Female PrivilegeDiversity Macht Frei
Mar. 20, 2017
Black Guy Walks Into Starbucks, Calls Them 'Racist,' Demands Free Coffee, Gets It Immediately
Laura Ingraham Interviews Comedian Who Requested Free Coffee From Starbucks As 'Reparations'
Syria Says U.S.-Led Strike Destroyed Pharmaceutical Research Institute Working On Cancer Drugs
UK Journalist Visits Syria, Local Doc Tells Him Douma Victims Suffered From Oxygen Starvation, Not 'Chem Attack'
Google Lawsuit: Senior Engineer Sought to 'Blacklist Alt-Right Websites' Like 'Breitbart,' Purge YouTube
This New York Times article about "The Decline of Men" is well worth reading.
Key takeaways from the article are:
While men still dominate top positions, there is growing polarisation among men. A small minority of men are doing very well, while a large number of men are not.
In 2016, 95.8 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs were male and so were 348 of the Forbes 400. Of the 260 people on the Forbes list described as "self-made," 250 were men.Women, in general are doing better from what are deemed to be structural changes in the economy than men.
From 1979 to 2007, seven percent of men and 16 percent of women with middle-skill jobs lost their positions, according to the Dallas Fed study. Four percent of these men moved to low-skill work, and 3 percent moved to high-skill jobs. Almost all the women, 15 percent, moved into high-skill jobs, with only 1 percent moving to low-skill work.Males suffer more from the lack of a conventional family structure than females do.
Among children raised in single-parent households, however, boys performed significantly less well than their sisters in school, and their employment rate as young adults was lower.
"Relative to their sisters," Autor and his collaborators wrote, "boys born to disadvantaged families" — with disadvantage measured here by mother's marital status and education — "have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions."
When the children in the study reached early adulthood, the same pattern emerged in employment:It turns out that men and women aren't the same after all.
High-paying, difficult-to-automate jobs increasingly require social skills. Nearly all job growth since 1980 has been in occupations that are relatively social skill-intensive. Jobs that require high levels of analytical and mathematical reasoning but low levels of social interaction have fared especially poorly.
This is consistent with a large literature showing sex differences in social perceptiveness and the ability to work with others.Notice that it's permitted to acknowledge differences in non-physical aptitudes between men and women as long as the differences favour women. If, on the other hand, you said something like "Men are more aggressive than women on average, being a successful executive requires a certain among of aggression, therefore it's perfectly natural that more men than women should be company executives", this would be considered unacceptable; you would be hounded from your job and, in Sweden, maybe even prosecuted for "hate speech".
These privileged women turn their noses up at unprivileged men.
Women have strong mate preferences such that they do not want to mate or marry men who are less educated, less intelligent, and less successful than they are.And this is a problem because these unprivileged men are more likely to vote the wrong way.
In a phone interview a number of years ago, Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, was prescient:
Asked to confirm his earlier views, Freeman wrote me that what he predicted