This thread has been set to restricted mode because it seems to be discussing a sensitive topic. Comments from accounts with low account age or subreddit activity will automatically be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know a couple of the most liberal guys I know who feels intensely alienated by it despite efforts to explain it by me and our other friends. It really is a terrible, terrible message.
I don't think so. Put it this way if we conducted an experiment on sexism in hiring with two groups, an older cohort and younger male cohort, I would still bet on the younger cohort being less sexist in reviewing resumes to pass on to an interview
The studies posted recently in the Economist show the political gender gap in young adults isn’t due to young men becoming more conservative, but young women - especially college-educated women - becoming much more progressive over the last 15 years or so.
So instead of all the think pieces fretting about young men becoming more conservative, we might want to look into why young college-educated women are becoming much more progressive.
The (deliberate?) conflation of what young men are revolting against at the ballot box and in their private lives with "the rising tide of gender egalitarianism" is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that destroys the author's credibility. Young men are not becoming more sexist. They bought into egalitarianism, and feel (rightly) betrayed by an activist apparatus that *promised* egalitarianism and then put its thumb on every available scale to give them the short end of every stick.
When Title IX was introduced, women made up 43% of college enrollment. That gap was considered a crisis and a tragedy that warranted landmark legislation to make sure education fit the needs of young women. Men today make up 42% of college enrollment.
"Are young men becoming more sexist." No. They're noticing who is, and voting in the interest of egalitarianism as they see it.
There's a key thing that is almost always missed in these discussions, and it is a *big* piece of the puzzle.
Stay-at-home househusbands. Rather, that they almost don't exist (yeah, sure, I know they're out there, but they make up such an incredibly small percentage of spouses as to be largely ignored, which kinda proves the point I'm about to make).
The women's lib movement has created a previously almost non-existent pathway for women to work and provide for themselves. Women now have choices. Want to be a housewife and raise the kids? Great, have at it. Want to be a career woman and earn your own living? Slay, queen. Want to pick and choose and blend all that shit together? Rock it, and rock it hard. But while all this happened, there was no mirrored movement allowing men to trade in the workplace for the home, so the situation we have now is women have choice, but men do not.
They zero in on how much of this revolves around "status", which is undeniably true, but I think they kinda look at it through the wrong lens. A (straight) man who aspires to be a homemaker is going to be perceived as "low status", both by other men and the vast majority of potential romantic partners. They key in on how men feel the loss of status due to not being as easily admitted to ivy league schools (which I thought was a pretty silly statement to make), not being able to get a high paying job as easily, not being able to afford a house as easily, and not being able to get the girl as easily, but they kinda gloss over the fact that the first three status signifiers are widely accepted as at least partial requirements to get the final one, and the general takeaway for men from this discussion is essentially "sucks to suck, deal with it" instead of putting forth any ideas on how to remedy this.
The solution, in my mind, is more stay-at-home househusbands. Women now have many paths they can take to achieve higher status, but men really still only have the one. Young men might be driven to reactionary courses of action to limit women in order to protect their one path, but opening up keeping the home as a source of status for men is a better solution, and it would pull men and women towards the center in the long-run.
I'm not AI, but I'll try to summarize Dr. Evans from this article:
Her primary hypothesis for the rise of hostile sexism among young men is that their self-image is negatively impacted if they don't have major status symbols: a good education, a high-paying job, a nice house, and a beautiful wife/girlfriend. These goods are harder to secure due to increased competition for elite education and higher-tier jobs, soaring home prices, and the financial independence of women, meaning women can be more selective in their partners. Add social media's amplification of those higher in the social hierarchy possessing these status symbols, and failure to acquire them is taken by these young men to mean they failed as a person--as a man. Due to gendered zero-sum thinking, this leads to the resentment and the vilification of women.
Why young men? Older men are grandfathered into the system, meaning they are not in direct employment or educational competition with young ambitious women, purchased their home years ago, and are already married. In fact, financially secure men with high education attainment are often Democrats.
>So there’s this very nice paper showing that fathers of daughters were less likely to interrupt Janet Yellen in her congressional hearings. So if you want the best for your daughter and you aspire for her to do well, and then you empathize with women’s concerns, maybe you’re less of a dickhead, right, in public life.
Also, lol
This thread has been set to restricted mode because it seems to be discussing a sensitive topic. Comments from accounts with low account age or subreddit activity will automatically be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "Me, too" movement isn't the problem. The "Yes, all men" message is a disaster, and seems designed to alienate.
I know a couple of the most liberal guys I know who feels intensely alienated by it despite efforts to explain it by me and our other friends. It really is a terrible, terrible message.
I don't think so. Put it this way if we conducted an experiment on sexism in hiring with two groups, an older cohort and younger male cohort, I would still bet on the younger cohort being less sexist in reviewing resumes to pass on to an interview
Nah. I respect bitches more than ever.
Be prepared, the anecdotes are incoming
Witness me!
I mean, that's basically the interview.
:::Battens Down the Hatches:::
The studies posted recently in the Economist show the political gender gap in young adults isn’t due to young men becoming more conservative, but young women - especially college-educated women - becoming much more progressive over the last 15 years or so. So instead of all the think pieces fretting about young men becoming more conservative, we might want to look into why young college-educated women are becoming much more progressive.
Interviewer has a severe case of Podcast Voice.
The (deliberate?) conflation of what young men are revolting against at the ballot box and in their private lives with "the rising tide of gender egalitarianism" is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that destroys the author's credibility. Young men are not becoming more sexist. They bought into egalitarianism, and feel (rightly) betrayed by an activist apparatus that *promised* egalitarianism and then put its thumb on every available scale to give them the short end of every stick. When Title IX was introduced, women made up 43% of college enrollment. That gap was considered a crisis and a tragedy that warranted landmark legislation to make sure education fit the needs of young women. Men today make up 42% of college enrollment. "Are young men becoming more sexist." No. They're noticing who is, and voting in the interest of egalitarianism as they see it.
Man, NIMBYs really going to destroy Western civilization at this rate
There's a key thing that is almost always missed in these discussions, and it is a *big* piece of the puzzle. Stay-at-home househusbands. Rather, that they almost don't exist (yeah, sure, I know they're out there, but they make up such an incredibly small percentage of spouses as to be largely ignored, which kinda proves the point I'm about to make). The women's lib movement has created a previously almost non-existent pathway for women to work and provide for themselves. Women now have choices. Want to be a housewife and raise the kids? Great, have at it. Want to be a career woman and earn your own living? Slay, queen. Want to pick and choose and blend all that shit together? Rock it, and rock it hard. But while all this happened, there was no mirrored movement allowing men to trade in the workplace for the home, so the situation we have now is women have choice, but men do not. They zero in on how much of this revolves around "status", which is undeniably true, but I think they kinda look at it through the wrong lens. A (straight) man who aspires to be a homemaker is going to be perceived as "low status", both by other men and the vast majority of potential romantic partners. They key in on how men feel the loss of status due to not being as easily admitted to ivy league schools (which I thought was a pretty silly statement to make), not being able to get a high paying job as easily, not being able to afford a house as easily, and not being able to get the girl as easily, but they kinda gloss over the fact that the first three status signifiers are widely accepted as at least partial requirements to get the final one, and the general takeaway for men from this discussion is essentially "sucks to suck, deal with it" instead of putting forth any ideas on how to remedy this. The solution, in my mind, is more stay-at-home househusbands. Women now have many paths they can take to achieve higher status, but men really still only have the one. Young men might be driven to reactionary courses of action to limit women in order to protect their one path, but opening up keeping the home as a source of status for men is a better solution, and it would pull men and women towards the center in the long-run.
I'm not AI, but I'll try to summarize Dr. Evans from this article: Her primary hypothesis for the rise of hostile sexism among young men is that their self-image is negatively impacted if they don't have major status symbols: a good education, a high-paying job, a nice house, and a beautiful wife/girlfriend. These goods are harder to secure due to increased competition for elite education and higher-tier jobs, soaring home prices, and the financial independence of women, meaning women can be more selective in their partners. Add social media's amplification of those higher in the social hierarchy possessing these status symbols, and failure to acquire them is taken by these young men to mean they failed as a person--as a man. Due to gendered zero-sum thinking, this leads to the resentment and the vilification of women. Why young men? Older men are grandfathered into the system, meaning they are not in direct employment or educational competition with young ambitious women, purchased their home years ago, and are already married. In fact, financially secure men with high education attainment are often Democrats. >So there’s this very nice paper showing that fathers of daughters were less likely to interrupt Janet Yellen in her congressional hearings. So if you want the best for your daughter and you aspire for her to do well, and then you empathize with women’s concerns, maybe you’re less of a dickhead, right, in public life. Also, lol
Yes.
I haven't read the article yet, I just wanted to get in on the ground floor with a glib one-liner.
By Allah, you deserve a taste of my shoe.
Having read the interview: meh. Like, there's somewhat tepid data-based support for the headline, but the interview itself is kind of underwhelming.