Society is hostile against him. Anti-male prejudice is absolutely everywhere. Andrew Tate is a get-rich-quick grifter and possibly a criminal, but he’s right about some things.
Anyone with little kids knows, they absorb social messaging about gender roles, rank and hierarchy like sponges.
Andrew Tate seems wildly popular on discord, tiktok, roblox, minecraft, and youtube comments right now. I think you are right, my son and his friends are looking for someone to teach them to be strong "manly" men.
I don't think we've been teaching him how to physically and mentally strong. We've been pushing things more in line with our tech careers ...
Thank you for your comment. It's really given me something to think about.
Some people on hackernews think I need to educate my son on being guilty for being born male. Some men like Andrew Tate would just grift off of him. Some women on twitch would try to leech money from him.
I want to protect him from all the things that would destroy him.
My wife has made the observation that there seems to be so much more media, events, toys, etc., targeted at girls in a positive way than for boys. We have two boys, and she has been quite the feminist in the time I’ve known her. As a guy I tend to err on the side of being skeptical of my own initial reactions to women who remark about the sexism rampant in our society. So when she brought this up it certainly carried more weight.
No they don't indicate that at all. Equal pay day is in fact anti-male propaganda. It's the opposite of meritocracy to expect people to earn the same regardless of career and life choices and that's exactly what the equal pay day would require. The controlled pay gap is at 1% (based on the same source you linked).
So, yes, payscale inequality is a thing. That doesn't mean we haven't "overcorrected" in the opposite direction in other areas.
Your link argues women make 99% of what men make if you control for career choice, is that what you are intending to say?
> The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 cents for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero. It’s not zero.
> In other words, women who are doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a man, are still paid one percent less than men at the median for no attributable reason.
Given these circumstances and given the development of recent years, I can't help but hear their clear agenda and it's very likely that this development is partially attributable to overcorrections as in the context discussed here.
Also, since male/females have some differences due to our different biology (especially thinking about hormones influencing behavior to some degree, e.g. causing males to be more aggressive in salary negotiations), the notion of it having to be zero and "no attributable reason" doesn't seem rational to me, but again just underlining their agenda.
I think that link is actually a good example for the current anti-male societal tendencies.
What are you trying to say with this? The controlled gender pay gap is the actual relevant indicator. That women make other life choices than man can have a multitude of reasons and I strongly disagree that striving for equal ratios across career and life choices is a desirable goal. Man and women should have equal opportunities. Them making the same choices is not a consequence of that.
edit: Looking at their prime example of jobs with a controlled gender pay gap:
The controlled gender pay gap between male and female waitresses is at 82%. I can't help but feel this isn't properly controlled. A waiter at a higher class restaurant is likely to earn more than at your regular dinner place and though this is purely anecdotal, I tend to see nearly exclusively male waiters in fine dining restaurants. If these are grouped together with all waiters, differences in career and life choices are again not controlled for. There is a big difference between a "career waiter" (such as those you encounter in fine restaurants) and someone working in that job as a means to an end, often on a temporary basis.
(direct link to that section: https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-ga...)
edit2: also considering there is quite a number of jobs significantly below the median of 0.99, I would be curious to see the jobs where women are paid more than men and how big the differences are there. Afterall, the topic at hand isn't that female discrimination exists (it does, no question there!), but that male discrimination (often as a correctional method) becomes more and more of a problem that gets wilfully ignored or is even socially acceptable and encouraged! Discriminating men to solve female discrimination isn't a solution, meritocracy and equal opportunities are the solution.