There are so many more qualified women in this world that could do as good of a job, if not better, than the men who are leading, but those women are never given a chance because of their gender.
People like Andrew Tate get an audience because hatred is easy to fall for, and misogyny is sadly all to common in western society. Our society not only is not misandrist, it's actively pro-men in so many ways, on so many levels, that the mere notion that the playing field should be leveled gets thought of as "misandrist".
If you're a healthy straight white man and you're struggling in western society, it's got nothing to do with other people; it's firmly a you problem. Andrew Tate gives those people a way to pretend it isn't their fault, but that's all it is, pretend.
> Our society not only is not misandrist, it's actively pro-men in so many ways, on so many levels, that the mere notion that the playing field should be leveled gets thought of as "misandrist".
Wake up. If that were true you could satisfy my request easily and rattle off a long list of specific, undeniable cases of women being institutionally and openly discriminated against, just like I gave you for men. You've been unable to give even one example because the worldview you're espousing here is built on lies. Women have all the same opportunities and chances as men, and then many more where people like you discriminate against men.
That's why people like Andrew Tate exist - your untruths make them.
I’m not giving examples because I’m replying to you while taking a shit. If you want concrete examples of how misogyny hurts women, thousands of those specific examples are one Google away.
The problem you have with claiming I’m “completely disconnected from reality” is that there’s a lot of evidence I have to know otherwise. It’s like claiming I have a second head growing out of my neck; it’s so obviously untrue if you knew anything about me, that when you do it you ruin your entire argument.
Society is misogynistic at every institutional level, and the healthy straight white men who can’t succeed are failing because of their own decisions and actions.
> Society is misogynistic at every institutional level, and the healthy straight white men who can’t succeed are failing because of their own decisions and actions.
When a healthy straight white man is barred from a job, board seat or government position that is "not succeeding" yet it's not due to their own decisions or actions. It's due to hate based discrimination by woke people who are under the same delusion as you, and thus they attempt to "fix" this non-existent misogyny by punishing random men for things they haven't done.
So - evidence your position. Otherwise the rest of us will conclude your trip didn't help and you're still full of it.
Also what terms did you Google?
Also also there is no "the rest of us". You don't belong to or speak for a group. It's just you and I talking, so don't think you've got some kind of majority in this conversation or in this idea.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
If you actually are interested in learning about the negative impacts of misogyny in the US, there are classes you can take online, people you can talk to, papers to read, etc. Demanding your entire learning experience be run through HN exclusively is only done by folks who have no intellectual curiosity and just want to annoy others.
You'll notice he hasn't responded to my basic question for clarity, as that would require some form of baseline cooperation on his part, which runs counter to his clear desire to be a pain for the sake of it.
It's been three days since this conversation started. Is the expectation that I'm to sit here and engage for eternity with a person who I don't know on a topic it's clear they're not interested in understanding better?
You're not. You're just the only one who has refused to provide evidence for your claims.
The root comment provided evidence for a 2:1 hiring advantage for women in STEM fields. And of course there was the fine article itself...
So there's evidence. There's tons more.
You have provided: zero, zip, nada, zilch.
> interested in learning about ... learning experience
You are making several incorrect assumptions. The first is that the people you are talking to are not aware of the evidence. They are. It is you who is not aware of the evidence, despite it being quoted here (see above).
The second incorrect assumption you are making is that your position is obviously correct and does not need to be supported by evidence, but rather that it is simply a matter of the other side being "educated".
This is also not correct, and you are not in that position. You are making a claim, you don't get to adjudicate that your claim is obviously correct and the only remaining work is for others to inform themselves as to the obvious correctness of your claim.
Have a good one.
On the other hand, in some countries there are now laws forcing women into corporate boards. You have to have women there even if they did nothing to deserve it.
> It’s institutional misogyny, it’s morally bankrupt, and it needs to change
This is so far from reality you need to do some grounding exercises. Institutional misogyny would look like written down, formal and openly acknowledged mechanisms that systematically block women from certain opportunities. Can you write down a list of such things? Probably not because in the west, no such mechanisms exist. The same is not true in reverse, where there are actually many such mechanisms that specifically grant women those opportunities by banning men from competing. Board seats, all-women selection lists in politics, recruiters told to only search for women, jobs that are earmarked only for women, laws that grant women child custody by default, the US VP being selected because it had to be a black woman and so on.
People like Andrew Tate get audiences because it's completely accurate to say our society is institutionally misandrist. To claim the opposite is to simply replace reality with ideology, which is always dangerous.