As a straight white male, there are very few rooms, very few jobs, very few situations where I don’t have absolute confidence that I belong there. Is it so bad to think everybody should feel that way?
Your son will be fine.
Also my son isn't white.
> [See SI Appendix for descriptions of other audits of actual hiring that accord with this view, some dating back to the 1980s. Many studies have argued (see ref. 14) that because only the very top women persist in math-intensive fields, their advantage in being hired is justified because they are more competent than the average male applicant. This is why an accurate evaluation of gender preference in hiring depends on data from an experiment in which competence is held constant.] Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings.
The FA has the same thing going on, it says that females are 3-15 times more likely to be elected, but _also_ that they only make up 40% of elected members, so not even half. The only way that's possible is if significantly less of them are apply to begin with, and it's reasonable to assume there's some self-selecting going (or at the very least, since the groups are so different in size they're not directly comparable in terms of qualifications) on the same as the article you linked.
The issue of men and women acceptance rates in college is even the exact example given on the Simpson's paradox Wikipedia page, because it's such a simple one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair.
A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power.
People always confuse these things.
Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.
Put another way, I could have made my point with a different choice of words that would not have drawn the response from mpweiher (and you). The problem is, any choice of words is open to be misinterpreted by someone with an axe to grind.
If you want to be angry and find like-minded angry individuals, be my guest. If you want to build empathy and mutual understanding, then it's worth it to try to engage with people's primary point rather than seizing on an uncharitable interpretation of a particular phrasing or choice of words.
The distinction is absolutely fundamental.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2006/05/26/Bountiful/
This is why it's important not just to average over groups. Dear Leader might always be a man, but that's not relevant to the fate of 99.99% of men who will never be Dear Leader, nor will they receive favour from him for sharing his gender.
This is why a lot of people are sensitive to arguments that use language that equivocates between the entirely non-equivalent propositions "if you have power, you probably are a man" and "if you are a man, you probably have power".
And yet the confusion between these two propositions is so widespread that probably most of the arguments in this HN comment section will come down to it.
It’s institutional misogyny, it’s morally bankrupt, and it needs to change.
On the other hand, in some countries there are now laws forcing women into corporate boards. You have to have women there even if they did nothing to deserve it.
> It’s institutional misogyny, it’s morally bankrupt, and it needs to change
This is so far from reality you need to do some grounding exercises. Institutional misogyny would look like written down, formal and openly acknowledged mechanisms that systematically block women from certain opportunities. Can you write down a list of such things? Probably not because in the west, no such mechanisms exist. The same is not true in reverse, where there are actually many such mechanisms that specifically grant women those opportunities by banning men from competing. Board seats, all-women selection lists in politics, recruiters told to only search for women, jobs that are earmarked only for women, laws that grant women child custody by default, the US VP being selected because it had to be a black woman and so on.
People like Andrew Tate get audiences because it's completely accurate to say our society is institutionally misandrist. To claim the opposite is to simply replace reality with ideology, which is always dangerous.
There are so many more qualified women in this world that could do as good of a job, if not better, than the men who are leading, but those women are never given a chance because of their gender.
People like Andrew Tate get an audience because hatred is easy to fall for, and misogyny is sadly all to common in western society. Our society not only is not misandrist, it's actively pro-men in so many ways, on so many levels, that the mere notion that the playing field should be leveled gets thought of as "misandrist".
If you're a healthy straight white man and you're struggling in western society, it's got nothing to do with other people; it's firmly a you problem. Andrew Tate gives those people a way to pretend it isn't their fault, but that's all it is, pretend.