For every 100 girls/women | Hacker News Reader

For every 100 girls/women

aei.org

52 pointsbarry-cotter23 comments

I saw this the other day.

It is indeed cherry picking various data points (e.g., chance of being beaten by spouse is not on there, chance of being sexually assaulted, etc).

However, it does beg the questions that you aren't supposed to ask, such as:

We have a criminal justice system that disproportionately incarcerates people of color. We also have a criminal justice system that disproportionately imprisons men, by an order of magnitude. The question you aren't allowed to ask: Is that ok too?

Men are (by a significant factor) more likely to be homeless, mentally ill, die by suicide or homicide, and/or be addicted to drugs. The forbidden question to ask: When it's on the basis of race, everyone understands that's due to systematic racism... but when it's on the basis of sex, and that sex is male... then what?

I guess my larger point is I've (thank goodness) made it "over the hump". With good family support, good education and a good career - also blessed with relatively good health - I made it safely to home base. I have the financial and personal resources to have a stable relationship, afford safe housing, invest in my career, etc.. There were many cases where if I had one link in that chain missing, I would have been a statistic like that. I'm the privileged man that's fair game and fat target for feminist critiques of the patriarchy.

But I think (since most of us are men) we know men who did not make it over that hump - who due to lack of education/money/work cannot attract a partner, struggle with a cocktail of mental illness and/or drug abuse, and generally have no future... and who have no public narrative of a class of people in need of support and investment. And this is to the ruin of us all.

> When it's on the basis of race, everyone understands that's due to systematic racism...

Only modern leftists "understand" this. Others recognize that attributing all unfavorable statistics to generic yeah-but-they're-oppressed-ism is quite a leap.

I see this as more of a response to the modern feminist movement, specifically the celebrities. If you were to believe some of their Twitter feeds you would have to beg your {mother,sister,wife,daughter,niece} to never leave the house for fear of rape or assault. The AEI is (libertarian) right leaning and have published similar things in the past.

What I do find surprising is that this particular post got traction whereas the one yesterday (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21938201) did not.

All the statistics listed in the article show things that favor women.

Other statistics show things that favor men. For every 100 women... There are this many men...

Fortune 500 CEOs - 1,900 (There are only 25 women, vs. 475 men)

Billionaires in the world - 854

Millionaires in the world - 900

Income over $100K in US - 240

Income over $250K in US - 290

Leader of a nation - 873 (There are only 15 women vs 131 men)

The stats you are quoting are only shoring up (half) the base of the article's argument. Aggressive, type-A men are more likely to large, daring risks whether that's committing crime or starting ground-breaking companies.

You make a good point.

But I don't think you have to be an aggressive type-A man to make $100K in the US.

At any income level in the US, there are more men than women making that income. Most likely the same is true across the world.

> chance of being beaten by spouse is not on there, chance of being sexually assaulted

It is quite sad that those are not in there since the answer usually surprise people. The chance (risk?) of a woman being physically abused by a spouse is identical to a man. In study after study, both men and women report similar rate of physical abuse from partners. Domestic violence rate is also independent or household occupants, meaning that it doesn't matter if its woman-woman, man-man or man-woman. Were there is a difference is in rate of domestic abuse that ends up in hospital or have a fatal outcome.

Chance of being sexually assaulted is also interesting when shown next to the chance of being assaulted. For some reason those numbers tend to be almost a mirror match.

> The important thing to understand a lot of problems girls and women face are because they are victims of the abuse of mainly males. That is why they need help and resources. It seems from these statistics that men aren’t only hurting women, they are hurting themselves. There are already medical resources in place to help boys and men with diseases and suicide. More resources are needed for homeless men and to rehabilitate criminals.

> And it may seem like favoritism, however, I truly believe women need safe spaces and environments to learn and grow away from men. Boys and Men are being truly disrespectful towards women in male dominated spaces.

Saw this in the comments section and I thought it was an interesting take. She says "I truly believe women need safe spaces and environments to learn and grow away from men."

The paradox is MEN need that also, because it turns out you are way more likely to get bullied from other men if you are a man. Women tend to have higher anxiety levels so they feel it more, but objectively it is way worse for men.

As a small nerd in middle and high school I was physically attacked many times on campus. I received death threats and was put on lists of people to attack. I was never in an environment that was safe.

The table seems broken? It's a 404: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ForEvery100Gi...

Very thought provoking, and I agree to the idea that we have become overly partisan in nearly every aspect of our lives, even to the extent of pitting women against men in competing for needed support structures. The answer is likely a radical change of mindset as well as additional policy. By no means should we seek to regress in the opportunities that have been hard won for women, and I do not think this article is seeking to advocate for that.

Also, the comments on that page are a trip.

This reminds me: I was just in Washington, D.C. over New Year's to visit the museums. I noticed advertisements on bus shelters for https://www.fatherhood.gov telling men how to be better fathers. motherhood.gov is not registered. Are bad fathers such a bigger problem?

I think biologically, mothers have a naturally stronger bond with their offspring for the simple reason they were a physical part of them for so long. A father, likely being less emotionally involved (at least initially), might need a little bit more guidance. I don't think you have to be automatically offended...

Who said I was offended? I'm more bemused.

Many more men abandon the family than women. Just is so.

While I don't doubt that, I didn't see any of the advertisements mention abandonment. They described ways in which fathers should behave.

I do not understand the value in pitting one social group against another in these comparisons of who has it the worst. We are all humans, we all face challenges, tragedy, and unfairness in our lives. Quibbling over who has it worst does nothing to help solve anyone's problems. It comes off as childish and selfish to me.

I think this has more to do with the fact that there are (generally speaking) only two sexes. So if we talk about one lagging behind, then it is obvious that we are comparing one to the other. On the other hand, if you were to speak about underachievement of the Hmong immigrants in the US, the conversation usually gravitates towards how to help narrow the gap, etc.

If you can show there is x group that has it worse, you can usually get funding/money to help fix the problem.

It's all about framing. And while I applaud the idea of not bucketting people, it's not how the world operates. It's easier to get money to feed children than it is adults, or just, 'the hungry'.

I agree with the overall sentiment, but the idea of males and females going through life in exactly the same manner (without an implied role) is quite novel in human history. There are likely unsolved problems here. That females seem to openly suggest being educated apart from males, after extensive lobbying to the opposite effect, is an almost humorous illustration.

Seems like men are overrepresented in the areas where “boys will be boys” and/or men oughtn’t to “act like girls”. Men should probably care about addressing behavior and not worry about what to women are doing. It’s not men problems, it’s stupid problems.

It goes without saying that this is very cherry picked. At the same time, it deserves to be seen simply because celebrities/mainstream media are ignorant of, or choose not to report on these kinds of disparities.

I'm sure some/most of the stats are cherry-picked, but several of them seem somewhat comprehensive- like the stats on drug use, suicide, and all-cause mortality. Seems like men struggle far, far more than women do with these issues for at least the first half of their life.

At the same time, some of this is misleading. All the autism stats are probably going to be due to how differently autism presents in women, most notably because it seems like either women don't "get autism 'as bad'" as men (sorry for all the quotes, I know it's not very PC and that ASD is a spectrum, but this is terse and you know what I mean), or they can still appear "normal" even when they have "worse" autism.

A good exercise in cherry picking. Don't mention salaries, sexual assault, number murdered by intimate partners, etc. Only include statistics that make men look disadvantaged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com