Every species on earth shows us this: "males are disposable, females matter". A 1M:100F ratio can revive an extinct species. A 1F:100M ratio is a blood bath. There are zero incentives for powerful men to help underperforming men, while women have neither natural nor sociological pressures stopping them from helping other women.
For better or for worse, we are barreling towards a point where male underachievement won't be ignorable. More than 50% of women will have to 'settle' for a man with worse career prospects. Scarily enough, if women choose to continue acting oblivious while wielding their primary evolutionary bargaining chip (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) to their fullest, then at least a couple of generations of men will waste away before a proper equilibrium is reached.
Ofc, this is a hypothesis that leans too heavily into our animalistic tendencies and their stranglehold over all societal developments. I also don't want this to come off as an MRA rant. Just a few ideas I wanted to put out there.
Doesn't pass reality check IME
the wage gap has clear reasons (mens' jobs are better paid, women get promoted less) and thus clear solutions (stop discriminating against women at hiring/promotion time, or improve women's retention thus allowing them to stick in a job for longer, improving their chances at a promotion), even if these solutions are easier said than done.
the life expectancy gap instead... what are the reasons? I suspect that in some cultures it can be because of gender-specific abuse of alcohol... but if that's the reason ( or even if otherwise if the reason is biological) I'm not sure that we have an obvious solution to the problem.
Also, I presume that language test score could be as concerning as math test scores... but the latter will help students pursue a STEM career, which is better remunerated than a career that makes use of knowledge of languages. From that point of view, to improve opportunities later in life, fixing math scores can have priority.
"Good oral and written communication skills" are a requirement of virtually all high-paying careers, including STEM.
New political currents hate ambiguity and nuance. If you're trying to motivate people to rise up against the Empire, the last thing you want to hear is people saying "Okay, but some imperial officers are actually good people, and this Saw Guerrera is a sadistic monster", even though both are true.
Eventually, once the Rebellion becomes widespread enough, people start saying "Okay, the Empire was awful and we're glad it's gone, but maybe we should cut back on the whole hunt-down-every-single-ex-stormtrooper-and-murder-them-and-their-family thing".
I hope, anyway.
I agree, which is why I'm not bitching about it. But it's also kind of sad. I have a young son, and even at 5yo he has seen enough "yay girls!" messages in books and cartoons to deduce that there's something wrong with being a boy.
It's also a good example of the societal construction of concepts like "oppression". The idea that women earning less for the same work is a huge problem, and that men doing more dangerous jobs and dying younger isn't, is a subjective choice we've made. And the problem isn't so much that it's wrong, but that we don't have to choose. We could decide that they're both problems, but we don't. And I think the reason has a lot to do with the heavily-downvoted sibling comment saying, "Well, we worry about the oppressed people, and men aren't oppressed."
Saying "the Rebellion becomes an Empire" implies that the side that fought against the bad things starts to do equally bad things once it gets into power.
Homosexuality was punishable by death in England up until 1861. Women didn't have the right to vote in France until 1945. Progressive extremists get people fired, and can even commit violent crimes sometimes, but they're nowhere near as bad as the state-approved violence that the minorities they defend were historically subject to (and still are in some countries).
Writing a transphobic tweet can get you fired, and I agree that's bad. Being transgender can get you killed. Saying "the rebellion becomes an empire, we need a new rebellion against them" is incredibly dismissive of the abuse marginalized groups go through.
‘Men’ as a category may not be that group with respect to ‘Women’ as a category.
But there are a huge number of men who are in fact, just as disadvantaged as a huge number of women even if that number is marginally smaller.
There is no reason at all why those men’s problems should not be receiving the same attention that women’s problems are receiving, other than the framing as a response to oppression of groups.
So while you say "no, not ever", I say "are you even having the same conversation we are?"
Men are very, very oppressed. A few who have escaped into financial independence does not make a trend.
Men have been that group when it comes to their foreskin.