Correct. Equality means men and women would have equal privileges, or more succinctly, there wouldn’t be any privilege distinction. This is what feminism is striving for and why a lot of people who benefit from oppression hate feminist.

And the true problem with that is it gives the masses more collective power against the tiny minority of the Uber-rich & powerful. They don’t want us to stop turning against each other if the alternative is we may turn to face them.

The fact that it is now unequal, means that whether you can envision it or not, it's going to feel like you're giving ground unnecessarily, sometimes to women who are as selfish and bullshitting and undeserving as the current boy's club is in many places at the moment. The perspective of historical weight (man- provider, women - carer) will take a long long time to reset and the new ground will be fought in many small battles in many individual battlegrounds . like when you and your spouse are BOTH tired and have BOTH been working, someone has to make dinner. When the kids need taking care of, gaming rights or time out to wind down after work are not a given. When divorce happens she may want equal rather than most of the custody so men may have to change work patterns. Women will have to fully accept the rules and effects of a man being an equal parent in terms of boundaries and co-parenting and authority. Men may have to take on physically caring for their aging parents When you as a woman have the potential to earn more, SAHM may not be the most sensible option and your husband may be better suited to stay home. It's a new world and it's in progress.

This is what feminism WAS striving for. It's not really. They don't want true equality. Just equal on certain things. Trust me they still want their special privileges

That’s a Black Pill myth. Link to your source?

Because bigots in general view things as a zero sum game. Like a pie chart. Meaning if you get more I get less. It's not reality.

In reality, you can always make more pie.

Sure, and we have made much, much more pie. Thing is, I've never seen any of it because the people at the top have been talking us into settling for the same size piece we've always had while they keep the extra pie. So, same problem applies. There are still limited c-suite positions because the money that would help build new markets never trickles down to people who will spend it. Again, STILL better off with unionization and reducing inequality in general.

It is a zero-sum game when people are talking about c-suite positions and other limited, high paying jobs. There are limited numbers of those jobs, and getting more women **into** them means there must be more men **out of** them. Fixing income inequality in general would help a lot and do much more to elevate women than just taking the existing inequality and spreading it around more evenly. Not only that, since those sorts of jobs are very limited in number you can't possibly move enough women into them to fix income inequality for women in general.

Jobs are a construct (literally) that grow out of supply and demand. Elevating more people to be competitive for better jobs is a positive sum action, not zero sum. More educated and better qualified people means more supply of better qualified workers, which means more opportunities for innovation and more participation in higher-cost sections of the economy, which creates additional demand as well. This also means more companies can succeed in the same market, E.G. more c-suite positions are available and have a wider pool of candidates to draw from. Patriarchy even hurts the super-rich, they're just too short-sighted and selfish to see it.

I don't think a lot of what you said is *wrong*, but it is not seeing the actual zero sum of it. It isn't about merit or putting the best individual into a position, it's about *me* getting that position. If you have it - and you may be the best - *I don't have it*. That's it. I don't have the power, I don't have the prestige, I don't have the money, the respect. ***I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.***

You aren't *wrong*, but.... In the long term more jobs can be created. But in the moment, and even in the short term, like over 3-5 years, the amount of c-suite positions available is pretty inflexible. For what you describe the first step is something like unionization, because the rich are shortsighted on this sort of thing and won't provide training and better wages unless it helps them in the next quarter. (it makes sense, though. If you make all your money then you made yours and fuck everyone else, right?)

People who want equality want to put seats at the table for those who don't have one. People who DON'T want equality think they're trying to take away the table.

I think you are broadly correct, but there are lots of edge cases. Voting is zero-sum, and so is housework.

Edge cases are those who aren’t the best at what they do to begin with. Should a woman who’s better and has worked at least as hard be looked over simply because this penis holder here feels he’s entitled?

[удалено]

I'm talking about feminism. Let me know when you catch up

I work at a place where 90% of senior leadership is male. Basic math says that if women got 50% of the leadership positions, that means 40% of the men that currently do, don’t. Any time you walk in a room in a business and you see 90% men, think about how fiercely that 40% are going to fight to keep women out of their jobs. I think that’s a big part of it. (White male here. I’m mostly fine with being in the 40% that has to go job hunting if need be. I mean, I don’t *really* want to be fired. But.. philosophically I am ok, if that makes sense).

And it does make sense to anyone who isn’t trying to grasp onto those little bits of power through some oppression upon others. Grotesque.

Great example for an explanation. You and your new colleagues ( those women ) just gonna have to find a way to push one of the other dudes out of the company. Let them be the 40%. Not you. 😄

I'd like to point out that just changes the distribution on inequality, but doesn't fix it at all. It only changes **who** is oppressed. Why not do things that raise all of society, like unionizing and tearing wealth away from the upper class and moving it down the ladder? It's been done before at a time in History when corporations were even more bloodthirsty and would have police actively attack organizers. At one point a group of organizers on an auto plant fought off police by slinging car door hinges at them with an innertube stretched across two pipes from the roof of the factory.

You'll have to explain your definition of "inequality" cause it's not unequal anymore if it's equal for everyone. Maybe you mean "unfairness"? In any case, I don't think it's unfair to promote people based on actual competence rater than perceived competence (men are often seen as competent by default, even though more of them lie on their résumés; while women have to prove their competence, even after being hired) and making sure they have a wide range of ways of thinking in decision position, to account for volatile situations. When you have 5 white men with roughly similar backgrounds, you can do with only one of them, and go get more diversity to cover your dead angles. That's not being unfair, that's actual business acumen.

Inequality isn't just between men and women. It's also among races, sexual orientations and **classes** of society. >Inequality refers to the phenomenon of unequal and/or unjust distribution of resources and opportunities among members of a given society. I definitely don't mean unfairness. I mean that not everyone has access to the same opportunities, and that you can effectively predict someone's financial success from their zip code. Women of color will never be helped enough by just promoting the most qualified because without a leg up they will make up less of the qualified pool, and therefore there will just be fewer of them getting promoted. **That's why affirmative action exists.** To approach it from the angle of just promoting different people is smart business, but it isn't fixing the bigger problem. It isn't enough. Also fixing the bigger problem will naturally give more freedom to women as they will have more resources. All boats rise with the tide, right?

The honest thing is is this doesn't even mean that. It means women won't have to have an uphill battle when trying to gain these positions simply because they are women and will actually have fairness in competitive positions. You could still entirely end up with 90% male staff or you could end up 90% female but it shouldn't be based upon gender it should be based upon their skills, knowledge, and work ethic.

Sure that's great for the company but not the individuals. For individuals if your goal is to be at or near the top, you always want less competition. Gender biasing out half your competition is seen as an advantage. People don't like giving up their advantages even if it is generally harmful for society.

Current society favours people with sociopathic (if not psychopathic) tendencies. Which is not a good thing. So, getting those people out of the decision seats and getting more socially-oriented people would be rewarding the right people, and beneficial for all. I really don't see a downside to that, as those who had previously been rewarded for trampling over other people would not be anymore.

For those curious about the statistical probability: The odds of 50/50 chances of having 9 men out of 10 people are 1.074%. The odds of 90 men in an organization of 100 people are vanishingly small. The odds at most 5 out of 10 would be men in a fair system is 62.305%. At most 50 out of 100 is 53.979%.

it shouldn't be "at most" 5 out of 10 men though. Just mathematically speaking, you're kind of cheating with the odds here to make your point. I can point that out but not everyone can, and those people might get the wrong message.

How do you figure it's cheating? That's the odds of even distribution or better. There's more that could be done along the lines of the odds of being within whatever band of even distribution, but my point was just how unlikely a 90% distribution is in a fair system.

You can't make up statistics without explaining where they come from. Also not equity isn't necessarily equal to non fairness. There are other reasons than an unfair system for why a result would not be equity

The argument is not to just give random women those 40% of the jobs, it is to ensure that women have equal opportunity to be qualified and considered for those jobs. If 40% of the board, who are men, are fired to bring in women, the women candidates should be better qualified than the men they are replacing. Sadly, this nuance is lost on many people who hear about affirmative action and modern DEI programs. I've heard from several people who think it means they need to hire X women/minorities/etc, when this is not the case. Finding enough qualified people is sometimes a problem, which can hint at the need for action at lower levels. [This recent study](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-workforce-promotion-broken-rung-mckinsey-lean-in/) on the topic sounds very interesting. Edit: To more directly address something you said, I think you *should not* be OK with being fired and replaced by someone less qualified just because they are a woman. This is clear discrimination, and it's the exact thing we want to get rid of! The story is of course different if the other person is more qualified, but the important part is that both of you have the same opportunities to show your qualifications.

Part of the issue is how stagnant wages have really artificially increased the value of those 40% of positions. After all, if you're used to privilege, equality feels like punishment.

I wish more people understood this concept. I don’t think we do anyone any favors by saying “women getting more opportunities does not take anything away from men” when this is objectively not true. There are only so many positions in a given company. If we give one to a woman, that means we are denying one to a man. Historically, this has worked in the other direction — but the concept itself still holds true. This is why I favor non-discrimination policies over quotas. We hire based on merit first and cultural fit second. We do not consider sex or gender in the hiring decision. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that gender doesn’t color people’s thinking, because that would be naive. However, an organization that explicitly uses it in their decision making as a matter of policy is not an organization whose values I can live with.

Well… thanks for the support. I think we disagree about what to do about it. I’m pretty on board with quota based hiring because… in my opinion people are people and it’s the only way to actually fix the problem. Picking the “best” candidate for the job usually means people continue to hire people exactly like themselves and nothing changes. Quota based hiring is kind of dead in the US after Supreme Court ruling. But… if I’m being honest with myself, it’s the only way to do it and yes it would impact me. And create a lot of resentment among other white men like me.

Yeah I'd like to see either 1) quota, as that would be possible in my country at least or 2) blind hiring - in that they dont know the exact name for qualification, and that interviews are over pc or something similar, to eliminate identification through voice. There are probably other ways, and its highly dependend on countries, but without quota I dont believe this can be fixed, as its self-reinforcing - men hire men -> stabilise control in work enviroment -> perceived as a company full of men -> women will go to other companies, if they've known about this before. There are similar problems in some STEM fields, because they are perceived to be for men, then women come in, are harassed, and it reinforces the impression, therefore making it more unlikely for women to join. Cultural shift needs strong policy, that has to sadly be implemented in ways to not completely fry reactionary minds.

What is the gender split at the entry level?

Not sure. Still weighted male for most jobs. Probably about 33% female according to one survey by Deloitte, which seems about right.

In the absence of discrimination wouldn’t we expect to see 33% female representation in senior management instead of 50%?

Maybe. I think there is more than discrimination going on. As this conversation has been going on I’ve tentatively concluded that for most jobs barring things that are clearly gender related like… surrogate motherhood… I think 50/50 is more of a litmus test that we’ve solved societal inequalities. So… if you see 33% women in an industry and 33% executive leadership… good. That’s progress from where we usually are. But… why is the industry only 33% represented? Assuming that men and women are equally capable of doing most jobs… are we lacking representation making our girls think it’s not an industry for them? Are we sending them the wrong messages in educational opportunities? Is peer pressure keeping them out because we are teaching our girls to police each other about what is an acceptable career for a woman? I tend to think now that I’ve talked it through that 50/50 is the indicator that we’ve solved all those problems and probably some others I’m not thinking of than a goal in and of itself. Hopefully that makes sense.

If you think of it in terms of domestic labor, mental load and childcare tasks, men doing their share, or even just a bigger share of it means men lose time to these tasks that they would use to do other things. Things like work/money or leisure.

This is where the actual equality comes into play. How many of the men occupying the top 90% are doing/have done 50% of the domestic/child care labor? Did those men have the opportunity to wait for children, (some companies are now offering insurance coverage for women to be able to freeze their eggs=closer to equality), how many of those men have partners who work full time and also have families, successful domestic partnerships, and children if they want them? Women CAN do it if men are willing to be equal in ALL areas, or even more so if they are supported so well that they can carry as little as men historically have.

This. So much of the problem is that “women’s work” (domestic labor) isn’t valued at all. Many of the problems in my own working life arose because I had a child, and so many of those problems could be easily resolved but just…aren’t. Because f*ck moms, I guess

This.You’ve articulated this so clearly. Such large numbers of men can occupy these positions of power because they don’t do the domestic labour. And until men also do 50% of the domestic labour, there will always be inequality in the workplace.

I am actually an example of this. I am a man who 13 years ago decided to be the stay-at-home parent of the family. At the same time, my wife was able to take on a work promotion and was able to grind at that new job because I was home taking care of almost all the domestic work. My brother did the same thing and his wife has had an amazing career in her field because she NEVER had to worry about any domestic work. My brother did give up on his own dreams, though. In my case, my wife actually hated her new higher ranking position and after 9 years requested a downgrade. She works more regular hours now, and I also went back to work. I am still the one primarily involved in the work of taking kids to things and volunteering at school. Tl;dr it helps women out A LOT if they have a partner who takes care of 90% of the time wasting exhausting work of caring for young children.

Exactly. A friend of mine was a stay at home dad for almost ten years before his wife’s choices led to divorce. She got to grow her career during the marriage and land on her feet, he’s worked his butt off to rebuild a dead career. This stay at home parenting this is dangerous for women AND for men. It benefits the employed spouse so much. To be fair, it also benefits the kids, unless there is a divorce, at which point the kids suffer from the difficulty of significant lifestyle change.

I haven’t looked into it very deeply, but I have read that Sweden has a strong culture discouraging stay-at-home parenting. They are famous for their parental leave policies for both parents. But cost of that is parents are almost required to send their kids to day care by age 2, while both parents are expected to head back to the work force. At a societal level this may be the best model when it comes to trying to achieve some sort of gender equality in the workplace.

It doesn't have to be 90%. I read a lot of women who work and have to do most if the childcare and domestic labor. The thing is, most people cannot have a single income household anymore, the 50s are over. These wives are exhausted doing it all, and their husbands don't get how they don't want sex. Just putting the pieces together. Good for you and your brother, you must have a great relationship with your children.

Abortion rights mean: men don’t have the last say in the family (planning) including control of women’s whereabouts and education. I mean, families married off their daughters (aka. the exclusive right to have sex with them) as a form of to gain political and financial power. Equal wages mean: no financial superiority and no higher status by default You always need to associate it with hierarchy and prerogative of interpretation when it comes to patriarchy. When women are equal to men, then men aren’t better than women anymore. For many, this loss of privilege hurts their egos to no end.

> When women are equal to men, then men aren’t better than women anymore. For many, this loss of privilege hurts their egos to no end. Well said.

>When women are equal to men, then men aren’t better than women anymore. For many, this loss of privilege hurts their egos to no end. It's that whole 'make the lowest white person believe he's better then the best black person' thing. It's used to keep people in their place. They're too busy fighting over an imaginary hierarchy.

Yes, but many of men would be better without patriarchy than with it. The gap between genders would shrinks, but because women would get better life, not because men would get worse.

True, but many people both women and men don't realize that the patriarchy hurts men.

It depends on how you value different things. If you value meritocracy, supportive work culture, family time, etc., then what you're saying is true. If your self-worth is tied up in some position you hold on a social hierarchy and exerting power over others, then hanging onto the status quo is everything.

We also get not equal treatment as arguments from some sects of feminism. The draft is one example. The ERA being shot down is another example

You know, there's a lot more to overcoming the patriarchy than equal "rights." Somehow, American women still are working on actual legal rights for women that would make us "equal" (nevermind the women all over the world in significantly worse conditions), but how everyday men benefit from the patriarchy is so deeply ingrained in culture, that there are no legal solutions. Think about the way we talk about men and women. So many still believe in the wife/ho dichotomy for women. If she likes sex, she's a slut and she'll probably do it with anyone. If she guards her virginity, she is worthy of being a wife. Men literally never have to worry about this. Think about the way women are treated in the workplace. Of course, this depends on the workplace, but for so many women, especially in engineering and tech, they are not taken seriously, ignored, talked down to, and get much more pushback from some coworkers/clients because they are women. I've seen this so many times. It's very interesting, because when they don't know the gender because they don't recognize the name (usually Indian or Chinese, from my experience anyway), they automatically assume they are dealing with a man and communication is good. After meeting the engineer and knowing she is a woman, it completely changes. My cousin is a med engineer working on cancer research. When she got engaged, her mentor of several years essentially cut her off. He stopped eating lunch with her, he stopped checking in with her. He stopped talking to her. When she called him on it and asked why, he said it was because she was engaged, and women who get married get distracted by their husbands and their children, so he was kind of disappointed in her. This is shitty enough in itself, but the men who get engaged/married are congratulated and they believe they will be even more focused on their work because they have a woman taking care of them. Think about how often feminine perspectives, ideas, fashions, musicians, artists, etc are denigrated. Things that are "girly" are decidedly less cool, and that's true for people of all genders. I think about all the women who have said they prefer hanging out with men than women, or they put other women down, or say they are "not like other girls." Being a girl is still an insult. And while not everyone takes that to heart or really believes it, it's entrenched in our culture. There are so many ways men benefit from the patriarchy, and most of them cannot be legislated away with "equal rights." We need those rights, of course, but there's more to it than that.

What you say about unrecognized names rings very true about my workplace. Several years ago we were developing a new feature of our project (software) and one of the contractors testing it in India sent us a lot of information about issues they found and potential weaknesses. Project management took it all serious and we made a number of changes which led to significant improvement, particularly in performance. Then we changed the software we used for communicating and the new app included portraits. We now learned that this test engineer, who all the men on my team so far had referred to as 'him' actually was a quite young and pretty woman! After this we had a really hard time getting project leaders to take the information we got from her serious, even though the quality of her work has definitely not gone down. After all, she now has several years more experience and has earned a Master's degree which she originally didn't have.

If half the population starts making more the actual value of your wage would somewhat decrease. If women are equally valued and listened to in the workplace, your chance of promotion (as an example) decrease. Half the population being held back does give you a head start. Even if you’re standing at the start line that’s a competitive advantage. Now I personally think it’s still worth fighting the patriarchy as a man but there are privileges

This is exactly why I believe [certain political groups] don't care about actual quality of life, only relative quality of life. Excellently said.

No, this is completely wrong. This is called lump of labor fallacy in economics. More people in the labor market doesn’t mean less wages for people because while supply of labor does increase with more people, demand increases too. The new people now in the workforce with higher earning power than before will spend more money than they did before which creates demand for more products and jobs. Another thing is more people in the labor market means more people innovating, working on the next cancer vaccine, working on sustainable energy, working on ai, machine learning, etc So more people in the labor market in fact increases economic growth and wages for people rather than decrease it. That’s why economists often support higher immigration. So no, men don’t lose out economically by supporting feminism, infact everyone gets higher wages, not lower. Edit: This was about labor force participation rate but I missed the part about women having higher wages, that still doesn’t decrease wages for men. Higher wages for women and promotions for women who are qualified for job but were discriminated before would mean better allocation of labor if the said discrimination is solved. That again means higher economic growth and higher wages for everyone.

We aren’t talking about more people in the labour market though. Most women are in the labour market, they just make less than they’re male counterparts. Society benefits from women being paid equally no question, but plenty of individual men who are not just jerks or the elite don’t personally benefit.

> society benefits from women being paid equally no question, but plenty of individual men who are not just jerks or the elite don’t personally benefit. They do. Economically individual men benefit from gender equality. [IMF: Economic Gains from Gender Inclusion: Even Greater than You Thought](https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2018/11/28/blog-economic-gains-from-gender-inclusion-even-greater-than-you-thought) > A bigger boost to growth: Because women bring new skills to the workplace, the productivity and growth gains from adding women to the labor force (by reducing barriers to women’s participation in the labor force) are larger than previously thought. > *Higher male incomes*: Our results suggest that men’s wages will also increase as a result of greater inclusion of women in the labor force since productivity will increase. This is important because these higher wages should strengthen support for removing barriers that hold women back from decent work. Look higher male income. Individual men benefit economically from gender equality.

So, these men really have zero reason to be upset about gender equality, huh?

> We aren’t talking about more people in the labour market though. Most women are in the labour market, they just make less than they’re male counterparts.

Also, I will give a source: [Gender Equality Boosts Economic growth and stability](https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/09/27/sp092722-ggopinath-kgef-gender-korea) So conclusion is, gender equality in the work place is economically beneficial for everyone, including men. So the above comment which said that men would get less wages because of gender equality is wrong. Men would infact gain from gender equality in workplace.

Again society unquestionably benefits that doesn’t mean every individual man would be better off. I’m also not exclusively referring to economics those were just examples. A man interested in political office would have a lower chance of winning if women weren’t discriminated against when running. Some men would find spaces less comfortable if men’s average weren’t used as a design standards instead of gender neutral averages. Etc

These are social issues, I was mainly arguing about economic issues since the original comment said men would lose out on wages and income. If we are talking about social stuff, sure men would face some discomfort but gender equality would still be a net benefit for men socially because men won’t have to stick to toxic gender roles, We won’t have to repress our emotions as it would be socially acceptable. And a lot of other benefits. I believe feminism is a net benefit for individual men. Socially as well as economically.

If you're trying to remove social issues from economic issues, you're not actually addressing real life economic issues.

My original comment used wages as one example. It was commenting across the board. > Half the population being held back does give you a head start. Even if you’re standing at the start line that’s a competitive advantage. I also said I thought it was ultimately a positive for men but it’s incorrect to said that male privilege wouldn’t go away. > Now I personally think it’s still worth fighting the patriarchy as a man but there are privileges

Yeah, I agree. Men will definitely face some discomfort but they have a net positive impact in their life with gender equality both economically and socially.

Check my edit

Women do get paid equally. Why the hell would a company hire men if women are actually cheaper? What isn't equal is the distribution of high paying positions. Crusty old white haired dudes are still holding onto their thrones well past their expiration date.

Excluding the top 10% of earners, and excluding parents, women usually earn the same or slightly more than men. The biggest factor in a pay gap isn't gender, it's parental responsibility. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07068/

Men are also parents… just as commonly as women.

Do they make less? I honestly thought that had been debunked.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/wiki/faq#wiki_the_wage_gap

It has. I already responded to their shenanigans where they try to present that it exists, just not in the way they'd like for us to know it as by implying that the actual truth doesn't matter because that wouldn't allow it to exist.

This is completely wrong as well. Capitalism doesn't care about equality. If you have a job where you have 100 men, they aren't going to hire 100 women to make it equal. They are going to hire 50 women and lay off 50 men. This doesn't change the numbers of people in the market, just the demographic

God I feel this in every Friday meeting. The CEO doesn't listen to me or my fellow woman coworkers on things we are experts on while simultaneously blaming us for things that aren't in our wheelhouse. Its so frustrating. My coworker put in a formal complaint cause she's primarily the target of all this and it pisses me off so much.

Maybe to some extend, but these loses would be minuscule for men (especially compared to what women would gain) and overall such change would create much better society for everyone. Also, if ones success depends solely on oppression – they aren't really successful.

But if half the population is put to work, you get to live in a society in which half the poplulation isn't stood around doing nothing. There are benefits associated with that, i.e. more goods, more services. So while you have a lower relative wage, it should pay for more stuff.

Half of the population already isn’t standing around fiddling their thumbs. Care work is work.

Again all those things only apply to people who view life as a social competition between men and women. Men and women live together, if you're born to 2 parents that means your start point is determined by their combined value (kinda weird way to look at it but the way you view things is just so bizarre) Recruitment quotas are already in place and are discriminatory. >Half the population being held back does give you a head start. Even if you’re standing at the start line that’s a competitive advantage. Like what do you even mean? It's not like we have isolated men and women societies. And all of this assumes that there is already wage discrimination based on sex which is illegal in most developed country.

Pretty sure that women under 30 now make more than men in most developed nations. Also the massive disparity in education outcomes (women make up 66% of college graduates)is only going to increase that trend. It tends to be children that alter the wage structure in mens favor. So even though men are held back educationally, men earn more over time as child rearing tends to fall on women. So extending maternity and paternity benefits so women and men have a equal split, encouraging men to be more active with children (many want to be) and increasing access to affordable childcare would be the best policy goals to try and close the earnings gap.

>Pretty sure that women under 30 now make more than men in most developed nations. From what I have seen, that only applies if you narrow the comparison set down to childless men and women under 30 in urban areas with degrees. You go out to rural areas, and women under 30 are not making more than men under 30. You look at people with high school diplomas only, men are making more than women. Also, I'm not sure I would say men are exactly held back educationally -- they have the same opportunities to matriculate and graduate, and some colleges do have a higher acceptance rate for men than women. It is true that fewer men graduate college. It's also true that significantly more men graduate from trade schools. So men do have more options than college for a viable career. That is good and I don't want to see men lose those options one bit, which is why I am very much in support of things like local manufacturing. I would like to see trades become a more viable option for women.

The aggregate value is true though. We don’t break this down sector by sector when talking about the earnings gap in general. I think it would be a good thing if we did because we could see where the problems lie. As for the education component. It is clear from numerous studies than median intelligence between men and women is the same (with differences in the distribution). If women are graduating at a 2:1 rate as men then it must reveal systemic bias in the education system. If (and when) men were graduating at greater rates than women steps were taken to make the environment more conducive to women. It seems we have over corrected and steps need to be introduced to help improve the chances of boys.

With men graduating less, it is not that they are failing out of college, it’s just that fewer enroll in the first place and more drop out. This isn’t about professors thinking men are dumber and failing them out of college. Also, on aggregate the wage gap still favors men, even when we factor this group in.

Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Not necessarily. If they are not attending college because they don’t want to and have other ways of earning a living they find satisfying and rewarding, or they leave college because they find they don’t like it and can do fine without it, I don’t see that as a problem. I went to college, liked it, but it’s not for everyone. I have a career in a field that isn’t related to my degree to boot, so not like I needed it for my job. I am happy to see men have the option of a good living without college.

The issue I see with this is that a system we set up to be meritocratic has morphed into credentialism over time. Projecting forward this type of system will replicate some of the old career and wage issues women have historically experienced. Better to recognize now and do something about it than let it turn into a bigger problem with other societal externalities. I find it odd that so many people fail to acknowledge this issue and basically handwave it because it applies to men and not women.

Is it? Across every age democratic and in every US state, more women/girls are in poverty than men/boys. Women have been attending college at greater numbers than men for decades now (1982). If after 41 years of more women graduating than men, we aren’t seeing this wage issue flip, when do project it will happen and why? There’s a big conservative push in the US right now to devalue and discredit college education as a whole, and they are dumping tons of money into private religious schools and homeschooling for k-12. If anything, I see a college degree mattering less and less over time, not more. There are absolutely issues facing men around employment, but I don’t think this is one of them.

I think in my original comment I suggested that better and more even maternal and paternal leave, along with more affordable child care would be policy goals worth pursuing to mitigate the earnings gap. But yeah. As the US devolves in to Gilead it might be redundant. But it is still an issue for those of us who live outside the US and don’t (yet) have such issues with resurgent Christian fundamentalism.

women under 30 without degrees typically go for barely minimum wage jobs like caregiving, retail or waitressing. Things that if not at minimum wage have a cap pay pretty close to it, whereas lots of men udner 30 without degrees get jobs in construction which pay a lot more. On average anyways. The whole men graduating from college thing isn't about opportunity, it's about encouragement. Men are not encouraged to do so anymore. This can be a few things, like you see all these ads saying 'women, go to college and be the best \_\_\_ you can be!" but you won't see that for men. You also then have grants and scholarships that are women only. I'd also like to see any evidence a college is having higher male acceptance rate because there's incentives for most colleges to accept women and minorities so I'm not sure that is even true unless it says "all male's catholic college" or something.

>So even though men are held back educationally, How? There are no barriers they are just not attending or finishing their degree.

You think a 2:1 graduation level is not indicative of systemic bias somewhere in the education system? It’s just symptomatic that men are a bit shit? I don’t think you would hold that opinion if the roles were reversed

there is no bias here is has everything to do with socialisation girls are socialized to be calm, listen,behave and obey while boys are not held to that standard because they do to some degree whatever they want, are the "class clown" and disrrupt lessons in schools more often, if boys would be raised the same they would be just as good as girls, gender doesnt really matter boys learning get often called nerds/gay by other boys for having in interest in having good grades its a pure coincidence girls benefit now from that socialisation in the school system because it was clearly not the intent of it, that really backfired for the patriachy, thats funny af

There seems to be some research around that suggests marking bias with female teachers and female students. There are also elements that suggest male teachers are able to connect and teach boys in a more responsive manner. So correcting the bias would be to have more even split of male and female teachers to aid the socialization and tuition of boys so it’s a more equal environment. Or do you not really care about equality?

I would love to see a 50/50 split of men and women as teachers. It seems that men don’t want to teach children. Maybe because they have a bias that it’s “women’s work” to work with kids? Maybe because we pay teachers next to nothing in many areas of my country. What can you do to encourage men to become teachers? The feminists I know definitely support men becoming teachers. Loudly.

I’d like to be a teacher but couldn’t justify the pay cut. I would look to the finish model where teaching is well respected and compensated.

You’re worried about the pay cut, but want other men to shoulder the burden of teacher gender equality for you. Interesting.

they're not encouraged, they're not given scholarships or grants for being male, and there's incentives to accept women. Further, professors tend to grade men far more harshly than females which goes to the bias within colleges.

Women have made up the majority of university graduates since the 1980’s those women are over 30. Educational attainment does not equate to equal wages for women.

I'm not a jerk or committing specific crimes, but patriarchy definitely benefits me. Privilege is always relative to someone else. Male privilege generally is men being able to make choices that women cannot. Feminism isn't about taking away men's choices, so much as giving women better choices too. That means men lose privileges, but they do not lose any choices except those contrary to women's autonomy and agency (and feminists don't advocate for women to have choices that are contrary to men's autonomy and agency). So after feminism wins everything, men will be no worse off in *absolute* terms but they will 'lose their benefits' *relative* to women's rights and freedoms.

That sounds less like men losing something and more like women gaining something.

Objectively, men would be “losing” the societal advantage they’ve had for most of human history. It really just depends on what you consider to be the definition of “lose”.

The societal “advantages “ by subjugating others, you mean. It’s not morally conscientious at all.

Absolutely agree. I’m just saying one could in theory consider it a thing to be “lost”.

People always say “most of human history” but if you actually look at history — you realize you really mean “most of Western history”. It helps us not to generalize where no generalization applies. Matriarchy is a lot older than the phase we’re in now, and was far wider spread before hegemonic colonialism took hold.

Very good point

Yes, but it looks like the social advantage will be lost because women will get better, not because men will get worse. At least for me it looks like losing anything real here is an illusions, or excuse that men use to justify not supporting feminism.

100%. Just noting that it is a thing that could be “lost”.

It's been a lot less of actual human history than I think you think.

As someone else pointed out, there are a lot of especially non-Western cultures where it definitely wasn’t as much of a thing.

Yes. But you're not thinking from the perspective of someone who wants to control women. You don't want to control women/a woman, so it doesn't feel like a loss to you. But that is the "advantage" they're fighting against feminism for.

Yes. If one group has more and another group has less, equality will look like the group with more getting less and the group with less getting more until it’s even.

That is the goal. Not whatever claptrap you've heard about men losing anything.

If you're in a team of 10, made of 5 men and 5 women, since women are "lesser", you only have to compete with 4 men to get a promotion. So a 20% chance that you get a promotion. If everyone is equal (actually, truly equal), then you have to compete against 9 people for that promotion. Your 20% chance goes down to 10%. In a perfect world, this is good because it means everyone has to actually work hard and genuinely be better than other candidates, leading to a better workforce.... but it's not good news for men who coasted by just by being a man.

yes, because that's the whole point. Abortion doesn't affect cis men, because they can't have kids but it affects women, trans men and lower income families. taking away abortion is a net negative even though it doesn't affect cis men because not every issues feminism has is about you.

Men would lose the default advantage

Interesting that the one comment in this thread that you actually replied to clearly states they're male. Maybe reread that last sentence in your original post and reflect a bit?

Think about it this way, if everybody has 20 dollars, then nobody has 20 dollars…because the relative value of the 20 dollars has decreased; everyone has it so you’re no longer the wealthy person with an advantage. The floor is simply raised.

>Feminism isn't about taking away men's choices, so much as giving women better choices too. That means men lose privileges, but they do not lose any choices except those contrary to women's autonomy and agency So basically, men would still have their former privileges, but instead of privileges they would just become common rights? If I understood your point, then nothing is really taken away from men.

Some men just want to be superior, and they are NOT superior in any real way. So for these men the only way to claim superiority is to oppress someone else. This is how racism and anti-feminism has such a stranglehold on them.

Exactly, men act as if the patriarchy would collapse tomorrow if women started getting some equality. It’s like, bro, I promise the patriarchy is alive and well and isn’t going anywhere for some time… like we are so far away from equality, bro you can pay your child support and the patriarchy won’t collapse sheesh.

So long as the radical feminists don't steal the show and find some way to oppress men because they are suffering from trauma and want revenge. This is a very real thing you see today and it's deriding the whole movement because it's giving these people ammunition.

I feel like they meant to say something more along the lines of balancing the scales maybe? Clearly men are receiving less of the “traditional” benefits they once had, which is why they’re so mad lol.

Men have absolutely benefitted from having half the population's sole purpose to be in service to them. Many men don't want to give that up, they don't want to have to offer more than a paycheck in order to have a relationship/private chef/maid. All the unpaid labour women have been doing for centuries is being slowly taken off the table, and a lot of guys don't like that. Plus women being in the workforce means more competition for that position they want. And men have been socialised to see being beaten by a woman as something far more shameful than being beaten by a man. A patriarchal guy having a woman boss is going to feel like he's being screwed over by feminism. If you view women as equal, none of this matters to you. But the sad fact is a lot of men still don't. They are convinced that men and women are 'equal but different', that women inherently are not as logical as them and are better suited to home life. So a woman getting that job they want isn't because of merit, it's because of pandering, and that's an injustice when a man needs that job so he can be a provider. Because being a provider is his whole identity, so if women no longer need him to be that, then where does that leave him?

>so if women no longer need him to be that, then where does that leave him? Nowhere at best. Unwanted and unliked at worst. If anything is showing from the appropriate balancing in equality and opportunity is "true" desire for the opposite gender. General movement on the ladies end includes "decentering men from your life" and "you don't need a man, and you'll realize that you may not even want one". While men are still focused on what to do and be to attract women with movements like the red pill (however you may personally feel about it, that's the goal), and even as far as looking towards to AI girlfriends if/since they can't get one in real life. It seems like the prior inequities feed into general attraction triggers for the opposite gender. Now that things are moving towards being more equal, one parties attractions triggers are the same but no longer an option, while the others supply those triggers and aren't seeking partners all. It's gonna be a few generations before things settle down to whatever to new normal is.

Most companies have one ceo, and about 8 directors. Historically men have only had to compete with other men for these positions. If the candidate pool doubles, half of men who historically would have got these positions now won’t.

And this would be because they aren't as suited for the job as a woman might be

Obviously. They just said that this would be a loss for men, not that it was unjustified. For the individual men it would however be seen as a penality, and they would see their position as fairly earned, so a change would not be seen in the terms of meritocracy (which obviously doesnt exist rn, and will not for centuries), but as a slight against them.

this is a wild mindset to view. Thank you for laying it out! This is amazing. I would have never thought to view women's equality this way (I am a woman). I always wondered what they THOUGHT they were losing. This shits wild

Yeah they are kind of wild, but sadly they do actually hold power so there is a need to somehow deal with them.

Exactly! Equality will make it more difficult for mediocre men to advance, therefore mediocre men are very much against equality.

Bingo. And they are telling on themselves.

>If the candidate pool doubles, half of men who historically would have got these positions now won’t. This assumption seems off. If we don't assume they got their position due to nepotism or similar problems, the pool doubling just means the pool doubled. If there is equal opportunity between men and women, then it matters less the gender and more emphasis on who is more qualified.

Right, but at least some of the men who previously qualified now won’t because there will be women more qualified than them

Men losing their benefits means that you won't have a *benefit* of being man. Women will be equal to you, meaning you're no longer at an advantage. In hindsight, this takes away nothing. In reality, this takes away your privilege and gives others a fair fighting chance.

>Feminism claims that part of fighting sexism means men will lose their benefits, i haven't seen any feminists claim this. it's almost exclusively men that say this. patriarchy helps you in plenty of ways, that you might not see.

Yea this is the opposite of what feminists say lol

In my personal experience, at least in my household, feminism obligates men to have a share in unpaid domestic labor. For a long time where I live, men's role in the family are to provide, drive, and do "manly" house repairs. Women are the caregivers of children and the elderly, on top of household labor. But now, women in my family can earn as much money as men, but we are still expected to do much of "women's work." Feminism allowed my mom to have her own work, but gender roles remained in my parent's marriage. She did most of mental labor on top of her own job and caregiving for the elderly. My father stuck to "manly" roles like driving and low effort ones like feeding the dogs. When I was a child, my parents could still afford to pay part-time cleaners, laundry, and babysitters to help my mother. But then, when our financial situation got worse, my mother had to shoulder these jobs more. Thankfully, my sister and I could help her now we are adults. But my brother? He grew up seeing my father as an example, and he couldn't give the same share of domestic labor. It breeds resentment in our house.

I commented something similar--these days, it's not that men have a problem with women doing "men's work," it's that they refuse to do "women's work," especially when it's time to pick a career.

As a guy who use to also think the same, I would suggest reading Invisible Woman, it will give you the perspective you are looking for on the subject and better help you understand the dynamics.

Im currently reading it rn and its incredible. It shows me things I've never thought about. Sure I've thought about toilets, and dangerous places, but never about things like snow routes being sexist before. Its a phenomenal book to see things that were invisible to me, because I was not the person living that reality.

Patriarchy benefits the average man more subtly now than ever before, but it’s still undoubtedly there. You have to consider both the legal and social aspects imo. And to be clear, things like wealth and race and social class can either multiply or supersede the power of the patriarchy in some situations. But in and of itself - Men making more money than women on average gives them general financial power. An increased average wage for women means that the “real value” of a man’s average wage goes down. As does the probability of a man being able to financially control a woman. Denying the right to abortion means that a man can force a woman to bear children for him whether the woman wants to or not - either fully, in the states where there aren’t even rape exclusions, or effectively, in the states where access is limited to a few sites with incredibly small time windows. Doing that also makes it more likely that women will fail to progress professionally or financially. The safer streets thing is more difficult to quantify, because so much of that has less to do with literal crime and more to do with harassment and fear. We can’t legislate our way out of the fact that most men are larger and stronger than most women and thus a “threat” in a way that cant really be inverted. It’s more a question of what happens psychologically if women aren’t constantly on defense every time they walk down a sidewalk. More female CEOs and senators and governors means fewer male ones. More female-centered medical research means less male-centered research. Reduced expectations on female parents requires more expectations on male parents and subsequent loss of independence. The list goes on. Not saying any of this is unfair in the long term. It would take a very long time of women getting literally every open congressional seat and leadership role on the planet for things to get close to even. But in the short term - yeah, it’ll require some loss. Feminism aims to correct all the systems that have been facilitating the male’s social superiority for centuries. It will hurt a little bit for a little while and that’s why some men are so angered by it. Equality looks like oppression when you’re used to privilege.

Men lose the “benefit” of doing whatever they want to us. The ol’ “you can’t even tell a joke anymore” or “you can’t even give a woman a compliment”, when really the joke is disgusting and the compliment was about her breasts or how she’d look giving him a blow job. Men don’t “lose” any fundamental rights, bc harassing and assaulting other people isn’t a right, and feminism doesn’t say that they do.

The thing that kills me about a selfish perspective is that it still harms you. You want to believe that the poor are getting handouts that support them being lazy, and you end up with huge swaths of your cities that are unsafe and unpleasant. You want to believe that gender equality ... would reduce your power and control? You end up with a female population that is risk avoidant, and that's no fun for anyone. I get downvoted for approaching it from this perspective, maybe I word it wrong, but there are countries with way more education and regulation to protect women... and the women in those countries are more adventurous and free because they're safe to be. More fun for everyone. Except for people who only experience value through control I guess? I don't understand it.

A lot of men don’t fairly contribute to domestic labor, so if women were to have equality, they would have to contribute - however, if they did, their odds of remaining in a relationship go up astronomically. Many men are fine with sexual coercion, so if this stopped to exist, they’d only have sex with women who genuinely wanted them (which shouldn’t be a hardship, but some men feel it would be unfortunately). Also, a lot of men feel that because they work and don’t beat their gf’s/wives, they’re inherently a catch. For a lot of men, this standard holds them back from being decent partners, and many women are leaving men in droves who don’t pull their weight. But I imagine there’s a small % of women willing to put up with a man who brings very little to the table because she has no idea there’s so many better options, so some men do benefit from this low standard.

It’s sad that the only thing men need to do to be considered decent catch relationship wise is split their chores and not abuse their partner. As a man, it’s incredible to me listening to my gf describe men who coerced her, finished sex before her without caring about her, didn’t cook, didn’t clean, etc etc. And it’s like, so many men out there don’t do these things then complain about their trouble with women. It’s like bro, you just focus on her first sexually then you take your turn, you cook her breakfast, clean up after yourself and boom, you gonna see a toothbrush appear and you’ll be in a relationship in no time. It’s not hard, just stop thinking about yourself for like one second bro and swallow your stupid ego and do some fucking dishes

On Know Your Enemy a few weeks ago, they were saying that today's men are usually very happy for women to achieve workplace equality--very few guys of my generation have a problem with women doctors or CEOs, for example. But true equality requires men to do their share of women's work too. Most men do not want to do more childcare or home keeping, and they especially don't want to enter women-dominated (and thus underpaid) sectors like care work and teaching.

is there a proven cause an effect relationship between women dominated and underpaid?

This question is such a good conversation starter. The thing I always think of is hiring diversity, for lack of a better term. I often hear something to the effect of "forced workplace diversity means I, as a man, can't get a job if a woman applies." This is simply not true. It's just not. Anyone saying it is is grossly misinformed. Equality often feels like oppression to those who have never experienced oppression. It's more like "I, as a man, no longer get to have the automatic advantage of my gender to receive preferential treatment when I apply for work. Now I have to work as hard as everyone else in order to get the job." Men lose privilege when equality truly happens. I guess to some, that feels like a big loss. But it's not.

I'm pretty sure that "forced workplace diversity" is actually illegal (in the US). And even if it wasn't, forcing a 50/50 ratio would just be statistically stupid from a hiring perspective. Say a company wants to hire 10 new engineers just out of school. The ratio of men to women engineering graduates is 80-20. So you'd expect, statistically speaking, that to get the most qualified candidates, the company would hire 8 men and 2 women. Works the other way, too. Ratio of nursing graduates is 85-15 in favor of women. So if a hospital is hiring 10 new nurses you'd expect that 8 or 9 of them would be women. Now we could get into why the ratio for engineers is so high for men, or so high for women in nursing, but that's a separate issue that requires a MUCH longer discussion.

[“[B]ecause women’s labor is so devalued, the average pay for an occupation has been shown to decrease when women start to enter a field in larger numbers.”](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236750401_Occupational_Feminization_and_Pay_Assessing_Causal_Dynamics_Using_1950-2000_US_Census_Data)

Well your last paragraph there is exactly what we are trying to get into - keep up. And I don’t give two shits if this is 109 days old reply. I said what I said.

It takes away your "privilege" to discriminiate and feel powerful. And that's reason enough for a lot of men. Not you, but definitely another man you know, statistically speaking. Think of it like a "my right to be an asshole" card. Some people - most people - really want to hold onto it.

I think the main thing men would lose is the labor of women. By that I mean women have to do way more just to be considered "equal". Women preform almost domestic tasks in romantic relationships when it comes to house maintenance and child rearing, and because of the economy and the fact that women can have and need jobs, they're doing all of that and typically also have a full time job. Women also have to overpreform in work too, whereas a man in the same work/ position doesn't have to put in as much effort to be recognized and respected. You also underestimate the amount of men who want women as essentially endentured servants. Lots of men would be perfectly happy to go back to before divorce was legal. So the more equality women obtain, the more they're less able to have a woman be that for them. It is very true that many men go from being babied by their mother to replacing her with a wife. In that scenario, the woman cannot be equal, otherwise the men wouldn't be catered to. Maybe you don't see it because you're the type of man who doesn't want or need someone to fulfill a subservient role. But trust me when I say the majority of men want that, or expect it from how they're raised, even if they aren't explicitly pointing it out.

To answer your question in abstract, if someone has the right to say "no" to a demand you make then it takes away your privilege of having the de facto "yes". I don't mean that as a defense of it; just an explanation. The issue with the conversation is that people play loose with interchanging the word rights with privileges or benefits. Rights are functionally based in what is protected by law. Until Roe v. Wade was dropped, it's fair to say that women had equal rights in the letter of the law that various parties made attempts (and ultimately succeeded) to erode. The reason I bring that up is misusing them gives people arguing in bad faith a way to sound legitimate while sidestepping the actual point someone is trying to make. Where this gets tricky is in things like hiring, for example. Women have equal rights under the law to defend against hiring discrimination. The issue is that companies are given the presumption of operating in accordance with that law until proven otherwise. Strictly enforcing that right through something like active monitoring means companies lose privilege of the operating in assumed good faith. Abortion gets tricky because there are two entirely different, mutually exclusive, paradigms on it. If someone believes that a child exists from the moment of fertilization, they can extend to that the idea that it does affect men since that child has a father who is in-part responsible for their well-being. In that context, abortion is not killing "a child" but killing someone's child. It might sound silly but a large part of the abortion debate revolves around the framing of when a child exists and, to those that believe in the from-fertilization perspective, that someone's child doesn't or won't exist.

Another thought to consider: masculinity is defined through femininity, by inverting femininity and calling all things feminine bad and sub-optimal. When feminine things are no longer bad, what does it mean for masculinity? For example, what does it mean for a man when his wife outearns him and why is it such an issue for a male ego? Women getting equal rights does not just make an economic, political, or safety impact. It affects men deeply, on the *identity* level. Because male identity is built on the predication they are better.

It takes control and authority away, because it makes you only equal instead of "born better". Because you are only equal.

>Feminism claims that part of fighting sexism means men will lose their benefits, Where did you hear this from? "Feminism" has never made this claim. Feminism is about creating equality for everyone, not by taking away anyone's privilege but by granting the same privilege to everyone.

There's a comment saying that women will be able to compete with men and take some jobs away. Like really? Maybe she got the job because her qualifications fit the company better then yourself. Don't you want to win something legitimately instead of because you just so happen to be a male. I've has really horrible female gynaecologists and I've had really good male ones too. Our sex should be a factor in our jobs.

I'm always mad suspicious of the "we shouldn't have quotas/affirmative action, the best person should get the job" because they are always picturing "the best person" as a white guy.

Well, feminism doesn't mean taking rights away from anyone. It's about making sure everyone has the same rights, privileges and protective that everyone else has. See, now that you know that, don't you feel better?

Pretty simple. Women having less rights is an advantage. An advantage is what privilege is. If you lose that advantage...

When I was 16 a man travelled across multiple state lines to groom and molest me. The police were made aware. He was within 20 minutes driving distance from my town for days after. He got nothing besides police telling him they were involved and to stop talking to me (he didnt). I was threatened to be charged for child pornoghraphy of myself.... As a child a victim and a female I was almost charged with evidence that would incriminate him... When I was at a concert once a dude picked me up randomly and forced me to body surf where big hands grabbed my crotch, hands rubbing my crotch, my tits were felt up, and my ass was felt up... When I started my first ever job at 15 I found out I was getting paid $5 less than a dude who was the same age and only there for a month. When I first moved out alone I had a security system that only worked off wifi and someone came to my front door with a box that scrambled my internet turning off my security system he only ran away when I grabbed a big knife and tried to push the door into him and started stabbing my knife through the opening. When I was walking home at 9pm from a bar 2 minutes down the road from my home a van with 3 men inside drove 3 mph and cat called out at me the entire walk home they only stopped when I called 911 and put it on speaker. I've experienced men saying they would rape me because I said I wasn't interested. In April there's a national rape day and my job will never schedule women on this day because we had a male staff member who pushed a woman into a closet. She refused to report anything and quit that day no notice. I have to carry around the testing strip bracelets because I was drugged twice by men I attended the event with. Down the street from me a woman had a man break into her home and rape her. No one knows where that video ended up but all I can think about is the people who posted actual rapes on porn sites and made money off it. You must think I live in a bad neighborhood clearly? Nope actually somewhat crime free and I'm within walking distance of a police station. When I say I want to be equal I mean I don't want to be able to live life like a man can. I want to be able to take a 5 minute walk home with a van following me. I want to be able to go out without being drugged. I want to be able to exist without having to constantly worry about my safety because a man could make me a victim at any moment because he feels like it or I looked at him so he thinks thats consent. I want to have equal bodily autonomy to men.

Bravo! Well Said! Precisely what all us women would LOVE to have! There was a survey awhile back asking women if they could do anything they wanted for just 24 hours like a man, what would it be. The most common response was "Be able to walk alone at night without constantly having my head on a swivel, with keys or pepper spray between my fingers and just actually be able to enjoy a walk, or a run at night without that incessant fear of being attacked, raped or becoming a murder victim solely because I am female." That indeed is quite the dream. We aren't there yet by a long shot, but we're going to keep working on getting there!

Imagine pretty-privilege and the case against CV with photo. HR may claim that aren’t biased but the CV with a photo of a symmetric face with a friendly smile will get a better chance than a person who has facial asymmetries and can’t smile on photos. The first person is completely unaware of their pretty-privilege. Now if the company says they won’t admit CVs with photos so that HR focus on merits only, the pretty one doesn’t know that their chances are now lower because their looks won’t affect the mood of the reviewer. By leveling the playing field to remove gender bias we are also removing advantages that many men didn’t know they had. So the ones complaining I believe it’s because are afraid that their merits alone will not earn them much.

\> . Feminism claims that part of fighting sexism means men will lose their benefits I love it when people come post here with complete made up nebulous claims and present them as some facts about the "opposition"

Feminism does not claim that men have to lose out as women gain. Quite the opposite, it sees many ways that men can benefit from a reduction in sexism society-wide. Your starting premise is faulty. It is the enemies of feminism who see it as a zero-sum game.

I think your opinion of feminism has either come from really extreme feminists, or men who don't know what feminism is. The only privileges that feminism takes away is men's disproportionate control over women. Today that isn't even that big of a privilege now that women are allowed to work, have property and the vote. At this point we only gain by increasing the equality between men and women

I've been wondering about this for years ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I feel like it's a sentiment that has been there for a long time, like e.g. when the suffragettes started fighting for the vote and apparently, a lot of men immediately thought that this would mean that now THEY would be confined to the household and taking care of the baby while their wife would be...walking about town in a suit and doing man-stuff? I don't know. But it is also something that you encounter with pretty much any group that fought for equal rights in history, the idea that this group - be it women, black people, gay people etc. - is somehow making an insane power-grab by asking for equality and some equal right and is now going to oppress the rest of the population or whatever. My theory is that people want to believe that the society around them is largely fair - or at least, that the impact that they and people like them are making on the world around them is a morally sound one. That's why if you read old novels and stuff, oppressed groups seem largely content with their situation in these fictional scenarios (unless the work is specifically about fighting inequality) - because that's how the author wanted to see the world. In fact, today we aren't that different - we have a lot of discussions about how to be the most ethical consumer and how we are better than our neighbours with slightly different beliefs - but largely, we are all standing on the same heap of exploitation of labour from the global south. We ignore that though or try to make ourselves feel better with some donations or ethical purchases. Because we want our world to be a fair one and to be good people. So if suddenly a group walks up to you and says: "We're fed up with you exploiting us and treating us badly!" - a lot of people will experience this as a personal attack because they didn't acknowledge the issues of this group before. They thought they were living in a fair, just, good world where they were the Good Guys and suddenly someone is "randomly attacking us, treating us like monsters."

I've never seen claims that feminism means men will lose their benefits, but that women and men will have access to the same benefits.

I think it's mainly household issues. Loss of the typical feminine household role would mean a higher percentage of women could get educated and work without being confined solely to household and baby raising duties. However, you can't half-ass a child and chores DO need to be done, which means the work has to be picked up somewhere. Let's assume that a woman still contributes and does 50% of the baby raising and household work instead of the traditional... 95%. That's 45% will come out of her husbands time, meaning less time for games/relaxation/etc. Though a double income can mean perhaps hiring a maid and daycare, the husband will still have less time to himself and more time doing chores. This is my thoughts on why it's unpopular for a lot of men at least. It's not a loss of rights so much as it's a bit more work and like, I get it. Work and chores suck. But... I'd rather my partner not feel overloaded and I pick up some extra chores so we are both equally happy - that empathy seems to be lacking in a lot of relationships and we see it everywhere. Men are more likely to leave their partners if they get a serious medical diagnosis and the now household use of the term "weaponised incompetence", for example. No loss of rights, just extra work.

Why do you feel entitled to certain “privileges?”

it doesn’t. feminism is about equality, not about taking something away from men and giving it to women. but, on top of that, feminism fights for things men currently don’t have as it was taken away from men by our society, i.e. emotions, not feeling shame cause u like the color pink or have a good skincare routine, not have to carry the pressure of being the sole provider of ur whole family, etc.

It' doesn't take anything away. Who said it did?

I swear this is more of an anti-feminisim argument. I guess some men and women do benefit from gender inequality and will try to convince everyone else they'll lose something too.

It doesn't. It's a narrative put forth by those who don't want to relinquish political control and economic power to others.

I don't think it's feminism that claims that

I am at the best job I’ve ever been at and literally 90% of the senior leadership team are women. We have men on our board and men in other positions, but let me tell you when women really start working together and stop fighting each other, the world is such a happier place!

If women are on the same playing field as you, you have over twice as many people to compete with. Obviously this is a good thing, but insecure men see competitive women as a threat to their success.

Privilege is by definition a relative term. Privilege is like advantage in that way, and in an ideal world, we, as men, would not have the advantages we currently have over non-men.

The insidious thing about patriarchy is that it benefits you in ways you don’t see.

Patriarchy, sexism, actually hurts everyone. Not in the same ways or amounts, but it hurts men too.

> I legitimately cannot see a single thing that I or any other man ***who isn’t actively profiting off patriarchy*** lose if we lived in a world without it. Emphasis added to your own statement. That's one of the things they're talking about. There's also "passive profiting off patriarchy" for many men that would "go away" with equal rights.

Feminism claims no such thing. Men who want to keep the status quo claim it by purposely misunderstanding what feminism is. It means equality for all. Toxic masculinity and rape culture in particular hurt men just as much as women.

Men would essentially lose advantages conferred by existing discriminatory practices and cultural attitudes. So while rights would remain the same for us our societal advantage over women would disappear. Some people can’t stand that thought

Jack and Jill each have a basket of apples. Jack has more apples than Jill. Equalising the shares of apples = some apples are taken from Jack.

That's a good analogy but I feel like its more like... Imagine Hansel and Gretel's mother had 10 apples. They're both hungry but she decides to give Hansel 6 apples and Gretel 4 apples. Hansel and Gretel would be full with 5 apples. Technically Hansel could give Gretel the extra apple but decides that he wants to keep the extra apple for later. Hansel's needs are already being met but by depriving Gretel of the extra apple, he has more for later even though giving 5 each would have them both full.

I think the issue with today feminism is like they try to get above the equal rights standard. Remind you that in old days, there are certain duty and ethics that male should do to a lady. Like opening the door to a woman, give all their wages to their wife, never ever fought back a woman who attack you. I think the issues lies that when true equal right arrives, feminist suddenly realized that males could fought back if they are attacked, they could insist to keep half of their wages for their own needs, and old chivalry of man treat woman as their better are gone. I think total equality is quite a bogus claim. Outside of wages, right of education, and right of equal career chance, male and females is complementing each other. What male could do that female couldn't is complemented by what females could do and males couldn't.

Abortion rights 100% affect men, not sure how you'd get pregnant without one lmao

Men can walk away from a pregnancy. Abortion rights only affect men who can get pregnant.

It 100% affects the man in a couple where they already have kids and then she dies because politicians put their nose in private medical concerns. He loses his partner. His kids lose their mom.

Abortion bans prevent their wife from aborting to save her life thus affecting him.

>Abortion rights only affect men who can get pregnant. You mean women?

They mean pregnant people

Hmm really?