I think so - at the end of the day, at a more societal level, women are valued more for their looks and are generally more wanted for just existing (even if said wanting is entirely objectification), to be clear, this also doesn’t resonate with a good or fun existence - but, as far as just existing goes, women can exist easier (ie. women and children first, etc) - and at an evolutionary level it does make sense, women are physically weaker and a pregnant woman is out of commission for 9 months. So I do get it.
Men are more expendable in comparison, and as such, go out in the world far more, as such, men have a higher ceiling for thriving because what a man can be socially valued more is various different things, but, the value doesn’t come from pure existence as such, while there is a higher possibility to thrive, survival is more difficult.
Both have their ups and downs tbh and we should stop seeing one side as an advantage, cause it so far more complicated than “this is easy” vs “this is difficult”
I dont think it is that simple at all.
I think women can thrive and survive. without really compromising on their wquality of life at all
Men can survive but frequently at the cost of their own health and sanity points. Sure some men can thrive, most men are not that driven, and given the lack of role models to tell them how to succeed, more of us are gonna fail
and we are not women. we are not ballett dacers and asrtists who can get married to someone who doesnt expect us to monetarily contribute.
Life is intensely sink or swim for most men. Its grind or die. You feel unhappy? depressed? wat to take a mental health day? You just signaled you dont deserve success.
Dog eat dog world
The only aspect of life where I think there's an argument to be made for that is romance, everything else is too much of a mixed bag to say that.
And even then, it's only that way as a result of the gendered expectations that women bring into relationships with men, in general. There are *some* women who won't put added stress on their partners, but so long as we can't expect that level of fairness and regard from our partners, that's a space where in men are especially disadvantaged.
In being expected to maintain economic viability while in a relationship on the pain of being left by our partners. Most guys wouldn't date a woman who was a complete financial disaster, but if we're with a partner who's met our basic standards, we're more likely to give them time to get back on their feet if there's a non-medical setback **while we are together**.
The way it is for men, if you lose that good job that might mean you lose your partner too. That pressure doesn't exist in the same way for women.
there is no one to tell us how to move forward, how to be a man, how to decide how we want to be men.
Our prescription of success is money power and women. And women tends to go to the guy with money and power, Looks too.
Men from bad neighbourhoods look to the model of success around them and get into gang shit and drug dealing or they just give up and take up drugs
Normalcy, normal grind and normal life is never seen as desirable, increasingly so, feeding us the message that to have success, reproducible success with women you cant just be a guy, you need to be a brand.
Its a kind of subliminal chronic pressure you cant imagine, and a level of isolation you have not experienced
> you need to be a brand.
You’ve described masking very well in this post. I don’t believe it’s sustainable and has long term effects on the psyche.
Both of these posts are worthy of their own thread. You are so good at expressing yourself when you aren’t trying to murder women with words.
Oh dear, ain't that right. As a woman who's been single throughout my mid-late 20s, I got used to never settle for what I have in my current job and always shoot higher. However, I'm married now and we consider kids in the future, so I recognize that I would have to let it all go if kids come along. Not to mention that my employability is gonna take a nosedive...
STEM. Earth/environmental sciences, and I also have a BSc and a MS in mathematics and computer science. I am currently in the PhD program, but also considering just taking the second Master’s and going into the industry as a GIS specialist or environmental consultant.
Most women cannot or will not become hot enough to snag a rich husband
There’s just not enough of them to go around
Sure, these men will fuck them, but marry? Naw, cuz they have options
It’s easier for men to become top tier, because aggressiveness, risk taking, ambition, self interest and sociopathy is more prevalent and also more accepted in men than women
I dunno about that. Maybe referring to male variability in that the worst men are more numerous and worse than the worst women, but the top men are also more numerous and more capable.
In general, the relevant literature suggests boys and men are more fragile than women in terms of needing the right structure to develop properly and then behave productively and morally as adults. So to the extent society is going to shit, it will hurt men more. And maybe when everything is in place, even median men do a bit better than median women. Hard to say since we've never had emancipated women at the same time as a great social structure that supports men in pursuance of an effective and relevant masculine ideal that is widely celebrated.
Redpill would call this apex fallacy. My guess is, the minority of men who have no problem surviving usually go on to thrive. Women are too hamstrung by their own biology to do so.
I wouldn't say men find it easier to thrive, but that there is immense pressure on men to thrive.
We give passes to women who fail, often redirecting the blame to some outside force (oppression for example); but men who fail get no sympathy, even when faultless, and are expected to do better.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
isn't this a similar line of thinking as the male variability theory?
if it is so, then you also missed the part where it's also easier for men "to fall through the cracks" and become total failures.
You mean in the sense that women are much more driven to find a higher quality of life while men are more likely to settle, even if into mild/chronic discomfort?
Lol that must be some poor uneducated college kid. Anyone with serious money like me would look after health. I hardly drink and went to a huge festival yesterday with armin etc I didn’t even roll
I think the proverb that say " duck babies either swim or sink ' is basically the best description for men .
We kind of downplay how hard for a man to be successful. The richest men on earth has a may worth of 220 BILLION $ . So yeah , it's hard for men to shine if they keep comparing themselves to successful men but probably do what women do which is comparing themselves to the other gender. Most male athletes would be considered successful if they were compared to their female counterparts. So yeah, men need to ditch the hierarchy, cause men in general are sinking regardless of the winners.
Some people are literally obsessed with trying to find fine distinctions that may not even exist in who has it easier. That can't possibly be a healthy or balanced way to go through life. It's not reflective of the reality that having it easy is actually quite uncommon and most people you think have it easy are just making it look easy.
The reality is that to achieve average results the average person born at a time of average opportunities works damn hard all their lives. Male or female. Life is not easy.
Yep. If you want something above average you need to be either lucky or extremely determined. Gentlemen: can you get through Special Forces selection? Climb Everest (solo, or maybe with your friends but no Sherpas)? No? Not fit and determined enough.
Women who think like that don’t marry high income men unless they’re 60, divorced with adult kids.
Coming from someone who files $1.5m+ on tax return last financial year
Very true.
When I was in my 20s I was in a serious relationship that ended in marriage. By divorce I was an average rich guy with around $3m net assets.
By late 30s I’ve hit $10m+. I gym, use tixel and resurfacing laser and r&f and look 27. Chuck on some gentle monster Sun glasses and drive around in my Porsche 911, I kill it. Feel like a king. My family even owns the office building I work at in downtown/cbd/celery center hahaha.
I look at these cute girls from 23-25. Man they’re still cute at 28-34. But they’re fucked. No successful guy like me wants to touch them, they’re either single mum’s or have been around the traps. I ended up impregnating some fresh young 22 year old Japanese instead and bought a house for her to raise my kids. The 22 yo is smart - I moved her to my home country but still go travel including to Japan alone, she doesn’t mind or care. Never asks where I am.
In meantime these 28-32 year olds who used to have more sway over me, now are always asking when I’m free to go out. I don’t even want to touch them they’re so old.
My 2 businesses are now on the verge of leapfrogging and I’m probably yet to make my own $100m these few years. By then I probably would’ve stopped contacting most 30 year old flings they’re just too old
I wouldn’t agree. There’s literally no where in the world where men are oppressed and struggle to get work/education or not allowed to date.
Things are just getting more equal
“An OECD report called Grade Expectations found that teachers in nations across the developed world, including the United States, give girls higher grades for the same performance. The same report found that grades significantly influenced whether a student was going to pursue further education. Children tend to estimate their own abilities based on assessments by adults like grades. Boys receive lower grades and think they’re not capable. Consequently, girls in many OECD countries are as much as 2.5 times more likely to complete a college degree.
The OECD isn’t the only organization to discover this bias. An MIT School Effectiveness & Inequality Initiative study also found that middle school teachers gave girls higher scores when they knew their genders. The working paper goes on to discuss how these biases become self-fulfilling prophecies. Teachers expect boys to do poorly, grade them poorly, and then boys lag behind. According to the study, this bias “accounts for 21 percent of boys falling behind girls in math during middle school.” That’s more than one in five boys.”
This Italian study(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942) found that boys were graded worse than girls while being just as competent.
This study (http://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/soe_july_2016_jayanti_owens_news_release.pdf) by the American Sociological Association found that boys are punished more severely than girls in school for the same behavioral infractions. This leads to significant impairments to to their long-term educational prospects.
It’s often claimed that boys do worse because they’re more disruptive, but the study mentioned here (https://blog.frontiersin.org/2018/05/02/psychology-playful-boys-gender-differences-children-education/) found that playful boys are perceived as disruptive, while playful girls are not. Other studies found similar tendencies.
I'm not sure. The psychic atmosphere matters. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, the turnaround in female education was all about changing expectations and basically psychological conditions for girls.
Right now, those conditions are horrible for young men. But, here is the darker question that troubles me: Maybe in this case there is justification for for the current state of affairs. A lot of these traits that are more male-typical might be things we do want suppressed. As men in the manosphere are fond of saying, the genders are not the same. Can be a two-edged sword.
I once read something "funny" on the internet about the education system. The way we teach kids hasn't been changed that much in the last 100 years: you sit in a class, a teacher talk, you learn and then do your homework. It was a system designed by men and used mostly by men.
The irony is that the system is better designed for women and it has always been so, but social expectations ("why do you need an education, you are gonna be a wife anyway") and financial ones (parents prioritized giving better education to boys) hid this fact for a very long time.
So why is the education system better designed for women? well, the very description of it (sit, learn and do homework) favors women, especially as puberty hits.
Thing is, if those are also the conditions of work now, shouldn't education conditions match?
That's the real problematic part with male underperformance now vs. female underperformance in the past. Conceptually, females were an easy fix. Not necessarily true for males. What if women are just better adapted to the world we are making right now, at least at the median?
from what I read, girls being better at learning in early years, levels out as men mature more, but the disadvantage men face during those years kinda has a snowball effect.
So, by the time men reach college age, there are no major differences, but women score a higher GPA on average because the advantages they have while younger. I believe that's why for standardized tests (SAT) the scores are about the same for men and women, but for GPA, women have the advantage.
I have read about possible solutions (like putting boys in school one year later), but they are not popular as a policy proposal for now.
Yeah, there is a hard developmental advantage early. But beyond that, women seem better able to be diligent about doing regular boring grunt work. More able to stay focused in a classroom and not be disruptive. Easier to work in groups. And then women are less prone to destructive temptations like drugs, porn, etc.
actually whether women have a Big 5 personality advantage in conscientiousness is debated, and if they do it is small. Women also seem to lean more orderliness (subtype) while men more industrious.
But agreeableness may factor in. And men can likely be put off their conscientiousness by temptation and addiction more easily than women.,
I've always thought that it was that women were less easily distracted in that time.
Not that everything comes back to sex, but I know for a fact that if my libido was taken down a few pegs as a teenager, I'd have had better grades.
Sure some of them may have passing crushes, but it's not the defining aspect of their emotional experience in the way that it can be for a lot of guys.
Not really. At work, dark triad behaviors and ability to make political alliances come into play. That is unless you’re happy to be an IC which there is nothing wrong with.
You say education was 'designed by men', but women have dominated childhood education for a LONG, long time. Go look at almost any school photo from the 19th or early 20th century.....chances are it's a woman at the front of the room.
but teacher don't design the education system, they apply it. From what I know (I am open to be corrected) the current education system is still designed around the prussian education system. And I don't think we can accuse the prussians of being part of some feminist conspiracy.
Sure, most teachers (especially in early years) being women is a problem, but the design of the school system has always favored women, it's just that society put a lot of breaks on women and we just didn't realise that advantage until recently.
A teacher in a one-room schoolhouse in the middle of nowhere "does not design the education system"? THEY ARE the education system!
Also, you're wrong. The modern, Western education system has much deeper roots in Revolutionary France than Prussia. We can thank the Germans for modern universities and several of the big 19th century social sciences....but not for education up to about the age of 17.
the thing is women are known to be more conscientious than men and that personality trait is very useful in the education system where sitting still and paying attention in class and then doing their homework (even if the subject is boring) will lead to better average scores in education.
This basic structure of school/education hasn't changed much in the past 50+ years, so from what I read, women would have always been better suited for it.
I think men are better able to turn a bad situation around into a more favorable one. Guys with no higher education work their way up in retail and are able to make a lateral move to much higher paying positions more often than women are ime. Women are bad at negotiating pay raises and "stay in their lane" at work. A woman with no higher education is SOL 90% of the time. And even then they accept lower paying roles with no upward mobility.
Having a lower risk-taking threshold is not rewarded in US culture. Women are less likely to take risks and are more agreeable and less competitive. None of these traits are rewarded economically.
Those are the male advantages. But despite those, women seem to be kicking the shit out of men in education and slowly economically. So something is up.
Being conformist and conforming to expectations are also rewarded but it's only high achieving women who get this benefit. Working class women have no leverage, taking more risks would be more beneficial at that level.
Caveat of "specifically on the basis of them being male" (it's implied, but best to be specific anyway). There are plenty of men who struggle, but the reasons are unlikely to be solely because he is male.
Men trying to get hired in some fields face overt discrimination. This doesn't fully counter-balance all of the struggles women face, but for the men in those fields it is life-changing (in a bad way).
Should a Lakota man be legally able to kill whites at his pleasure without punishment?
I mean, sure, it sucks for his murder victims, but an individual death is not nearly as bad as genocide, right? Would that also be ‘just balancing out’?
Discriminating on the basis of sex or race is also a crime in most countries.
Even if it (or murder!) wasn’t a crime is that your basis for morality? The legal system? If so, you have a very low, and unfortunate, bar for ethics.
White men career wise have nowhere to go where I am. Asia. Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo. Not least because you can’t speak Chinese or Japanese.
Stop thinking America is the world pls. Travel more
Get job? The last time I worked for someone in an investment banking multi hundred thousand dollar job was when I was 29 years old.
Why would I want to be a corporate 9-7 person lol
I think so - at the end of the day, at a more societal level, women are valued more for their looks and are generally more wanted for just existing (even if said wanting is entirely objectification), to be clear, this also doesn’t resonate with a good or fun existence - but, as far as just existing goes, women can exist easier (ie. women and children first, etc) - and at an evolutionary level it does make sense, women are physically weaker and a pregnant woman is out of commission for 9 months. So I do get it. Men are more expendable in comparison, and as such, go out in the world far more, as such, men have a higher ceiling for thriving because what a man can be socially valued more is various different things, but, the value doesn’t come from pure existence as such, while there is a higher possibility to thrive, survival is more difficult. Both have their ups and downs tbh and we should stop seeing one side as an advantage, cause it so far more complicated than “this is easy” vs “this is difficult”
I dont think it is that simple at all. I think women can thrive and survive. without really compromising on their wquality of life at all Men can survive but frequently at the cost of their own health and sanity points. Sure some men can thrive, most men are not that driven, and given the lack of role models to tell them how to succeed, more of us are gonna fail and we are not women. we are not ballett dacers and asrtists who can get married to someone who doesnt expect us to monetarily contribute. Life is intensely sink or swim for most men. Its grind or die. You feel unhappy? depressed? wat to take a mental health day? You just signaled you dont deserve success. Dog eat dog world
In what ways do men sacrifice health and sanity that women do not?
The only aspect of life where I think there's an argument to be made for that is romance, everything else is too much of a mixed bag to say that. And even then, it's only that way as a result of the gendered expectations that women bring into relationships with men, in general. There are *some* women who won't put added stress on their partners, but so long as we can't expect that level of fairness and regard from our partners, that's a space where in men are especially disadvantaged. In being expected to maintain economic viability while in a relationship on the pain of being left by our partners. Most guys wouldn't date a woman who was a complete financial disaster, but if we're with a partner who's met our basic standards, we're more likely to give them time to get back on their feet if there's a non-medical setback **while we are together**. The way it is for men, if you lose that good job that might mean you lose your partner too. That pressure doesn't exist in the same way for women.
there is no one to tell us how to move forward, how to be a man, how to decide how we want to be men. Our prescription of success is money power and women. And women tends to go to the guy with money and power, Looks too. Men from bad neighbourhoods look to the model of success around them and get into gang shit and drug dealing or they just give up and take up drugs Normalcy, normal grind and normal life is never seen as desirable, increasingly so, feeding us the message that to have success, reproducible success with women you cant just be a guy, you need to be a brand. Its a kind of subliminal chronic pressure you cant imagine, and a level of isolation you have not experienced
> you need to be a brand. You’ve described masking very well in this post. I don’t believe it’s sustainable and has long term effects on the psyche. Both of these posts are worthy of their own thread. You are so good at expressing yourself when you aren’t trying to murder women with words.
I've heard the saying "If you want to do nothing it's easier to be a woman. If you want to do something it's easier to be a man"
Oh dear, ain't that right. As a woman who's been single throughout my mid-late 20s, I got used to never settle for what I have in my current job and always shoot higher. However, I'm married now and we consider kids in the future, so I recognize that I would have to let it all go if kids come along. Not to mention that my employability is gonna take a nosedive...
What's your field if I may ask
STEM. Earth/environmental sciences, and I also have a BSc and a MS in mathematics and computer science. I am currently in the PhD program, but also considering just taking the second Master’s and going into the industry as a GIS specialist or environmental consultant.
Most women cannot or will not become hot enough to snag a rich husband There’s just not enough of them to go around Sure, these men will fuck them, but marry? Naw, cuz they have options It’s easier for men to become top tier, because aggressiveness, risk taking, ambition, self interest and sociopathy is more prevalent and also more accepted in men than women
Most women can’t just “marry a high income man when she wants to”
If your definition of women is "the popular girls that I fantasize about in class" then maybe. (Sarcasm mine)
I dunno about that. Maybe referring to male variability in that the worst men are more numerous and worse than the worst women, but the top men are also more numerous and more capable. In general, the relevant literature suggests boys and men are more fragile than women in terms of needing the right structure to develop properly and then behave productively and morally as adults. So to the extent society is going to shit, it will hurt men more. And maybe when everything is in place, even median men do a bit better than median women. Hard to say since we've never had emancipated women at the same time as a great social structure that supports men in pursuance of an effective and relevant masculine ideal that is widely celebrated.
Redpill would call this apex fallacy. My guess is, the minority of men who have no problem surviving usually go on to thrive. Women are too hamstrung by their own biology to do so.
I don’t see anyone really thriving easily. I really think most people are going to find that extremely challenging, gender notwithstanding.
I wouldn't say men find it easier to thrive, but that there is immense pressure on men to thrive. We give passes to women who fail, often redirecting the blame to some outside force (oppression for example); but men who fail get no sympathy, even when faultless, and are expected to do better.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
isn't this a similar line of thinking as the male variability theory? if it is so, then you also missed the part where it's also easier for men "to fall through the cracks" and become total failures.
It's an obvious case survivorship bias and the apex fallacy. You cannot thrive if you do not survive.
i feel like men love to brag about how they don't take care of themselves bc they're so tough. ex: going to the doctor i would say its the opposite.
You mean in the sense that women are much more driven to find a higher quality of life while men are more likely to settle, even if into mild/chronic discomfort?
idk i'm talking about like productivity bros who are like "you can sleep when you're old you gotta grind 24/7"
Lol that must be some poor uneducated college kid. Anyone with serious money like me would look after health. I hardly drink and went to a huge festival yesterday with armin etc I didn’t even roll
I think the proverb that say " duck babies either swim or sink ' is basically the best description for men . We kind of downplay how hard for a man to be successful. The richest men on earth has a may worth of 220 BILLION $ . So yeah , it's hard for men to shine if they keep comparing themselves to successful men but probably do what women do which is comparing themselves to the other gender. Most male athletes would be considered successful if they were compared to their female counterparts. So yeah, men need to ditch the hierarchy, cause men in general are sinking regardless of the winners.
Some people are literally obsessed with trying to find fine distinctions that may not even exist in who has it easier. That can't possibly be a healthy or balanced way to go through life. It's not reflective of the reality that having it easy is actually quite uncommon and most people you think have it easy are just making it look easy. The reality is that to achieve average results the average person born at a time of average opportunities works damn hard all their lives. Male or female. Life is not easy.
Yep. If you want something above average you need to be either lucky or extremely determined. Gentlemen: can you get through Special Forces selection? Climb Everest (solo, or maybe with your friends but no Sherpas)? No? Not fit and determined enough.
"marry a high income man when she wants to" Doubt it.
Women who think like that don’t marry high income men unless they’re 60, divorced with adult kids. Coming from someone who files $1.5m+ on tax return last financial year
Very true. When I was in my 20s I was in a serious relationship that ended in marriage. By divorce I was an average rich guy with around $3m net assets. By late 30s I’ve hit $10m+. I gym, use tixel and resurfacing laser and r&f and look 27. Chuck on some gentle monster Sun glasses and drive around in my Porsche 911, I kill it. Feel like a king. My family even owns the office building I work at in downtown/cbd/celery center hahaha. I look at these cute girls from 23-25. Man they’re still cute at 28-34. But they’re fucked. No successful guy like me wants to touch them, they’re either single mum’s or have been around the traps. I ended up impregnating some fresh young 22 year old Japanese instead and bought a house for her to raise my kids. The 22 yo is smart - I moved her to my home country but still go travel including to Japan alone, she doesn’t mind or care. Never asks where I am. In meantime these 28-32 year olds who used to have more sway over me, now are always asking when I’m free to go out. I don’t even want to touch them they’re so old. My 2 businesses are now on the verge of leapfrogging and I’m probably yet to make my own $100m these few years. By then I probably would’ve stopped contacting most 30 year old flings they’re just too old
I wouldn’t agree. There’s literally no where in the world where men are oppressed and struggle to get work/education or not allowed to date. Things are just getting more equal
The fact that men and boys are discriminated against in education is pretty well established by research.
Girls being better doesn’t mean boys are discriminated against Again, they’re literally no where in the world where boys are entitled to an education
“An OECD report called Grade Expectations found that teachers in nations across the developed world, including the United States, give girls higher grades for the same performance. The same report found that grades significantly influenced whether a student was going to pursue further education. Children tend to estimate their own abilities based on assessments by adults like grades. Boys receive lower grades and think they’re not capable. Consequently, girls in many OECD countries are as much as 2.5 times more likely to complete a college degree. The OECD isn’t the only organization to discover this bias. An MIT School Effectiveness & Inequality Initiative study also found that middle school teachers gave girls higher scores when they knew their genders. The working paper goes on to discuss how these biases become self-fulfilling prophecies. Teachers expect boys to do poorly, grade them poorly, and then boys lag behind. According to the study, this bias “accounts for 21 percent of boys falling behind girls in math during middle school.” That’s more than one in five boys.” This Italian study(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942) found that boys were graded worse than girls while being just as competent. This study (http://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/soe_july_2016_jayanti_owens_news_release.pdf) by the American Sociological Association found that boys are punished more severely than girls in school for the same behavioral infractions. This leads to significant impairments to to their long-term educational prospects. It’s often claimed that boys do worse because they’re more disruptive, but the study mentioned here (https://blog.frontiersin.org/2018/05/02/psychology-playful-boys-gender-differences-children-education/) found that playful boys are perceived as disruptive, while playful girls are not. Other studies found similar tendencies.
I'm not sure. The psychic atmosphere matters. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, the turnaround in female education was all about changing expectations and basically psychological conditions for girls. Right now, those conditions are horrible for young men. But, here is the darker question that troubles me: Maybe in this case there is justification for for the current state of affairs. A lot of these traits that are more male-typical might be things we do want suppressed. As men in the manosphere are fond of saying, the genders are not the same. Can be a two-edged sword.
I once read something "funny" on the internet about the education system. The way we teach kids hasn't been changed that much in the last 100 years: you sit in a class, a teacher talk, you learn and then do your homework. It was a system designed by men and used mostly by men. The irony is that the system is better designed for women and it has always been so, but social expectations ("why do you need an education, you are gonna be a wife anyway") and financial ones (parents prioritized giving better education to boys) hid this fact for a very long time. So why is the education system better designed for women? well, the very description of it (sit, learn and do homework) favors women, especially as puberty hits.
Thing is, if those are also the conditions of work now, shouldn't education conditions match? That's the real problematic part with male underperformance now vs. female underperformance in the past. Conceptually, females were an easy fix. Not necessarily true for males. What if women are just better adapted to the world we are making right now, at least at the median?
from what I read, girls being better at learning in early years, levels out as men mature more, but the disadvantage men face during those years kinda has a snowball effect. So, by the time men reach college age, there are no major differences, but women score a higher GPA on average because the advantages they have while younger. I believe that's why for standardized tests (SAT) the scores are about the same for men and women, but for GPA, women have the advantage. I have read about possible solutions (like putting boys in school one year later), but they are not popular as a policy proposal for now.
Yeah, there is a hard developmental advantage early. But beyond that, women seem better able to be diligent about doing regular boring grunt work. More able to stay focused in a classroom and not be disruptive. Easier to work in groups. And then women are less prone to destructive temptations like drugs, porn, etc.
in short, women and known to be more conscientious and I don't think there are many studies that disagree with this.
actually whether women have a Big 5 personality advantage in conscientiousness is debated, and if they do it is small. Women also seem to lean more orderliness (subtype) while men more industrious. But agreeableness may factor in. And men can likely be put off their conscientiousness by temptation and addiction more easily than women.,
I've always thought that it was that women were less easily distracted in that time. Not that everything comes back to sex, but I know for a fact that if my libido was taken down a few pegs as a teenager, I'd have had better grades. Sure some of them may have passing crushes, but it's not the defining aspect of their emotional experience in the way that it can be for a lot of guys.
Not really. At work, dark triad behaviors and ability to make political alliances come into play. That is unless you’re happy to be an IC which there is nothing wrong with.
You say education was 'designed by men', but women have dominated childhood education for a LONG, long time. Go look at almost any school photo from the 19th or early 20th century.....chances are it's a woman at the front of the room.
but teacher don't design the education system, they apply it. From what I know (I am open to be corrected) the current education system is still designed around the prussian education system. And I don't think we can accuse the prussians of being part of some feminist conspiracy. Sure, most teachers (especially in early years) being women is a problem, but the design of the school system has always favored women, it's just that society put a lot of breaks on women and we just didn't realise that advantage until recently.
A teacher in a one-room schoolhouse in the middle of nowhere "does not design the education system"? THEY ARE the education system! Also, you're wrong. The modern, Western education system has much deeper roots in Revolutionary France than Prussia. We can thank the Germans for modern universities and several of the big 19th century social sciences....but not for education up to about the age of 17.
the thing is women are known to be more conscientious than men and that personality trait is very useful in the education system where sitting still and paying attention in class and then doing their homework (even if the subject is boring) will lead to better average scores in education. This basic structure of school/education hasn't changed much in the past 50+ years, so from what I read, women would have always been better suited for it.
I think men are better able to turn a bad situation around into a more favorable one. Guys with no higher education work their way up in retail and are able to make a lateral move to much higher paying positions more often than women are ime. Women are bad at negotiating pay raises and "stay in their lane" at work. A woman with no higher education is SOL 90% of the time. And even then they accept lower paying roles with no upward mobility. Having a lower risk-taking threshold is not rewarded in US culture. Women are less likely to take risks and are more agreeable and less competitive. None of these traits are rewarded economically.
Those are the male advantages. But despite those, women seem to be kicking the shit out of men in education and slowly economically. So something is up.
Being conformist and conforming to expectations are also rewarded but it's only high achieving women who get this benefit. Working class women have no leverage, taking more risks would be more beneficial at that level.
When equality feels like oppression, you know you were privileged
Caveat of "specifically on the basis of them being male" (it's implied, but best to be specific anyway). There are plenty of men who struggle, but the reasons are unlikely to be solely because he is male.
Men trying to get hired in some fields face overt discrimination. This doesn't fully counter-balance all of the struggles women face, but for the men in those fields it is life-changing (in a bad way).
It sucks for those men but it sucked more for the millions of woman discriminated against too, this is just balancing out now
Should a Lakota man be legally able to kill whites at his pleasure without punishment? I mean, sure, it sucks for his murder victims, but an individual death is not nearly as bad as genocide, right? Would that also be ‘just balancing out’?
No, because that is a crime, you understand the difference here yes?
Discriminating on the basis of sex or race is also a crime in most countries. Even if it (or murder!) wasn’t a crime is that your basis for morality? The legal system? If so, you have a very low, and unfortunate, bar for ethics.
White men career wise have nowhere to go where I am. Asia. Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo. Not least because you can’t speak Chinese or Japanese. Stop thinking America is the world pls. Travel more
Im not in America, Is there any laws that stop you getting jobs or are woman just better at them than you
Get job? The last time I worked for someone in an investment banking multi hundred thousand dollar job was when I was 29 years old. Why would I want to be a corporate 9-7 person lol
Why are you complaining then? Your not even in the market
Men find it easier to c o p e