7 ms·

It is actually the opposite. I assume there is no inherent reason why people from other demographics with the required skills and merit cannot be found. Other

by tmcb 1y ago

It is actually the opposite. I assume there is no inherent reason why people from other demographics with the required skills and merit cannot be found. Otherwise, there must be a reason why they can’t, and people who think that the current imbalance is perfectly good must have a pretty reasonable explanation to that. Do you have any?

klipt 1y ago
So will the government mandate that 50% of stay at home parents be men? Because as the other poster pointed out, if you push men out of the workplace and out of family life (by favoring custody for women) you just end up with a bunch of unemployed idle men, which is a recipe for revolution. And if 50/50 is the goal, where is the government push for more men in places where they're underrepresented, like university students, nurses, teachers?
- tmcb 1y ago
  > So will the government mandate that 50% of stay at home parents be men? Well, obviously not. But there is always the caveat that suggesting government providing adequate child care to working women is communism of whatever. Is it feasible to have some compromise here? > And if 50/50 is the goal, where is the government push for more men in places where they're underrepresented, like university students, nurses, teachers? This sounds like a perfectly legitimate ask if young men do really care about it. Why not contact your local representative and explain the issue in an articulate manner?
  - klipt 1y ago
    > government providing adequate child care to working women You see this is the bias on the left, that everything must be framed as "for women". If the childcare is only for "working women", will a single dad not be able to access it? Why not government providing adequate child care to working people? > Why not contact your local representative and explain the issue in an articulate manner? I do, but your have to admit there is a chilling effect in left wing spaces where openly supporting men's issues makes you very unpopular.
- tmcb 1y ago
  I can’t reply to your other comment for some reason. You got me, I did not express myself well. I should have said “working people”. I framed it as a women’s issue since you said that the solution to that would be forcing men to trade places with them. Re: the fact that bringing up men’s issues is kind of taboo to the left, it seems more of a language problem. If you frame it as a “war on men”, that will turn people off. If you say: “look, there are many bright young guys who could be on college that are otherwise deciding to look for work because the economy is not so great”… Maybe people will listen. Edit: maybe they will reply “EKSUSE MEE??? WHY NOT WOMEN???”. That is obnoxious, I get it. But do they have a point? If you think so, concede. If you do n’t think so, I would like to know more about it. That is what politics is about.
  - klipt 1y ago
    Let's look at a concrete example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3175099/#S12title https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3175099/#S12title About 40% of male domestic violence victims who seek help are accused of being the abuser. Completely coincidentally I'm sure, the federal law on domestic violence is called the "Violence Against Women Act", which furthers the bias that men can't be victims. How would you improve the situation for male victims without making people on the left hate you? The same people who say that "firemen" is sexist, will hypocritically say that the naming of the law isn't sexist.
    - tmcb 1y ago
      Well, certainly not by threatening to cut funding of humanities research grants. Otherwise they won't be able to conduct research such as this one... But I digress. The "Violence Against Women Act" is from 1994. Most statistics of that time pointed to a disproportionate amount of women being victims of domestic violence in comparison to men. I tried to find more recent statistics, but this is a very serious topic, so it deserves to be treated with more caution. Also, this is one of the reasons why I think it should not be used as a "war on men" talking point. Do we want to solve the darn problem or use it as a weapon against political opponents?

by tmcb 1y ago

klipt 1y ago

So will the government mandate that 50% of stay at home parents be men? Because as the other poster pointed out, if you push men out of the workplace and out of family life (by favoring custody for women) you just end up with a bunch of unemployed idle men, which is a recipe for revolution. And if 50/50 is the goal, where is the government push for more men in places where they're underrepresented, like university students, nurses, teachers?

tmcb 1y ago
> So will the government mandate that 50% of stay at home parents be men? Well, obviously not. But there is always the caveat that suggesting government providing adequate child care to working women is communism of whatever. Is it feasible to have some compromise here? > And if 50/50 is the goal, where is the government push for more men in places where they're underrepresented, like university students, nurses, teachers? This sounds like a perfectly legitimate ask if young men do really care about it. Why not contact your local representative and explain the issue in an articulate manner?
- klipt 1y ago
  > government providing adequate child care to working women You see this is the bias on the left, that everything must be framed as "for women". If the childcare is only for "working women", will a single dad not be able to access it? Why not government providing adequate child care to working people? > Why not contact your local representative and explain the issue in an articulate manner? I do, but your have to admit there is a chilling effect in left wing spaces where openly supporting men's issues makes you very unpopular.
tmcb 1y ago
I can’t reply to your other comment for some reason. You got me, I did not express myself well. I should have said “working people”. I framed it as a women’s issue since you said that the solution to that would be forcing men to trade places with them. Re: the fact that bringing up men’s issues is kind of taboo to the left, it seems more of a language problem. If you frame it as a “war on men”, that will turn people off. If you say: “look, there are many bright young guys who could be on college that are otherwise deciding to look for work because the economy is not so great”… Maybe people will listen. Edit: maybe they will reply “EKSUSE MEE??? WHY NOT WOMEN???”. That is obnoxious, I get it. But do they have a point? If you think so, concede. If you do n’t think so, I would like to know more about it. That is what politics is about.
- klipt 1y ago
  Let's look at a concrete example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3175099/#S12title https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3175099/#S12title About 40% of male domestic violence victims who seek help are accused of being the abuser. Completely coincidentally I'm sure, the federal law on domestic violence is called the "Violence Against Women Act", which furthers the bias that men can't be victims. How would you improve the situation for male victims without making people on the left hate you? The same people who say that "firemen" is sexist, will hypocritically say that the naming of the law isn't sexist.
  - tmcb 1y ago
    Well, certainly not by threatening to cut funding of humanities research grants. Otherwise they won't be able to conduct research such as this one... But I digress. The "Violence Against Women Act" is from 1994. Most statistics of that time pointed to a disproportionate amount of women being victims of domestic violence in comparison to men. I tried to find more recent statistics, but this is a very serious topic, so it deserves to be treated with more caution. Also, this is one of the reasons why I think it should not be used as a "war on men" talking point. Do we want to solve the darn problem or use it as a weapon against political opponents?