Racial privilege was the one I noticed first. And that was mainly because I lived in places where as a foreigner I was outside the normal framework. That made it much easier to see race and class dynamics at work. It was only after that I could start seeing gender dynamics more clearly. But they're still hard, because you can't try be an outsider to that in the same way.
I agree that we should be working toward parity. I just don't think we're there yet.
And even calling women "sweet" isn't always appreciated. See http://rookiemag.com/2013/04/no-more-nice-girls/
Unemployment of young folk (<30) is more prevalent in men than women.
I don't want to take anything from the women's struggle, but more and more, they are getting the upper hand. (Heck, my boy is 11 months old, and even now, he gets more 'insults' about behavior then his female cousin about same age)
If these expectations remain, what possible social change could occur that would put our "brutish" gender in the crapper? As long as that cultural push exists to be stoic, strong, tough, and to go for what they want, then our male culture is ingrained to be immune to a social upheaval. It's a good way to live if you ask me.
My recommendation is to not care.
I do not care.
I hope the girls have fun on LuLu.
Now if the girls want to change their cultural expectations to make their lives better? Sounds great! I don't care.
If we look at young people, then women clearly have the uppder hand. In addition to having the upper hand in dating, they out-earn young men and have greater success in education. Interestingly, if women are better than men at something, then the explanation is never discrimination, but if men are better than women, then the reason is discrimination.
I'm one of those overeducated women with the upper hand or something like that, although due to my great success in education I'm not out-earning all that many people yet. Remember, though, that the mythical ability to get a guy to pay for dinner and that incredible math PhD mean nothing when a guy on the street is looking me up & down & giving me a "compliment." If I talk back to that crazy guy on the bus, even if I'm out-earning and out-educating him, I always remember it can go like this: http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whethe...
To return to the original topic, I don't support Lulu at all. I've had far better success in dating and life treating men like people.
Yeah, I used statistics from my own country.
>Greater male service in the military is one component of this
Funny anecdote, here in Finland men still have conscription (e.g. forced labour for 6-12 months), but almost nobody talks about that as a gender equality issue.
>I'm one of those overeducated women with the upper hand or something like that, although due to my great success in education I'm not out-earning all that many people yet.
Education of course doesn't directly lead to higher earnings, as you need to choose the right industry and career path. Of course, I don't know anything about you in particular, but most well-off people underestimate the earnings of otherpeople. (I don't know the exact statistic, but the top 10% think that they're only slightly better off than the average or something).
Anyway, men earn more than women because they work longer hours (about 20% more in average). The other explanation is that men choose careers that have higher income (e.g. according to research for men income matters a lot more in career choise than for women).
>Remember, though, that the mythical ability to get a guy to pay for dinner and that incredible math PhD mean nothing when a guy on the street is looking me up & down & giving me a "compliment."
Err, men have to deal with crazy people on the bus too. In fact, vast majority of street violence is against men (it's around 80% in my country).
Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice, and doesn't seem to be about gender equality at all. Sure you could say "men are more pressured..." but you could also say "women aren't empowered to make decisions about their body and don't see it as viable". Again: how does the stat show an upper hand?
About dating: I don't think you can declare women have the "upper hand". At best they have an "even hand". Sure there are pretty girls that get an absurde level of "power of choice", but there are plenty of men in the same category. Similarly when the traditional "men approach" role is taken, women are stuck with what comes their way. Putting it another way: in my experience the problems women experience in dating are the same as the problems men experience: shitty candidates, lots of fear of rejection, insecurity and incompatability issues. Leading to:
Query: how do women have the upper hand in dating in your mind?
It indicates that men are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what causes the disadvantage, it's still a fact. Of course, when men are at a disadvantage the reason is never expected to be gender roles or discrimination.
>Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice
If you think social issue like suicide can be categorized as "personal choice", you don't know much about depression and suicide. There are factors that increase risk to suicide, like poverty and depression, which are quite prevalent in males.
>About dating: I don't think you can declare women have the "upper hand". At best they have an "even hand". Sure there are pretty girls that get an absurde level of "power of choice", but there are plenty of men in the same category.
That description doesn't quite fit the facts, though. It's more like the upper 2/3 of women are in the same position as upper 1/3 of men for various reasons. You can just look at the number of messages on online dating sites, or look at the genetic evidence: 2/3 of all women in history have had children, but only 1/3 men have had genetic offspring.
>Putting it another way: in my experience the problems women experience in dating are the same as the problems men experience: shitty candidates, lots of fear of rejection, insecurity and incompatability issues.
The social etiquette and gender roles and various other reasons mean that men are expected to make the initiation, and women can simply choose the best candidate. That means that men have to face a lot more rejection than women.
This is a good article on the issue: http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/another-okcupid-st...
>It indicates that men are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what causes the disadvantage, it's still a fact. Of course, when men are at a disadvantage the reason is never expected to be gender roles or discrimination.
False. This is not how statistics work. There could be other confounding factors that are relevant. For instance, of the women who would become homeless how many are forced into some sort of prostitution scheme from which they can't escape? How many die early in homelessness because they are at a survival as homeless person disadvantage? You are not providing enough data, just cherry picking context free numbers as if it meant something.
>>Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice
>If you think social issue like suicide can be categorized as "personal choice", you don't know much about depression and suicide. There are factors that increase risk to suicide, like poverty and depression, which are quite prevalent in males.
Maybe. So what advantages to women have. Again, you need to explain a causal relationship of advantage, not just cherry pick numbers as if it were meaningful.
About the dating stuff: your stat makes no sense with regards to genetics. Everyone gets a X chromosome, some get 2 of them. Of course there will be more attributable genetic lineage to women, wheres a guy who only produces daughters will not necessarily be identifiable in a few generations from his sister who passes on the same X chromosome to ~50% of her offspring. Also, why does this genetic number prove evidence for "do nothing"? That is conflating two similar numbers pointlessly. Again, I suggest you learn some simple statistics.
As for the initiation thing: that is not a disadvantage to males. A couple reasons:
First of all, except for people who have 0 social skills initiation is really not hard.
Second, initiation must be invited, putting half the onus in the woman's hands (again, there are cues and signaling for this) - the act of asking or a date or starting a conversation is quite far into the courting process.
Third, simply choosing the best candidate is not - ever been part of a hiring process? Sometimes all the candidates are shitty and you have to choose "no hire", this is a problem.
Fourth do you really think women just sit there and do nothing in dating but wait for a candidate to come along? I doubt that, otherwise why would there be a giant business targeting women with things like "how to make guys notice you", and "improve your dating potential".
Fifth: In the traditional role, women have the following disadvantage: they are the ones with the job of keeping men around far more often than men keeping a woman around. Once the relationship is established, the woman has to keep the man happy. (again - big buisness in magazines with articles like "keep your man happy and around", "how to prevent him from cheating" and the like).
Finally your linked article presupposes the conclusion it reaches, and ignores in its analysis any other factors.
I don't think that's a valid inference, honestly. Firstly, "average" is too tied to distribution and biased outliers and asymmetry. Perhaps you intended to compare medians.
"have the upper hand" I think means that when you compare proportions of X to non-X within strata that the proportion of X decreases with increasing status.
Sure, men have had the upper hand for centuries but we live in an age where the scales have tipped - we need to be careful that instead of having a substantial boost for having a dick, or a vagina, that instead every has the same substantial advantage.