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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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).
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.
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.