subscribe to.  And Idk how we could possibly advocate harder for a good model of masculinity.  I took a hard look at my parents' relationship and the men around me growing up (the southern Baptist culture and the equally awful secular sexist culture) and decided exactly what I did not want in a man and what I did want.  Then I went out and found that man and the equal partnership that I wanted.  We are not rewarding bad male behavior; we are uplifting good male behavior.  Until we are blue in the face.

I think the real catastrophe here is not demographics decline - that may or may not be a symptom of the larger problem -- the catastrophe is how we treat women.  The patriarchy is not a great option for men either, but women suffer the most because we are short on power.  And power corrupts.  Look at the response to the demographic issue - wanting more babies here.  Women have chosen to opt out in increasing numbers, so instead of understanding that choice and making the world better, we have decided to take away the choice.  That's not good.

Yup, in a patriarchal system when women gain more freedom and choose not to procreate, the patriarchal answer is to take those freedoms away instead of evolving the system to not be so fucking miserable to procreate within.

I'm less concerned about who is going to care for the aging seniors, governments can absolutely prioritize incentivizing people to work in these areas and creating immigration and social programs that make sense. That is possible.

But unfortunately it will feel a hell of a lot more reasonable to a lot of folks in power to lean more towards finding ways to make women who don't want to have babies have babies.

This whole issue is a great way for men who already think we're inferior and have too many rights to start justifying taking them away for the good of the human race.

[GuitarStv]

There are a shit ton of men who are very opposed to limits on women's reproductive freedoms.  The situation in the US regarding abortion isn't even supported by the majority of the population of men or women, although there are very large numbers of women who support these limits.  While certainly fucked up, I don't know if this issue can be easily painted as a patriarchal and man driven one.

[Metalcat]

There are a shit ton of men who are very opposed to limits on women's reproductive freedoms.  The situation in the US regarding abortion isn't even supported by the majority of the population of men or women, although there are very large numbers of women who support these limits.  While certainly fucked up, I don't know if this issue can be easily painted as a patriarchal and man driven one.

I specifically said *folks in power* dude. Who the fuck do you think is making these regressive rules?? That would be patriarchal folks in power. How is that not self evident??

Please don't misrepresent what I've said. Also, patriarchy doesn't equal "men" it's the system under which men AND women exist and perpetuate.

[GuitarStv]

There are a shit ton of men who are very opposed to limits on women's reproductive freedoms.  The situation in the US regarding abortion isn't even supported by the majority of the population of men or women, although there are very large numbers of women who support these limits.  While certainly fucked up, I don't know if this issue can be easily painted as a patriarchal and man driven one.

I specifically said *folks in power* dude. Who the fuck do you think is making these regressive rules?? That would be patriarchal folks in power. How is that not self evident??

Please don't misrepresent what I've said. Also, patriarchy doesn't equal "men" it's the system under which men AND women exist and perpetuate.

Four of the nine supreme court justices responsible for regressive rules limiting women's reproductive rights are women.  I guess I am confused - I thought that patriarchy referred to a system of oppression perpetuated by men upon women.  When women like Barret are in positions of power and making rules that limit rights of women is that still patriarchy?

[Kris]

There are a shit ton of men who are very opposed to limits on women's reproductive freedoms.  The situation in the US regarding abortion isn't even supported by the majority of the population of men or women, although there are very large numbers of women who support these limits.  While certainly fucked up, I don't know if this issue can be easily painted as a patriarchal and man driven one.

I specifically said *folks in power* dude. Who the fuck do you think is making these regressive rules?? That would be patriarchal folks in power. How is that not self evident??

Please don't misrepresent what I've said. Also, patriarchy doesn't equal "men" it's the system under which men AND women exist and perpetuate.

Four of the nine supreme court justices responsible for regressive rules limiting women's reproductive rights are women.  I guess I am confused - I thought that patriarchy referred to a system of oppression perpetuated by men upon women.  When women like Barret are in positions of power and making rules that limit rights of women is that still patriarchy?

You are confused. Patriarchy is a system, not a group of guys pulling levers. Some of the staunchest supporters of patriarchy are women. And some of the people most hurt by patriarchy are men.

[Metalcat]

There are a shit ton of men who are very opposed to limits on women's reproductive freedoms.  The situation in the US regarding abortion isn't even supported by the majority of the population of men or women, although there are very large numbers of women who support these limits.  While certainly fucked up, I don't know if this issue can be easily painted as a patriarchal and man driven one.

I specifically said *folks in power* dude. Who the fuck do you think is making these regressive rules?? That would be patriarchal folks in power. How is that not self evident??

Please don't misrepresent what I've said. Also, patriarchy doesn't equal "men" it's the system under which men AND women exist and perpetuate.

Four of the nine supreme court justices responsible for regressive rules limiting women's reproductive rights are women.  I guess I am confused - I thought that patriarchy referred to a system of oppression perpetuated by men upon women.  When women like Barret are in positions of power and making rules that limit rights of women is that still patriarchy?

Sounds like you might benefit from reading up a bit on patriarchy, you tend to be pretty well informed about the things you debate about, so I'm kind of surprised to read this.

But simple answer: many, many women are MAJOR proponents of the patriarchy, because we've been conditioned with the exact same value systems as men. It's the same way that men are absolutely victims of the patriarchy as well.

Being anti-patriarchy means being against an oppressive system of values, not against men.

[GuitarStv]

You're both right, apologies.  In my defense . . . there appear to be multiple meanings of the term Patriarchy, so it's kind of a confusing word - but the one I've been running with seems to be less in favor than the one that you're both describing.

[Metalcat]

You're both right, apologies.  In my defense . . . there appear to be multiple meanings of the term Patriarchy, so it's kind of a confusing word - but the one I've been running with seems to be less in favor than the one that you're both describing.

Generally if it's used in the context of talking about systemic power, the person is using the definition that relates to systems of power. Not something like smaller cult groups where men have all of the literal power over all women.

[GuitarStv]

You're both right, apologies.  In my defense . . . there appear to be multiple meanings of the term Patriarchy, so it's kind of a confusing word - but the one I've been running with seems to be less in favor than the one that you're both describing.

Generally if it's used in the context of talking about systemic power, the person is using the definition that relates to systems of power. Not something like smaller cult groups where men have all of the literal power over all women.

Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of Sylvia Walby's definition - "I shall define patriarchy as a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women."  and was leaning too hard on the 'men' part.

[Metalcat]

Thought this video was cute and relevant to some of the discussion.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1092208468637368?mibextid=l2hJJHjNVOBSwHk4

[afox]

My personal experience where ive worked is that women are:
-more prevalent (within every group, in the organization as a whole, etc there are more women than men)
-women are more likely to be leaders
-women are generally better at their jobs and are more likely to receive higher compensation.

It looks like the controlled gender pay gap is currently $.99, thus women earn 99 cents for every dollar men make in the same job. That's too bad and its a problem that needs to be addressed but I wouldnt go so far as to say that "men have their boots on women's necks" as one person wrote in this thread.

I know something like the average wage for all workers is more commonly reported in news stories and its around 83 cents per dollar but that is somewhat meaningless to me since it doesnt even control for hours worked. I get why news stories report this number, its more shocking and it attracts eyeballs.

Does anyone have evidence of "men having their boots on women's necks"? I honestly don't and I'm not biased because I'm a man.

The reasons for population decline seem pretty clear to me. There are so many reasons women choose not have kids and women are the ultimate deciders but the biggest reason to me: its still an enormous bear (and some, including me would argue impossible) to have a career and a family. There are a million things that make it so difficult/impossible to have both a career and a family (childcare, jobs, bad men, etc) but bottom line it sucks big time to have 2 working adults with children.

source for the gender pay gap numbers:
https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/

[deborah]

When I’ve had discussions about the timing of the birth of children with married friends who are women, each one I’ve talked with has said that they’ve had a tough time to get their husbands to agree to having a child, so their first was later than they wanted, and the gap between each child was longer. In several cases they indicated that this meant they had fewer children.

Maybe this is something that it happening throughout the population. However, even if it isn’t, it indicates that those blaming the reduction in births to women need to understand that a marriage is a partnership, and that the number of kids is something that is decided by that partnership, rather than by only one member of the partnership.

[jrhampt]

My personal experience where ive worked is that women are:
-more prevalent (within every group, in the organization as a whole, etc there are more women than men)
-women are more likely to be leaders
-women are generally better at their jobs and are more likely to receive higher compensation.

It looks like the controlled gender pay gap is currently $.99, thus women earn 99 cents for every dollar men make in the same job. That's too bad and its a problem that needs to be addressed but I wouldnt go so far as to say that "men have their boots on women's necks" as one person wrote in this thread.

I know something like the average wage for all workers is more commonly reported in news stories and its around 83 cents per dollar but that is somewhat meaningless to me since it doesnt even control for hours worked. I get why news stories report this number, its more shocking and it attracts eyeballs.

Does anyone have evidence of "men having their boots on women's necks"? I honestly don't and I'm not biased because I'm a man.

The reasons for population decline seem pretty clear to me. There are so many reasons women choose not have kids and women are the ultimate deciders but the biggest reason to me: its still an enormous bear (and some, including me would argue impossible) to have a career and a family. There are a million things that make it so difficult/impossible to have both a career and a family (childcare, jobs, bad men, etc) but bottom line it sucks big time to have 2 working adults with children.

source for the gender pay gap numbers:
https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/

Well, here are some stats:

Women are 10% of Fortune 500 company CEOs
12% of US billionaires
25% of US Senators
29% of US Representatives
0% of US Presidents

And on average, we have about half of the average net worth that a man does.  So there is a persistent power differential.

Edited to add that we have made some progress:
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/27/women-men-ceo-sp500

[afox]

My personal experience where ive worked is that women are:
-more prevalent (within every group, in the organization as a whole, etc there are more women than men)
-women are more likely to be leaders
-women are generally better at their jobs and are more likely to receive higher compensation.

It looks like the controlled gender pay gap is currently $.99, thus women earn 99 cents for every dollar men make in the same job. That's too bad and its a problem that needs to be addressed but I wouldnt go so far as to say that "men have their boots on women's necks" as one person wrote in this thread.

I know something like the average wage for all workers is more commonly reported in news stories and its around 83 cents per dollar but that is somewhat meaningless to me since it doesnt even control for hours worked. I get why news stories report this number, its more shocking and it attracts eyeballs.

Does anyone have evidence of "men having their boots on women's necks"? I honestly don't and I'm not biased because I'm a man.

The reasons for population decline seem pretty clear to me. There are so many reasons women choose not have kids and women are the ultimate deciders but the biggest reason to me: its still an enormous bear (and some, including me would argue impossible) to have a career and a family. There are a million things that make it so difficult/impossible to have both a career and a family (childcare, jobs, bad men, etc) but bottom line it sucks big time to have 2 working adults with children.

source for the gender pay gap numbers:
https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/

Well, here are some stats:

Women are 10% of Fortune 500 company CEOs
12% of US billionaires
25% of US Senators
29% of US Representatives
0% of US Presidents

And on average, we have about half of the average net worth that a man does.  So there is a persistent power differential.

Edited to add that we have made some progress:
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/27/women-men-ceo-sp500

Well, money aren't everything. Maybe women make better decisions than men such as retiring when they have "enough". There is only 1 US president so its either going to be 100% a man or 100% a women, unless....ugh lets not go there. I guarantee you that every male US billionair, senator, representative, CEO could not be in their position without a female in their life that is helping them.


Also consider that women outperform men in many important areas. Women outnumber men at almost every university across the U.S., and they are more likely to get a good degree and less likely to drop out.

To accumulate the most wealth you must work more and childbearing takes the place of work so its no surprise that men have the top spots in terms of the wealth race.

Im nowhere nearly convinced that "men having their boots on women's necks".

I just dont get why people cant accept and acknowledge that having kids and raising them will result in working less, being less successful in a career, having less money, being less healthy, etc. We pretend that parents can have it all cuz of maternity/paternity leave and "flexible schedules", its such B.S. It appears that many women are not so naďve and chose not to have children so they could have something else they want more, theres nothing wrong with that at all. If we cared enough about birth rates we'd pay parents to have and raise children, we took away the miniscule child tax credit enacted during covid.

[jrhampt]

Ok, this is literally the point.  Sure, men in power are supported by women.  And money may not be everything, but the point of this forum is that money=power and money=freedom.  I don't care how great women are performing because if we have to work twice as hard and be twice as good and STILL don't achieve equal representation in powerful positions, we are clearly at a disadvantage.

Yes, childbearing is hard, and men make it harder when they do not do their part.  Which they do not.  And it is not a valued contribution, it does not translate to money, it does not translate to freedom, and when we figure this out and decide not to have children, the people with the boots on our necks try to force us to.  How are you not getting this?

[vand]

Marital/childbearing asymmetry is very real and demonstrable and yes does impair women financially..  The reason why a traditional nuclear family where resources are shared amongst the family unit is still regarded as a bedrock of many societies.  That may seem terribly outdated and silly many today but women's lib has sold a lot of you down the river, too.

[Kris]

I think if we could simply flip a switch where childrearing and the domestic/family sphere suddenly became the responsibility of men, everything would sort itself out.

[afox]

Ok, this is literally the point.  Sure, men in power are supported by women.  And money may not be everything, but the point of this forum is that money=power and money=freedom.  I don't care how great women are performing because if we have to work twice as hard and be twice as good and STILL don't achieve equal representation in powerful positions, we are clearly at a disadvantage.

Yes, childbearing is hard, and men make it harder when they do not do their part.  Which they do not.  And it is not a valued contribution, it does not translate to money, it does not translate to freedom, and when we figure this out and decide not to have children, the people with the boots on our necks try to force us to.  How are you not getting this?

I get it but I disaagree with almost everything you write.  My point is that noone is forcing anyone to have children, in fact we're not even incentivizing people to have chidlren, the incentives are TO NOT have children!

Do you really think that women work twice as hard as men? Technically, that's not even possible, you're telling me that my female coworkers are working 2 hours for every one of my hours? You're so full of it and sounding a little like you're having a nice pity party for yourself. Some men dont do their part.

I will say this if any female works somewhere they have to work twice as hard as men, get the hell out of there. Its definitely not like that everywhere, the job market is pretty good. Dont stick around, bad organizations do exist and if they treat women poorly they probably treat other groups poorly as well.

The problem with these stats like x percntage of CEOs are male is that not everyone wants to be a CEO. Im sure there is some stat about x percentage of men being construciton workers with extremely high salaries, who cares. It doesnt matter that 30% of congress are women, what matters is if women were given an equal chance to be in congress. No modern successful organization is limiting peoples roles based on their gender. Im sure they did and im sure there is some example of bad apples today but you cant say that women were'nt given the chance becasue fewer of them are in a position, that just doesnt make sense logically. You need to look at whether they were given an equal chance and treated fairly not how many of them are in x position because clearly not everyone wants to be a sentator, a CEO, or a billionaire. In fact I would argue that only idiots/crazy ppl want to be senators, CEOs, and billionaires. The smart ones in my opinion retired at an early age and are spending their time pursuing their recreational passions not in board-rooms working on that next billion for the shareholders or placating constituents, those jobs are....for the birds...

[Metalcat]

Marital/childbearing asymmetry is very real and demonstrable and yes does impair women financially..  The reason why a traditional nuclear family where resources are shared amongst the family unit is still regarded as a bedrock of many societies.  That may seem terribly outdated and silly many today but women's lib has sold a lot of you down the river, too.

Only if you see things through a very specific lens of what a "good outcome" is for a woman.

[afox]

Also, and I almost hesitate to write this since im sure it will be mis-interpreted but many of these men that are earning high salaries are doing it so that they can provide for their families. Many of these men would probably rather be in the field or in a cubible doing something interesting but instead have chosen the meeting room career path so that they can make more money, so that......you guessed it......their spouses dont have to work and can be with their children, or so their spouse can work a fun/low stress part time job that makes less without having to worry about being a family in poverty. Whos boot is on who's neck?

So some men are working really hard and getting shamed for it cuz they are displacing a women. That's why its the intent that matters in discrimination law and not just x percent of x group are in leadership its beyond naive to think that just because x number  or x group are in x position there is some kind of discrimination going on. I get that this sells eyeballs and outlandish news articles and blogs but its not sound analysis.

[jrhampt]

Ok.  I'm not saying that women are twice as good as men.  You are the one saying that women are overperforming relative to men.  I am saying, who cares if that is not reflected in the amount of power, money, and freedom we acrue?

And no one is trying to force women to have children?  Really?  Have you looked at the abortion restrictions in about half of US states lately?  The personhood movement? 

I am the higher earning spouse in my family by choice, incidentally.

You know what, I just can't even with this thread anymore.  My God.   

[jrhampt]

One more comment - I have heard the bullshit about women supporting men in power before...as an acceptable substitute for having our own power.  I heard it from my own father when he was speculating about why women didn't really need to be granted the vote.  Because they could influence the vote through their fathers and husbands.  My God.  Abigail Adams knew better than this hundreds of years ago.

[jrhampt]

So some men are working really hard and getting shamed for it cuz they are displacing a women. That's why its the intent that matters in discrimination law and not just x percent of x group are in leadership its beyond naive to think that just because x number  or x group are in x position there is some kind of discrimination going on. I get that this sells eyeballs and outlandish news articles and blogs but its not sound analysis.

It is actually FAR MORE COMMON that women are working really hard and getting shamed for it because they are displacing a man.  I have definitely heard "she slept her way to the top" or "she was only picked because she is a woman".  LOTS OF TIMES.  RECENTLY.

[afox]

So some men are working really hard and getting shamed for it cuz they are displacing a women. That's why its the intent that matters in discrimination law and not just x percent of x group are in leadership its beyond naive to think that just because x number  or x group are in x position there is some kind of discrimination going on. I get that this sells eyeballs and outlandish news articles and blogs but its not sound analysis.

It is actually FAR MORE COMMON that women are working really hard and getting shamed for it because they are displacing a man.  I have definitely heard "she slept her way to the top" or "she was only picked because she is a woman".  LOTS OF TIMES.  RECENTLY.

bad apples do exist but this is probably illegal and is definitely not the norm.

You are accusing the male gender of discrimination and conspiracy to harm women. You are a misandrist.

[jeninco]

Also, and I almost hesitate to write this since im sure it will be mis-interpreted but many of these men that are earning high salaries are doing it so that they can provide for their families. Many of these men would probably rather be in the field or in a cubible doing something interesting but instead have chosen the meeting room career path so that they can make more money, so that......you guessed it......their spouses dont have to work and can be with their children, or so their spouse can work a fun/low stress part time job that makes less without having to worry about being a family in poverty. Whos boot is on who's neck?

So some men are working really hard and getting shamed for it cuz they are displacing a women. That's why its the intent that matters in discrimination law and not just x percent of x group are in leadership its beyond naive to think that just because x number  or x group are in x position there is some kind of discrimination going on. I get that this sells eyeballs and outlandish news articles and blogs but its not sound analysis.

Wow, you have worked yourself up into quite a lather at the straw man you've created.

On fact, I don't believe intent does matter in discrimination law: only results do. If women in your workforce are getting systematically paid less than men doing the same job, it doesn't matter if you "meant to", or if they "negotiated less" or WTF ever, your company is discriminating and it's illegal.

There's plenty of research showing that women are under-represented in upper management and the C-suites, and a bit of research on why they're not getting promoted to those positions (hello, impossible-to-thread needle between being "bitchy" and "overly friendly", for instance).  I guarantee it's not just because every professional woman decides she'd rather stay home with kids than achieve professional success.

FYI, the reason I went part-time when I had my kids was because I had a boss fire me for missing a meeting -- while I was having a miscarriage and was in the doctor's office and had called in! He had already made it quite clear that he didn't believe he needed to pay women the same as men in the same position, which was something I'd just found out -- the guy in the next office, doing similar work and without a master's degree was making 5 digits more than I was. And FTR, this was at a professional technical job around 2000.

You are also missing the point that people are trying to make over and over: the patriarchy (and the current system in general) screws over almost everyone, not just women. But women are getting the brunt of it, partly because community standards are that we'll take care of the household, the kids, our husbands, and still have to work a 40+-hour week in an environment that's soul-sucking for everyone.

[jeninco]

So some men are working really hard and getting shamed for it cuz they are displacing a women. That's why its the intent that matters in discrimination law and not just x percent of x group are in leadership its beyond naive to think that just because x number  or x group are in x position there is some kind of discrimination going on. I get that this sells eyeballs and outlandish news articles and blogs but its not sound analysis.

It is actually FAR MORE COMMON that women are working really hard and getting shamed for it because they are displacing a man.  I have definitely heard "she slept her way to the top" or "she was only picked because she is a woman".  LOTS OF TIMES.  RECENTLY.

bad apples do exist but this is probably illegal and is definitely not the norm.

You are accusing the male gender of discrimination and conspiracy to harm women. You are a misandrist.

No, accusing individual men with whom the writer has experience of expressing enough of these thoughts to make it clear that it's not a single bad apple.

We started out talking about demographics and why so many fewer women are choosing to have children. This is not actually a men vs children debate, so much as some women explaining why a reasonable person might opt not to have children, and somehow a bunch of guys (and presumably some women, hard to tell) telling us why we're wrong.

Honestly, you both need to take a break -- please go for a walk!

[afox]

Also, and I almost hesitate to write this since im sure it will be mis-interpreted but many of these men that are earning high salaries are doing it so that they can provide for their families. Many of these men would probably rather be in the field or in a cubible doing something interesting but instead have chosen the meeting room career path so that they can make more money, so that......you guessed it......their spouses dont have to work and can be with their children, or so their spouse can work a fun/low stress part time job that makes less without having to worry about being a family in poverty. Whos boot is on who's neck?

So some men are working really hard and getting shamed for it cuz they are displacing a women. That's why its the intent that matters in discrimination law and not just x percent of x group are in leadership its beyond naive to think that just because x number  or x group are in x position there is some kind of discrimination going on. I get that this sells eyeballs and outlandish news articles and blogs but its not sound analysis.

Wow, you have worked yourself up into quite a lather at the straw man you've created.

On fact, I don't believe intent does matter in discrimination law: only results do. If women in your workforce are getting systematically paid less than men doing the same job, it doesn't matter if you "meant to", or if they "negotiated less" or WTF ever, your company is discriminating and it's illegal.

There's plenty of research showing that women are under-represented in upper management and the C-suites, and a bit of research on why they're not getting promoted to those positions (hello, impossible-to-thread needle between being "bitchy" and "overly friendly", for instance).  I guarantee it's not just because every professional woman decides she'd rather stay home with kids than achieve professional success.

FYI, the reason I went part-time when I had my kids was because I had a boss fire me for missing a meeting -- while I was having a miscarriage and was in the doctor's office and had called in! He had already made it quite clear that he didn't believe he needed to pay women the same as men in the same position, which was something I'd just found out -- the guy in the next office, doing similar work and without a master's degree was making 5 digits more than I was. And FTR, this was at a professional technical job around 2000.

You are also missing the point that people are trying to make over and over: the patriarchy (and the current system in general) screws over almost everyone, not just women. But women are getting the brunt of it, partly because community standards are that we'll take care of the household, the kids, our husbands, and still have to work a 40+-hour week in an environment that's soul-sucking for everyone.

Oh b.s. you're telling me that every org with a gender imbalance is discriminating?

I'm not condoning discrimination. I'm making the point that a gender imbalance alone isn't evidence of discrimination.

[RetiredAt63]

Just to toss a few more things into the mix.

Women do better at equal pay in unionized jobs with a clear and standard pay scale.

Women often do work twice as hard - it is known as the second shift.  In so many couples the husband comes home from work and relaxes - the wife comes home from work and is doing the dinner, the cleaning, the laundry, all the things that need doing to make life work.  And she is doing the mental work to keep track of all this - what needs to be shopped for, who has what doctor/dentist/whatever appointments, do the kids need new clothes/shoes/etc., you name it, they are planning it.   And yes, younger men are often doing more than their fathers and grand-fathers did, but it still isn't even close to half.

There is a huge thread on Metafilter (I keep recommending this one, because it is so seminal) on emotional labour and invisible labour.  And recently there has been lots out on the default parent. https://www.themarysue.com/emotional-labor-pdf/

Basically, as someone who watched all the changes, women went into the work force and took some of the financial responsibility off men, but men did not equally pick up the women's share of domestic labour (which is very much work, btw).  This unequal division of labour accelerates when the children arrive.  Somehow women are magically instinctively supposed to know how to feed a baby/toddler and change a diaper and do all the other baby care.  And have the strong stomach to deal with poop and vomit and blood.  We don't, we learn, so the kid doesn't die of neglect.

And given the divorce rate, a woman who has been a stay-at-home parent and is entitle to a share of family assets upon divorce often does not get an equal share, or she gets put down as a gold-digger and as someone who took all his money.  Having a job means a woman has some income no matter what her husband does, and she has a pension down the road.

Too many men assume that a wife who is financially dependent on them will accept worse behaviour from them than a woman who is independent will accept.  Not all men, I know - but what an attitude.  You can be shitty to your spouse because she is dependent on you?  Great marriage.   /s

[Log]

I'll wade into the controversy of men and women in top positions... I'll try to do a better job of editing myself and being succinct today since I have the time.

People want to be seen and loved and understood in life. Partnership and marriage is seen as a culmination of that. What we're attracted to, and who we fall in love with, is highly molded by millennia of culture, and of evolution. This combination of baked in biological differences compounded with patriarchal bullshit means that men are more valued as partners for being accomplished, wealthy, and powerful. And women are more valued as partners for youth, beauty, and social grace. So men's incentives for career accomplishment and love are aligned. Women, on the other hand, have to win two separate games at once. Men can single-mindedly pursue career, and then are conveniently well positioned to go find love (statistically speaking, with a slightly younger woman). The game is rigged from the start.

In an individualistic, consumerist, capitalism-run-amok society, where career accomplishment is the most important and high status thing, of course having children is a disadvantage, and a lot of people are going to opt out. But how much is our society oriented around these kinds of values and accomplishments because these measures advantage men? That is the patriarchy. I really question that "girlboss feminism" is the answer. The answer is to question these fundamental values.

Our society is pathologically obsessed with this upper echelon of the careerist world. CEO, president, director, Hollywood, the Ivy League... Focusing on unequal "representation" in this minuscule slice of reality just seems insane to me. Yes, it is harder for a woman to become a Fortune 500 CEO, and that is a manifestation of unfair bullshit. But... does it actually fucking matter? For the vast, vast majority of people, this 1% nonsense is nothing but a reality TV show. It is as about as important as Keeping Up With the Kardashians.

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

Tell men and women alike that they do not need to be exceptional to be happy (and that they are almost certainly not particularly exceptional anyway). Give men as much paternity leave as women get maternity leave, and demand that they use it. Work on affordability for healthcare and education and childcare and housing. A world where women win more within the existing value system is still sick. We need a better value system instead. But I don't think that message goes viral on social media quite as well as antagonistic nonsense that pits men and women against each other.

[RetiredAt63]

I will believe women are getting close to equality with men when every point in Caroline-Criado-Perez's book becomes outdated and invalid.  Until then, this is what we are living with - a world that was designed by men for men and that has not done much adjusting to make space for women.  It is not the fault of individual men, it is the system - the patriarchy. 

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachian-book-club/invisible-women-by-caroline-criado-perez/msg3078164/#msg3078164

Seriously, no one can have an informed discussion about the placed of women in society until they have read this book.  Men need to read it to be informed.  Women need to read it to see that it is the system, that so many of the problems they have coping are not their individual problems.

[InterfaceLeader]

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

I know I will regret wading into this debate. But. At the bottom of the scale, far away from CEOs, an example from somewhere I previous worked that had a facilities department. All the cleaners were women. All the janitors were men. The cleaners got paid less.

There is evidence that when women enter a field, the pay drops: https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/when-an-occupation-becomes-female-dominated-pay-declines/

[Morning Glory]

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

I know I will regret wading into this debate. But. At the bottom of the scale, far away from CEOs, an example from somewhere I previous worked that had a facilities department. All the cleaners were women. All the janitors were men. The cleaners got paid less.

There is evidence that when women enter a field, the pay drops: https://www.payscale.com/career-advice/when-an-occupation-becomes-female-dominated-pay-declines/

That's why women get more college degrees. We are more motivated because the "good" jobs that don't require a degree are pretty much men only. Women with no college usually get stuck as a waitress or a cleaner.

He did make a good point about care work needing to be more valued though.

[RetiredAt63]

I'll wade into the controversy of men and women in top positions... I'll try to do a better job of editing myself and being succinct today since I have the time.

People want to be seen and loved and understood in life. Partnership and marriage is seen as a culmination of that. What we're attracted to, and who we fall in love with, is highly molded by millennia of culture, and of evolution. This combination of baked in biological differences compounded with patriarchal bullshit means that men are more valued as partners for being accomplished, wealthy, and powerful. And women are more valued as partners for youth, beauty, and social grace. So men's incentives for career accomplishment and love are aligned. Women, on the other hand, have to win two separate games at once. Men can single-mindedly pursue career, and then are conveniently well positioned to go find love (statistically speaking, with a slightly younger woman). The game is rigged from the start.

In an individualistic, consumerist, capitalism-run-amok society, where career accomplishment is the most important and high status thing, of course having children is a disadvantage, and a lot of people are going to opt out. But how much is our society oriented around these kinds of values and accomplishments because these measures advantage men? That is the patriarchy. I really question that "girlboss feminism" is the answer. The answer is to question these fundamental values.

Our society is pathologically obsessed with this upper echelon of the careerist world. CEO, president, director, Hollywood, the Ivy League... Focusing on unequal "representation" in this minuscule slice of reality just seems insane to me. Yes, it is harder for a woman to become a Fortune 500 CEO, and that is a manifestation of unfair bullshit. But... does it actually fucking matter? For the vast, vast majority of people, this 1% nonsense is nothing but a reality TV show. It is as about as important as Keeping Up With the Kardashians.

In the real world, where normal people live, there is still rampant sexism and discrimination to address to be sure... but it's also the world where women are doing far better in school, graduating college at far higher rates, increasingly taking over huge sectors of the workforce as generational turnover does its job, and decades of feminist progress manifest in reality. Let's focus on material conditions. Sure, we can keep staring up at the 1% reality TV show full of high-achieving, pathologically career-obsessed men, but the real dismantling of the patriarchy looks less like Girlboss-ified America, and more like... Scandinavia.

Tell men and women alike that they do not need to be exceptional to be happy (and that they are almost certainly not particularly exceptional anyway). Give men as much paternity leave as women get maternity leave, and demand that they use it. Work on affordability for healthcare and education and childcare and housing. A world where women win more within the existing value system is still sick. We need a better value system instead. But I don't think that message goes viral on social media quite as well as antagonistic nonsense that pits men and women against each other.

Your whole last paragraph is stuff that women have been working towards for a long time. 

The US is particularly bad at this (your maternity leave is a joke).  But no-one is truly good at it.

I just took out Snakes in Suits, a look at psychopaths in the workplace. It may be relevant to seeing how our society got so focused on goals.

But really,there has always been a 1% - rulers and their nobility, high-ranking priesthoods.  Almost always they were 100% men.  So any society descending from those societies is going to reflect that heritage.