And how many of them are in those positions because their professorship was advertised as being exclusively for white men only?

How many of them were unqualified, but given the job over a more qualified woman, just because they were a man?

I'm sure there are cases of that happening, somewhere. But I can point to multiple examples in the past year alone of jobs being advertised explicitly and in writing as not being open to white men. I do not recall ever seeing jobs being advertised as not open to women.

As it is, you're pointing at a disparity and implying - but not even outright stating - that it must be due to bias, or that white men can't possibly be being attacked or can't possibly fear for their careers, merely because there are a lot of them.

Would you have made the same sorts of arguments about black slaves, on the grounds that there were loads of non-enslaved blacks in Africa at the time of the slave ships, so clearly they couldn't be that oppressed. I mean just look at the quantities. Clearly you would not have made that argument because it'd be bogus. Merely having a common attribute doesn't imply you can't be oppressed.

You can speak anecdotally all day long. But can you show studies where controlling for all other variables, white men are less likely to get jobs, promotions, raises, leases mortgages, accepted into college, etc.?

Men are only about 40% of college students. Male unemployment is higher. I have no data on the others.

That’s not what I asked. Can you find studies where equally qualified white men were denied opportunities, controlling for all other variables suffered harm because of their color or gender? I can post studies where the opposite has happened in housing, hiring, and the criminal justice system.

Yes, such studies do occur and they do show bias against white men.

Typically these are studies that are trying to find bias against women, by anonymising hiring processes. Replacing names on CVs, even voice masking. What they discover instead is that anonymising hiring makes outcomes better for men not women, and then the studies and the anonymisation is canned.

Like here:

http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...

But there are others. There were some studies in Australia on this. You can search for them quite easily.

The link you posted explicitly says Though these trends weren’t statistically significant, I am mentioning them because they were unexpected and definitely something to watch for as we collect more data.

Who would do or fund such a study?

Women outnumber men in college by 50%, and almost nobody sees a problem with that. Men vastly outnumber women among the homeless, prisoners, accidental deaths, etc, and nobody cares about that either.

Nobody in power cares enough about less fortunate men to support any studies that might show what obstacles they face.

> Women outnumber men in college by 50%

56% to 44% as of this past fall, and projected to reach 57% to 43% by 2026. [0] That's a little over 25%, not 50%.

> almost nobody sees a problem with that.

Lots of people see it as a symptom of a major problem.[0, again]

> Men vastly outnumber women among the homeless

This is, IIRC, basically entirely because virtually the entire set of homeless veterans is male, and homeless veterans are a full third of the homeless. Again, homeless among veterans (which, again, is basically the entire source of the overrepresentation of men among the homeless) is widely perceived as a serious problem.

> prisoners

Well, white people might not care about this; but the imprisonment of black men and what it has done to the black community has been an intense concern of that community.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-me...

True, I exaggerate a bit when I say "nobody" cares; I mean:

Do these questions come up in Presidential campaigns? Are they debated in Congress? Is there any funding to address these issues? Are there massive organized protests calling for change?

The wage gap is smaller than the education gap, and in that case the answer to all these questions is "Yes".

There are some people working to bring attention to these issues, but they've had limited success and face quite a bit of opposition.

White males hold most positions in power in both government, industry, and religion - I'm not making a value judgement, just stating facts - the three most influential parts of society. Who are these powerful forces that are keeping them from rising up?

So now without any studies showing a casualty between less men being in the workforce or fewer going to college being caused by some sort of societal discrimination, we are suppose to believe you? None of the conservative think tanks are willing to do a study?

I see it around a fraction of 1%?

http://time.com/4064665/women-college-degree/

That's because of the Baby Boomers. Among people in college now, nearly 60% of students/graduates are women.

If nothing is done to increase male enrollment, the statistic you quoted (% of population with college degrees) will change to match this inequality fairly quickly.

Again what is suppose to "be done"? Government intervention? Affirmative Action for the oppressed male? Whatever happened to the Reaganesque "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and "rugged individuslism"? Conservatives have been telling minority and women that for years.

Apparently I've been censored and rate-limited, so I can't continue this discussion.

Why not? Leftists want equality of outcome, right? Why does that exclude college enrollment, unemployment, dangerous work, etc?

Response to below: Would people on HN really be all over these studies? Or would they be censored as I have been?

And I just posted a study for you in our other comment chain, since you demand it so persistently. I hope you're reading these edits...

> Leftists want equality of outcome, right?

Not really, no.

Leftists are, however, less inclined than those on the opposite side of the political spectrum to dismiss wide discrepancies in outcome as being results of differences in free uncoerced choices rather than inequality of opportunity (which the right didn't even accept as a value until the left made it popular enough that they invented the "opportunity vs. outcome" argument to adopt in name while dismissing it in substance).

I can't tell, are you now arguing that the "liberal agenda" was right all along? If so, why are you posting the opposite?

We've been going back and forth for days but you still haven't posted any latitudinal studies to back your claims of the oppression of the White Male. There are plenty of conservative think tanks that would have been all over studies that showed such data if it existed.

I would think that HN being full of engineers and other left brain types would actually take the time to read such studies and give them a fair shot.

Now count how many are willing to speak up in favor of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US or in favor of race-blind admissions. Count how many have done so and kept their jobs.

If all you care about is skin color you're missing my point.

Are they also willing to speak up against "legacy admissions"?

I doubt very seriously that people are opposed to bringing back jobs to America. What politician has a platform of "we want to send jobs overseas"?

Bringing jobs back to America does seem reasonable, right? But as far as I've seen, very few leaders in academia, business, government, or the media have spoken against globalization.

Of course, I might be wrong, so please feel free to show me the many leaders who've opposed globalization and the receptive responses of the institutions they work for.

There is a difference between “speaking against globalizarion” and increasing jobs in America. How do you propose we decrease globalization? Impose tariffs, cause a trade war, and increase prices for everyone?

There is a company called Softwear trying to brIng clothe manufacturing back to the US. But they plan to automate everything and hire a very few engineers. How does that help the “working class”?

The ship on globalization has sailed. Republicans use to believe in the free market that was back when manufacturing jobs were strong. But now that the “working class in middle America” is hurting, they like “big government” interfering with the free market. and more regulation because it helps them.

"RNC Republicans" still believe in globalization. Republican voters have been opposed to globalization for a long time but until Trump they had few voting choices that reflected that.

And the ship hasn't sailed on globalization. China is bringing protectionism back whatever we do.

Will protectionism raise prices? On manufactured goods, perhaps. But manufactured goods are a small portion of our expenses compared to rents, food, and energy, and if protectionism also raises wages it will mean more Americans can afford to live well.

So in other words we should all pay a subsidy to help the "working class"? That's exactly what a tariff is.

I thought conservatives were against forcing people to pay taxes and "big government" and we should let the free market decide - or do they just feel that way about health care?

All wages won't rise because of manufacturing jobs. Just those for manufacturing. It's basically "redistributing" money from those who aren't in the manufacturing industry to those who are. I also thought that conservatives were against "redistribution", or are they for it when it helps "working class Middle America"?

I'd love to continue this discussion but apparently I've been rate-limited for some reason, and suddenly I'm only allowed one post every 2 hours. I'll close with this:

We already pay subsidies for all kinds of things. Why not pay one to help the working class?

----

Response to below: I do think any injustice is immoral but subsidies aren't injustice. We pay lots of subsidies. I never said subsidies are immoral.

And don't confuse manufacturing with "rural America". There are lots of working class people in the cities who once found employment in manufacturing. Farm subsidies do nothing for them.

And if you only want to read a study (and will consider no other facts) here's a study showing men receive much longer prison sentences than women for the same crime:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

----

> What should we "believe" other than studies?

Statistics?

Like the statistics on male victims of domestic violence vs the legal protections and shelters available to men.

Or the statistics on boys vs girls expelled from preschool, boys medicated, the number of male vs female teachers, etc.

And have you read that study yet? You seemed so insistent to read a study, I thought you might have some comments about it.

I'm not doubting your numbers - or your end results and I'm also not arguing about whether certain segments of the population get treated unfairly in the criminal justice system. I'm all for criminal justice reform as I've said repeatedly.

But you haven't just been talking about unfairness in the criminal justice system. You have also been arguing that the white male is being discriminated against in other parts of society - including the education system and the labor market.

But now you are claiming that there is discrimination against men because there are fewer male teachers? Most of the studies and surveys show women make less men partially because they choose professions that are more conducive to raising a family - like teachers. Most women I know who are teachers cite that as a reason that they became teachers - because their work schedules are aligned with their children's school schedules. Including having summers off.

Again, you are pointing to outcome without showing any links to a correlation between discrimination and the outcome. If you really want to change policy based on statistics and outcome, you would be arguing more in favor of wealth being redistributed to minorities and women - no I'm not arguing that.

I said there's a vocal segment of the population that is hostile to white men, not systematic discrimination. This segment includes people at powerful institutions, and they're actively seeking more power. If they take power then you'll see systematic discrimination against white men in employment. Right now, other groups experience discrimination more often, but that doesn't make discrimination against white people acceptable.

I'm also arguing that working class men of all races, not only white, are suffering because manufacturing jobs have left America. In fact, whole communities, men and women of all races suffering because of that. Meanwhile we see how much the presence of manufacturing jobs in China is fueling whole communities.

I think both of those factors contributed to Trump's success.

The conversation also strayed to systematic discrimination against men in education, the justice system, and social support, but I don't think this has much to do with Trump's success.

There is also a vocal segment of racists, homophobes, sexists and people who want to impose their religious beliefs on America that mostly lean Republican. But no one here is arguing about policy changes based on that.

Just to clarify: are you arguing that sexism against men and racism against whites is OK because these other people exist?

If not, what you just said is pure whataboutism.

It's also incorrect. People on this very page are arguing that conservative speech shouldn't be protected because of the existence of those extremists.

I'm not saying it's "okay". All speech should be protected from the government banning it. If conservatives don't like the policies on Internet forums, they are welcome to start their own.

If you can find studies showing - that controlling for all other variables - that white males are being discriminated against and that it is caused by discrimination, I'm all eyes.

Just like I said about the wage gap between men and women. Most of the studies I've seen reported even by places with a more liberal bent is that the wage gap can in large part be attributed to women choosing less demanding careers that allow them to spend more time taking care of kids. It's not being caused by disctimination.

Can you show from studies that the outcomes you described are being caused by discrimination?

You just argued the opposite side earlier basically implying any injustice is immoral. We pay subsidies to rural America in the form of farm subsidies already.

But all you have to do is post a study showing statistical evidence of discrimination against the White Male and I promise I'll read it with an open mind. I have somewhat of a background in statistics and economics and I enjoy reading about those subjects.

I am all for criminal justice reform - and I said as much in an earlier post.

But if "I only want to read a study and consider no other facts". What should we "believe" other than studies? A few anecdotes? If there are some systemic issues caused by government policies - and there are plenty with the criminal justice system - I'm all for reform. Reforming the criminal justice system is about less government not more.