Well I wouldn’t say an entire generation, but apparently in the urbanite Western Gen Z population, the wage gap has reversed with women earning more than men due to how modern education and gender roles interact.
So if you were to be born in this millennium, the “most privileged” demographic is Western urbanite women.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
I’m reminded of how outraged feminists were about the inequality when men possessed a significant majority of college degrees[1], but in the present day, after the myriad of programs/grants/scholarships exclusive to women got it to the point where women are now significantly more than half of college graduates, and men are in the minority, suddenly feminists aren’t concerned with that inequality anymore.
One of the many reasons the claims that feminism was for everyone and that there was no need for male-focused advocacy (and that, in fact, such advocacy was inherently misogynistic) because feminists ‘had it covered’, always rang hollow.
One more quick example, an anecdote from my own personal life: a feminist friend was complaining about required reading materials for high school classes not being 50/50 re the sex of the author, but being majority male authors, which was disadvantaging the girls. When I pointed out that girls already are objectively significantly ‘ahead’ of boys in those subjects, so why was she pushing for the gap to grow even wider, her only response was to get angry.
An actual egalitarian would care about a significant imbalance in either direction that’s caused by bigotry/prejudice, regardless of who’s got the short end of the stick.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
Yes, this is actual egalitarian thinking. Special interests who don’t care about inequalities that benefit ‘their group’, or stop caring when an inequality that affected ‘their group’ now favors ‘their group’, are not forces for equality/fairness.
Well I wouldn’t say an entire generation, but apparently in the urbanite Western Gen Z population, the wage gap has reversed with women earning more than men due to how modern education and gender roles interact.
"for those working full-time between the ages of 16 and 24, the gender pay gap has reversed. This means that for much of Gen Z – including those who have recently left university – women on average are slightly higher paid than men. In later life, this is expected to reverse and widen in favour of men, a gap that is usually attributed to greater male participation in higher-paying fields and the “motherhood penalty”, which reflects the disproportionate share of childcare undertaken by women. "
The trends of children do not reflect the reality of adulthood employment and social constructs. This has been the case for a while now.
The problem I see with this line of reasoning is, among other things, is that just telling these young men to suck it up won’t cut it.
The current layoff tsunami is hurting men more than women since male-dominated fields are more affected. We live in “unprecedented times”, promises are kinda worthless.
These men are expected to marry and father children today, and find mates in a society that ties their value to their salary. According to data from dating apps, that isn’t happening, women are still marrying up, to older men, and this cohort of men is just getting shut out.
But what they can do and will do in the next few years is vote for people who present a solution to them for today, instead of marginalizing their problem.
Today, that’s fuckheads like Trump and Tate.
So yeah, we can argue with them or listen to them. My point is if we as a society make an effort to listen to the ones that try to speak to us, we can get them out of this hole.
Or if we just go and argue that their problems don’t matter as much, there will just be more of them in crisis and they will eventually start murdering people that argue with them today if they get told that’s their way out.
Garbage article confusing classism with sexism. Ultimately DEI only helped a small percentage of women access jobs they would not be considered for in the past. It is called competition, but this guy wants to try and create a narrative that doesn’t exist except in his head.
Whether it is another male or a well qualified woman it doesn’t change you were not in the right spot at the right time. Blaming a competitive employment space on DEI is just stupid. There are hundreds if not thousands of candidates that all want that job.
The statistics don’t lie as well ~45 percent low level managers are women. So men still have an advantage, but it gets worse with seniors management only about ~35 percent. Even worse CEO ~10 percent. Doesn’t look like DEI was an advantage after all.
I find you choice to use “victim blaming” in this context very telling.
If you read the whole article, you read about hiring offices openly discriminating in an illegal way, and you read that it was so severe, people knew not to even apply to positions because the discrimination is so bad. If you’ve been in college or the job market in the last 10 years, I’m sure you also know this isn’t just made up or an isolated case.
So who, in this context, is the “victim”? Who is “blaming” them? Obviously the victims are the people facing real and very extreme hiring discrimination. He’s not blaming the minorities who got hired instead, but I think that’s what you’re assuming here.
You seem to believe that “victim” means minority by definition.
You can always tell someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about. First, there was no illegal discrimination. In fact, according to existing policies the Federal Government and all government contractors cannot create quotas or have any preference in hiring. It is straight up illegal.
Now we can talk about the private sector. They can hire whoever they fucking want. Chick-fil-A won’t hire or allow openly gay managers/administrators/owners. Likewise some women’s only shelter, who are also private but nonprofit, won’t hire male workers for certain roles. This is completely legal.
The victim is minorities and women who are being singled out because DEI dictates and certain companies choose to give them a chance. It is their fault for “stealing” a job away from a white male. Do you understand how bombastically stupid this is?
I think you don’t understand the law or DEI just like the author who desperately wants to blame someone else for his inability to prepare his child for the job market.
There are tons of jobs and tons of companies ran by man-o-sphere assholes who only hire white males. The number of companies that openly give preference to white males without explicitly saying so dwarf companies willing to give minorities and women a shot.
If DEI works so well how come women make up less than 30% of upper management but yet comprise of 47% of the work force. Even worse CEO are only 10% women. Where is this avalanche of control DEI has given women and minorities?
It doesn’t exist, In fact DEI barely moved the needle for minorities and is only responsible for a small amount of women placed in roles they were eligible for but looked over. The best criticism is DEI didn’t really work not that our sons can suddenly find no jobs.
As a hiring manager who has hired hundreds of people in the private, nonprofit, and government sector I can confidently say the author is full of shit.
Look, just admit you didnt want to read the whole article. These “waaaaah X% of CEOs” are completely and totally irrelevant to the world of entry level hiring and academics, which is the point. Assuming you’re not lying about being a hiring manager, it’s people like you who got grandfathered in who are the problem.
And besides, what is he supposed to teach his son to do to get hired in fields that openly state they won’t read his resume? I mean, become trans maybe. Thats about the only thing in your power.
Be honest, you’ve done some of this havent you? Your white guy CEO boss might have told you this is legal to hire only black women or foreigners so the numbers balance out, but it’s not lol.
The author cherry picked two professions and used irrelevant statistics combined with a profound misunderstanding of DEI to come to a bullshit conclusion.
Just admit it, you have probably never had a DEI training. I have had over ten and I could teach one at this point. The content’s recommendations are so boring and benign it ain’t funny. You and the author want to create a narrative that doesn’t exist. The facts don’t support it.
You know how many fields men dominate in? You are telling me because press room floors are hiring slightly more women and that in a particular university there just happens to be no tenured male white professor that we are in a crisis!?
What if it is all fucking black college, what if the press room floor is for a all female news agency. There is no discrimination going on. It is all legal.
So what if a few corporations decided to hire a few more minorities and women because of DEI. This is not the source of this man’s problems. I will not be lectured about made up grievances.
I am sorry, but the author must think we are fucking idiots willing to listen to what amounts to be misogyny cloaked in anti-feminism garbage.
Now your bringing up immigrants. It is always someone else’s problem is it not. Acting so fucking dumb.
Where is the source for this?
Well I wouldn’t say an entire generation, but apparently in the urbanite Western Gen Z population, the wage gap has reversed with women earning more than men due to how modern education and gender roles interact.
So if you were to be born in this millennium, the “most privileged” demographic is Western urbanite women.
In any case, I think it would just be a nicer thing if we were nicer to all people that are disadvantaged, or just people in general. Tearing others down doesn’t lift you up.
I’m reminded of how outraged feminists were about the inequality when men possessed a significant majority of college degrees[1], but in the present day, after the myriad of programs/grants/scholarships exclusive to women got it to the point where women are now significantly more than half of college graduates, and men are in the minority, suddenly feminists aren’t concerned with that inequality anymore.
One of the many reasons the claims that feminism was for everyone and that there was no need for male-focused advocacy (and that, in fact, such advocacy was inherently misogynistic) because feminists ‘had it covered’, always rang hollow.
One more quick example, an anecdote from my own personal life: a feminist friend was complaining about required reading materials for high school classes not being 50/50 re the sex of the author, but being majority male authors, which was disadvantaging the girls. When I pointed out that girls already are objectively significantly ‘ahead’ of boys in those subjects, so why was she pushing for the gap to grow even wider, her only response was to get angry.
An actual egalitarian would care about a significant imbalance in either direction that’s caused by bigotry/prejudice, regardless of who’s got the short end of the stick.
Yes, this is actual egalitarian thinking. Special interests who don’t care about inequalities that benefit ‘their group’, or stop caring when an inequality that affected ‘their group’ now favors ‘their group’, are not forces for equality/fairness.
And this difference only became significant when the GI Bill became a thing, allowing men in the military to get a college education for free, which imo is the least the government could do for men after conscripting them, something women never had to deal with. In 1940, the difference in the college graduation rate between men and women was negligible, a measly 1.7% (5.5% male and 3.8% female). ↩︎
"for those working full-time between the ages of 16 and 24, the gender pay gap has reversed. This means that for much of Gen Z – including those who have recently left university – women on average are slightly higher paid than men. In later life, this is expected to reverse and widen in favour of men, a gap that is usually attributed to greater male participation in higher-paying fields and the “motherhood penalty”, which reflects the disproportionate share of childcare undertaken by women. "
The trends of children do not reflect the reality of adulthood employment and social constructs. This has been the case for a while now.
The problem I see with this line of reasoning is, among other things, is that just telling these young men to suck it up won’t cut it.
The current layoff tsunami is hurting men more than women since male-dominated fields are more affected. We live in “unprecedented times”, promises are kinda worthless.
These men are expected to marry and father children today, and find mates in a society that ties their value to their salary. According to data from dating apps, that isn’t happening, women are still marrying up, to older men, and this cohort of men is just getting shut out.
But what they can do and will do in the next few years is vote for people who present a solution to them for today, instead of marginalizing their problem.
Today, that’s fuckheads like Trump and Tate.
So yeah, we can argue with them or listen to them. My point is if we as a society make an effort to listen to the ones that try to speak to us, we can get them out of this hole.
Or if we just go and argue that their problems don’t matter as much, there will just be more of them in crisis and they will eventually start murdering people that argue with them today if they get told that’s their way out.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/
Garbage article confusing classism with sexism. Ultimately DEI only helped a small percentage of women access jobs they would not be considered for in the past. It is called competition, but this guy wants to try and create a narrative that doesn’t exist except in his head.
Whether it is another male or a well qualified woman it doesn’t change you were not in the right spot at the right time. Blaming a competitive employment space on DEI is just stupid. There are hundreds if not thousands of candidates that all want that job.
The statistics don’t lie as well ~45 percent low level managers are women. So men still have an advantage, but it gets worse with seniors management only about ~35 percent. Even worse CEO ~10 percent. Doesn’t look like DEI was an advantage after all.
Absolutely top tier failure to read the article.
I read all the way through it to the end, a sappy father son epic of victim blaming. Garbage.
I find you choice to use “victim blaming” in this context very telling.
If you read the whole article, you read about hiring offices openly discriminating in an illegal way, and you read that it was so severe, people knew not to even apply to positions because the discrimination is so bad. If you’ve been in college or the job market in the last 10 years, I’m sure you also know this isn’t just made up or an isolated case.
So who, in this context, is the “victim”? Who is “blaming” them? Obviously the victims are the people facing real and very extreme hiring discrimination. He’s not blaming the minorities who got hired instead, but I think that’s what you’re assuming here.
You seem to believe that “victim” means minority by definition.
You can always tell someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about. First, there was no illegal discrimination. In fact, according to existing policies the Federal Government and all government contractors cannot create quotas or have any preference in hiring. It is straight up illegal.
Now we can talk about the private sector. They can hire whoever they fucking want. Chick-fil-A won’t hire or allow openly gay managers/administrators/owners. Likewise some women’s only shelter, who are also private but nonprofit, won’t hire male workers for certain roles. This is completely legal.
The victim is minorities and women who are being singled out because DEI dictates and certain companies choose to give them a chance. It is their fault for “stealing” a job away from a white male. Do you understand how bombastically stupid this is?
I think you don’t understand the law or DEI just like the author who desperately wants to blame someone else for his inability to prepare his child for the job market.
There are tons of jobs and tons of companies ran by man-o-sphere assholes who only hire white males. The number of companies that openly give preference to white males without explicitly saying so dwarf companies willing to give minorities and women a shot.
If DEI works so well how come women make up less than 30% of upper management but yet comprise of 47% of the work force. Even worse CEO are only 10% women. Where is this avalanche of control DEI has given women and minorities?
It doesn’t exist, In fact DEI barely moved the needle for minorities and is only responsible for a small amount of women placed in roles they were eligible for but looked over. The best criticism is DEI didn’t really work not that our sons can suddenly find no jobs.
As a hiring manager who has hired hundreds of people in the private, nonprofit, and government sector I can confidently say the author is full of shit.
Look, just admit you didnt want to read the whole article. These “waaaaah X% of CEOs” are completely and totally irrelevant to the world of entry level hiring and academics, which is the point. Assuming you’re not lying about being a hiring manager, it’s people like you who got grandfathered in who are the problem.
And besides, what is he supposed to teach his son to do to get hired in fields that openly state they won’t read his resume? I mean, become trans maybe. Thats about the only thing in your power.
Anyway, in case you’re not lying about being a hiring manager, you should probably reminded that yes, the stuff you’re doing is actually illegal and they might even decide to start enforcing it. https://www.schmitt.senate.gov/media/press-releases/senator-schmitt-sends-letter-highlighting-abuse-of-h-1b-visa-program-for-dei-hires/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/compliance-discrimination-you-posting-job-ads-h1b-us-citizens-nrfue
https://www.newsweek.com/h1b-job-ads-green-cards-targeted-immigrant-workers-2113714
Be honest, you’ve done some of this havent you? Your white guy CEO boss might have told you this is legal to hire only black women or foreigners so the numbers balance out, but it’s not lol.
The author cherry picked two professions and used irrelevant statistics combined with a profound misunderstanding of DEI to come to a bullshit conclusion.
Just admit it, you have probably never had a DEI training. I have had over ten and I could teach one at this point. The content’s recommendations are so boring and benign it ain’t funny. You and the author want to create a narrative that doesn’t exist. The facts don’t support it.
You know how many fields men dominate in? You are telling me because press room floors are hiring slightly more women and that in a particular university there just happens to be no tenured male white professor that we are in a crisis!?
What if it is all fucking black college, what if the press room floor is for a all female news agency. There is no discrimination going on. It is all legal.
So what if a few corporations decided to hire a few more minorities and women because of DEI. This is not the source of this man’s problems. I will not be lectured about made up grievances.
I am sorry, but the author must think we are fucking idiots willing to listen to what amounts to be misogyny cloaked in anti-feminism garbage.
Now your bringing up immigrants. It is always someone else’s problem is it not. Acting so fucking dumb.
Google champ