Hacker News Reader

Comment by lucaspm98 | Hacker News Reader

One factor that may be contributing to this, especially in the art world, is survivorship bias driven by higher male risk tolerances. Men have much more boom or bust outcomes in their lives and careers due to lower risk aversion.

What this could look like in the art world is a lower tendency than women towards a stable yet income-capped career like art teacher, and a higher tendency towards a risky yet unlimited potential path as an independent artist. A small fraction of independent artists become rich and famous, or even have a sustainable career, but you'll hear about the few that actually make it. In this scenario there may be more male success stories, but there will be an even greater number of failures.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741240/

View on HN

Note the hypothesis about risk being a predominantly male trait is also consistent at the other end with men making up 90%+ of prison population in pretty much any form of government or society.

I haven't heard many feminists argue for a female quota in prisons yet.

Or workplace deaths, 10:1, or suicides 3.5:1 or higher.

Claiming that feminism does not talk about these issues is at best a sign of naivety about feminism and at worst being disingenuous.

One may disagree with their conclusion that the origin of these problem also has to do with patriarchy, but to claim that these forms of suffering that disproportionately affect men are ignored by feminists is false.

Can you link to any examples?

A quick google search gave me these:

https://thefeministshop.com/blogs/the-feminist-shop-blog/why...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-the-patriarchy-is...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09589236.2018.15...

I'm sure someone with more time (or better yet: deeper familiarity with academic feminist analysis than I have) could find many more.

Mainstream feminism and the activist reporters ignore the issue. It's inconvenient to the narrative they adhere to.

The Google gender pay gap lawsuit was covered extensively a few years ago. It's outcome (men were actually underpaid based on the data) that resulted in a large number of male employees at Google getting payouts and salary boosts was essentially ignored.

You're obviously right, as "feminists" is way too broad (as is "patriarchy", really).

It's still unsatisfying at some level though. Reading left-leaning news (say the BBC), you're far more likely to read a story about desirable equality that doesn't mention the undesirable side. To be clear, I'm not opposed to equality at all. The discussion often just doesn't seem to be nuanced.

Oh, usually when one corners them in a debate they will grudgingly mumble something about the draft, but find me a spontaneous protest that the draft only inducts men, or about circumcision! They can be badgered into it but they have no actual vigor for it. I did find the various -- when the idea that the draft would apply in the US to women -- responses of "This isn't the kind of equality I wanted" very amusing in a bitterly cynical way.

The draft is very low on most people's protest agenda because it's a coercive thing. Very few people will argue for more coercion, and especially not towards violence.

Meanwhile, women have fought long and hard to be accepted as equals in the (voluntary) military.

And you will find many supporters if instead the selective service, you'd support e.g a year of mandatory social service.

You'll also find support to abandon the draft. (it's a highly unnecessary measure in the face of a professional military). You might even find support to have an egalitarian draft if we move further away from a professional military and instead institute mandatory military service.

But "here's a really bad idea that disproportionality affects a specific group, we should double down to affect more groups negatively" just isn't a proposition appealing to many people - male or female.

> The draft is very low on most people's protest agenda because it's a coercive thing. Very few people will argue for more coercion, and especially not towards violence.

But this is pretty much the same reason that we don’t see outcry about the lack of women working on garbage trucks: it’s not a desirable thing.

Women attempt suicide two to four times more often than men. (However, men tend to use more violent, and effective, methods of suicide, so succeed more frequently than women.)

I wonder how true this really is, and how many attempts by women were mostly just looking for attention. Not to downplay the seriousness of it, it just might be a different class of self harm.

Are you suggesting that women are too incompetent to kill themselves?

The less sexist explanation is that women generally use suicide attempts as a way of asking for help while men generally use suicide attempts as a way of escape.

Stated in those terms, both groups are very competent at achieving the end goal.

Easy, tiger - you may want to consider switching to decaf.

Each component of what I stated in response to the comment above is accurate, and an appropriate explanation of the implied assumption in it that suicide lies more commonly with men than women (a common misconception arising from what I explain).

isnt this explanation even more sexist? ..

Nobody looks at the imbalance in incarceration rates and assumes that police and the justice system are systemically sexist against men, but they certainly draw that conclusion along racial lines based on the same outcome.

Funnily enough this has been extensively studied, the systemic sexism against men in the justice system is a proven fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337844261_Sentencin...

https://crimsoc.hull.ac.uk/2020/06/18/gender-differences-and...

A proven fact that will be denied in most social justice conversations.

Your comment is the kind of comment we have to stop if we are going to actually be able to push mens rights issues.

You're using divisive language with your second sentence and poison pilling the entire argument by attacking feminists.

This doesn't have to be a feminist vs whatever war, it needs to be a conversation around male issues and we need everyone at the table to make things better.

Speaking as a feminist - spot on. Feminism isn't about just swapping gender roles and just giving power to women. (As much as Sheryl Sandberg seems to believe it is)

Which means that yes, the incarceration rates are (or should be, it's not like there's a feminist cabal I speak for;) concerning for feminists

Not in the sense that we should simply incarcerate not women, but in the sense that we should desperately look for the systemic issues that result in this outcome.

There's a good chance that a strong gender binary and an idea that it's somehow "men vs women" actively contributes. (E.g. because we stereotypically assign more social behavior to girls, and reward/excuse antisocial behavior in boys)

Trying to frame this as an either/or debate is directly detrimental to ever achieving equitable outcomes.

> systemic issues [causing higher incarceration rates]

Anti-male bias in the justice system, which has been shown to be around 6x higher than the anti-black bias in the justice system.

> reward/excuse antisocial behavior in boys

We do not. Society strongly discourages not just anti-social behavior in boys, it nowadays discourage a LOT of boy behavior that isn't actually anti-social. Boys are seen as defective girls. And of course the education system hugely discriminates against boys. Unabashedly so.

> Feminism isn't about just swapping gender roles and just giving power to women.

That used to be true. It no longer is.

Males are biologically more aggressive that females. Pick any random male and female and there is a 60% chance that the male will be more aggressive than the female. You can study this and speculate as much as you want but you are wasting your time. Last time I looked males can’t give birth to children but females can. Is that also a cultural bias that we can somehow change to be more “even”? Good luck with that.

My theory is that nature runs experiments with males to varying degrees depending on species, mostly in mammals. The continuation of the species only needs men to provide sperm, so the species can afford for unfit males to not have offspring. Females have a more important role, so you should optimize for consistency and reliability.

This is likely a factor, the other factor that tends to account for these differences in fields where individual performance directly determines outcomes is that men have a wider bell curve than women do, although there is significant overlap for individual performance on pretty much every facet, men have more outliers at both the best end and worst end of the curve. This is true against nearly every facet of human performance, the variance is just higher. Higher variance combined with survivorship bias means that the top-most performers in fields that are driven almost entirely by individual performance (athletics, independent artists, authors) are dominated by men at the top, even though the vast majority of men, even those with interest in that field, would fail or be average.

That risk can backfire.

My parents were independent artists, but did not understand marketing. Now we have hundreds of artworks and no money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com