>If the tables had turned, then men would be systematically be kept out of jobs, particularly high paying careers.

hundreds of thousands of men that we have imprisoned, thousands of men with mental health issues and drug addictions. men that took a wrong turn in life and ended up homeless, destitute or in the prison.

These men have been systematically kept out of jobs. There has to be special kind of hypocrisy in action to conclude society influences women's choices( eg: giving them barbie/pink toys) and prevents them from having a STEM career and yet turn around and say men at bottom belong there because of their own failings. Men at the bottom must pay the price for the 'privilege' enjoyed by men at top.

According to the narrative, a rich woman is 'systematically be kept out of jobs' while a poor boy man in a war/drug-torn urban environment is not. I just hate this line of thought so much.

Sex is not a deterrent to one's success in todays America, parental income is, a privilege that can be precisely measured.

Those are all fair points. My point wasn't that any man can simply roll up and get the high paying job and it's never been the case. Many men would have been rejected just based on the color of their skin or because they had a Jewish last name.

By and large, men aren't being denied access to an interview simply based on their gender. If we go back a few decades, women were denied access to an interview simply based on their gender.

That may have once been the case, but not anymore. Almost all companies have some sort of affirmative action hiring process that is rigged against white men. I see tons of job postings where women and minorities are "strongly urged to apply." That's kind of wording makes it sound like a white man would not be considered for the position.

There is no better time to be a woman in Tech from a hiring perspective. Two of my female classmates from college who are more or less the same as me ( a male ) are inundated with offers from top tech companies in the valley, not even exaggerating. Meanwhile, it would be a minor miracle if recruiters even call me back.

there are other issues like pervasive culture of sexual harassment in tech but getting hired is not one of them.

Yes, this, a thousand times this.

People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life.

Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting to talk to, and if I have to have a good job lined up, well, that's how you play the game.

Now...if society is breaking in a way that it's tough for men to get good jobs, then let's look at that. Women aren't to blame for that, though. Let's look at what's really going on.

So what do you do when there simply aren't enough jobs for most men to "have their shit together"?

What are all those men going to do when they have both no stake in the economy, and little or no chance of finding a woman to love them? What percentage of men like this can society handle before some sort of tipping point is reached?

I refer you to this comment from "wingless" from another discussion currently on the front page:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795855

I'm always aware of this whenever the usual stuff about the "gender pay gap" gets trotted out by the media. Men and men women are playing entirely different games in the employment market. A woman is working for the money and whatever satisfaction she derives from the job itself. A man is working for his ability to attract a girlfriend, his status in society, his entire sense of "value". It's hardly surprising that men are motivated to choose riskier and higher earning careers.

> A woman is working for the money and whatever satisfaction she derives from the job itself. A man is working for his ability to attract a girlfriend, his status in society, his entire sense of "value". It's hardly surprising that men are motivated to choose riskier and higher earning careers.

I don't mean to go all PC police on you, especially since I agree with the first part of your comment, but this is most certainly not the case with most millennials (and even many women of the generation before). Most of the young women I meet today very much subscribe to the same notion of getting their sense of worth through their jobs, independence etc. So I would argue they are playing the same "game" in the employment market. However, our (US) society continues to propagate certain gender-stereotypes about careers which seep into all other aspects of our culture as well. e.g. its much more acceptable/common to be a female engineer in China and India. Now once these stereotypes are removed, you would see a lot more cross-participation which would be REALLY good for the US economy.

He is saying that women don't need careers to increase their status, but men do. It's more or less implying that women gain value in American society from their looks, rather than their contributions to society.

Is it sexist? Is it true? Is it a different story in China?

> Is it a different story in China?

In China, both genders are equally judged on looks. It's common for job applications to require headshots, which I find odd, but apparently that practice also exists in Germany and some South American countries.

What I'd do is this:

1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!)

2) Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. (And again, work at a local level to make it OK not to have a big thriving career, since it's not gonna happen for a lot of folks.)

That's what I'd do. The system of "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back. I wouldn't even try to resuscitate it.

> Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. (And again, work at a local level to make it OK not to have a big thriving career, since it's not gonna happen for a lot of folks.)

I really hate (nothing personal) this "wishful-thinking" type of activism ("we really need to do...!". You want to change women's sexual preferences? How, through CRISPR? How will you "work at a local level" to make fat 50 year olds with high school diplomas more attractive to women?

> "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back

Instead of saying that, how about saying that everybody, including 50 year olds in mainland America, deserves the opportunity of a good job? It's like saying "fat people should be just as attractive" instead of just losing weight.

The current situation is not a refutation of "men are worth something because of their career", just a confirmation. It doesn't "have to come back", because it never left. This is how it has been, is, and will be. You're saying men without ambition or money are entitled to relationships, which they're not. Some people just can't compete, doesn't make the competition obsolete.

I tend to agree with this, yeah. There is plenty of room for change in how we run the economy giving everyone a chance for a good job.

For one - the working hours in the US are crazy. Cap it at 32 hours and badaboom, everyone has a job. Combined with a decent minimum wage, you'd be fine. And yes, if this would result in economic collapse, Europe would've gone to sheise a looooong time ago yet the countries rated as best to live are the ones who have executed exactly that recipe.

I know this will sound pretty bad...

but I actually interact a lot, in a volunteer capacity, with the black community where I live. I'm just realizing that I've never noticed that the whole "men are worth something because of their career" thing there. I'm not passing relative value judgements or anything, but I do wonder if there is something sociologically about black american subculture that makes women look past all that???

I am not a woman. So I can only say what I see, (and there seems to be a lower tendency towards marriage in their community anyway). But from what I see... there are black female doctors with laid off garbagemen for instance. I see self employed business women with unemployed guys. (Generally laid off laborers.) I see a lot of really high ranking corporate vp or law firm type women with teachers/community organizer types. (That one happens a lot.) Couples like these constitute a sizable portion of what I would call the "black middle class" where I am. And of course, you have the regular couples that look like what we would call more traditional, with both parties working at the same level. But that doesn't happen NEARLY as often as you'd think, and the egalitarian pairings also don't seem to last as long as the high ranking female-low ranking male pairings. (Divorce-wise I mean.)

Here's the thing though... I can't actually recall ever coming across a couple where the man was "higher ranking" than the woman??? There are probably a few out there, but I don't come across them in my interactions.

I never thought about that until I read through this thread.

It would be interesting to look through some of these smaller communities to find out how they deal with what seems to be slowly happening in the larger society. Just throwing that out there because they seem to be further down the road towards this "jobless" economic system. The reasons may be really simple. ie - maybe they just have a different culture??? And that's fine. Or maybe it's that the pressures on women in certain american subcultures are different??? Or whatever??? Who knows??? As I said... I'm not a woman... but I think it would be worth looking at.

The more I think about it... the more differences there are popping into my mind right now. It really is fascinating. I never stopped to think about it before.

This is going to sound even worse, but..

I think there was some data from okcupid that showed black men are a lot more popular (based on messages sent etc) with women of other races than black women with men of other races (I have no idea why).

The uncomfortable truth could be that high-status black men have their pick of other races, leaving high-status black women to date lower status men.

> The uncomfortable truth

Which you've just fabricated on the spot based on some racial stereotypes (and your presumably very important feelings).

The data reflect the same basic anti-black racism as the rest of society.

https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-attraction-2009-2014-10...

I'm pretty sure the data supports what I said, even if I missed some of the nuance. Black women are more penalised than black men.

I think you're right. I don't have a reference handy, but I recall reading a long time ago that there are more educated, professional black women in the US than educated, professional black men, and it makes it difficult for them to marry someone at or above their level in those areas. And they have a lot of resentment against successful black men who marry white women, because that further exacerbates the imbalance.

>Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!)

Bernie Sanders 2011: American dream more apt to be realized in Venezuela where incomes are more equal https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-...

Six years later, Venezuelans are facing malnutrition from severe shortages in basic goods. 75 percent Venezuelan lost 19 pounds in 2016:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/02/19/Venezuela-...

It could be that... or the crushing economic sanctions and the low price of oil.

I wonder which might have a higher economic impact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Venezuel...

Shortages of the kind Venezuela suffers are a classic consequence of price controls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_in_Venezuela

I think it already is sexy to be a poet/writer/singer/whatever... those single women who don't want to marry are getting pregnant with "non-marriagable" men, after all. It becomes a question of, why become economically tied to these sexy losers.

There are lots of studies where they found that the first kid was not the biological offspring of the husband at the time.

>Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career.

I would dearly love to believe this is possible, but I fear it's not. I don't think (most) women are capable of overcoming their programming to seek a high-status provider.

Really? I give women more credit than that.

For the first time in how many centuries, they don't have to be chained to some dud with a good job, and they're figuring out what they want.

Good poetry? Being a good househusband? There's going to be quality in that.

World's changing, and you can't get away being a schlub just cause you've got a good job anymore. I say bring it.

If the prestige were great enough, maybe (and good luck with that.) Now add in the extraordinary reluctance of most women to date men shorter than they are.

>1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie

Bernie Sanders 2011: American dream more apt to be realized in Venezuela where incomes are more equal https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-...

Six years later, Venezuelans are facing malnutrition from severe shortages in basic goods. 75 percent of Venezuelan lost 19 pounds in 2016:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/02/19/Venezuela-...

I don't think any other oil economy has seen 75 percent of the population lose 19 lb in a year from malnutrition. The total ignorance of Venezuelan economic officials is what is behind the severity of the shortages. This quote from 2011 is emblematic of that:

“The law of supply and demand is a lie,” Karlin Granadillo, the head of a price control agency set up to enforce the new regulations, said on state television. “These are not arbitrary measures. They are necessary.”

http://www.pressherald.com/2011/11/26/venezuelas-price-contr...

For reasons like this, I find the promotion of socialism to be morally reprehensible.

Yet this has little to do with socialism but rather with Kleptocracy, which is the same in USA and now coming to the US with this new president.

Pretty much everywhere in the world, lower income inequality is closely correlated with being a nicer place to live in for everyone - like Finland, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Germany and so on.

That there are countries where the government, under the ruse of either socialist or libertarian policies, steals from its people has little to do with it.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that connection.

> Now...if society is breaking in a way that it's tough for men to get good jobs, then let's look at that. Women aren't to blame for that, though. Let's look at what's really going on.

I don't think the comments in this section suggested blaming women for reducing men's partipation in the workforce. Specifically, the comment's OP seems to be suggesting that while the economic tables have changed, socially it is still a requirement for men to have a regular, well paying job (or whatever that expectation is) which perhaps also need to change to accommodate the reality that a lot of men may not satisfy that requirement, while still being good partners in relationships.

What I was responding to was this: "women might need to make a compromise."

Nope, if women are happy, then good for them, they certainly don't need to make a compromise. They don't owe men anything.

The modal verb "to need" is highly depend on the context.

You might have seen it in a different context than the author. While you may have interpreted it as saying that if women don't compromise, then they are bad, the author could have meant that if women don't compromise, then (the population will decrease/whatever else that might make sense).

> When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc.,

Well, that's the whole point. Family courts are still heavily biased towards women. As long as women and men are not treated differently, and alimony and spousal support are evenly distributed between genders, then yes, "bring it on".

> Women aren't to blame for that, though.

I did not say that. But "expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great." is not so great. If you start to put socio-economic criterias for a relationship, I don't think you really want a relationship.

You are entirely theoretically correct. Unfortunately reality is far more complicated.

You may want to reassess your approach after reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795367.

In short: Data indicate our current society doesn't function in a world where men aren't substantially better off - and we're equitably continuing to head away from that.

An intelligent, thoughtful, rational approach would be ideal rather than seeking to score points "white knighting" or "feministing" in the gender war.

Or keep picking on them and ignore the problem. Help show the world that feminists are no better than the men they deride. Besides, what type of harm can broken family units and a substantial disillusioned male subclass possibly cause anyway?

> They most certainly are not being kept out of those jobs.

What about college graduation rates? New college grads are heavily biased in favor of women, and women earn more money than male counterparts on average(until some decide to take off in their career to have/raise kids).

My point was simply that men with credentials for a job aren't being rejected solely because they are a man. A few decades ago, women were routinely rejected solely for being a woman.

Sure, but now we have a society which has swung the other way. Shouldn't college attendance rates be 50/50 by gender? Thats the conventional wisdom, at least when it's women who are getting the short end of the stick

By compromise, he probably means that women will have to get comfortable dating men who earn the same or less than them. Or are less ambitious than them.

In my perception most women don't look at men who aren't more well off than themselves or lower status than themselves.