"The Weaker Sex" - The Economist

I did not write the article, nor did they have anything with this post. Go read it for a well written article describing in detail how the economy is for men today.

TL;DR the economy has been damaged by feminism for the last 40 years. The damage is substantial, but unless women focus on men, it will be the total collapse the Nuclear Family. It isn't too late to fix...Yet

It was their cover story this issue, and it is an interesting read. Another interesting thing to note is that the author of the article and Essay went unnamed; probably to withdraw any criticism of gender bias.

What did it talk about? Men - Men are the weaker sex. Not because of their physical capabilities, but their working capabilities (as assumed by the magazine focus).

The article pointed out that top jobs (CEOs, Movie stars, Fortune 500 board members, Political leaders, etc.) are predominately men. But it also points out that at the other end of the spectrum, men make up the majority of prisoners, unemployed members of society, and uneducated past High school. Where as women make up a majority that sit in the middle of this economic earnings. This is nothing new, but they have done the research to back up these claims.

It talks about how the job market has shifted significantly in the past 40-50 years due to technology. Labor markets that once required 50 strong men are now handled by 10 engineers that maintain robotics and minor physical maintenance. The blue collar job market has shifted from requiring manual labor to requiring brain power. More and more men with only Highschool (or no HS) diploma has decreased significantly in the work force in the last 40 years, where as women with HS diplomas only have actually risen (though marginally, about 4%) in the same period of time.

It also had an interesting segment on mate selection (nothing we didn't already know). The idea that women are less likely to marry or have long term relationships with men that have no education or little. It also pointed out an interesting statistic - Women and Men that stay at home. I don't remember the stats, but men contributed to household responsibilities close to half as less as women counterparts. Women, in the survey they referenced, identified not wanting to be with freeloading men. Which is true for almost everyone.

But what they showed as an interesting trend in the Sexual Market that I have not seen mentioned here

Their Analogy

In the perfect world, 10 men and 10 women pair off, have a family and everything is fine. HOWEVER, as the world is now there are fewer eligible men, 9 men and 10 women, and the 1 woman now attempts to steal a man from another woman. This creates dissent in that 3-way relationship, but also among women creates a distrust with other women around their men. It is a negative chain reaction causing relationships to collapse from distrust of their partner. Why not less women to men? Well It is because more women graduated from colleges (stats show by another post on the front page of this sub) and like 70something% of those women only deem other men eligible if they have an education, placing a huge importance on their level of education being equal to or greater then their own. So now in upper and middle classes, it is something like 90ish eligible men for every 100 women(regardless of education level). It gets even more significant the further down the poverty line you go, something like 50ish eligible men for every 100 women(again, regardless of education level). This is a huge disparity, and the environment is abysmal for women looking for men above their SMV. We have all heard the "Where have all the good men gone."

How does feminism play into this?

Women have been given every opportunity to have an fulfilling career, including AA and filling quotas, and now that they have the autonomy to sustain themselves, they literally do not need a man nor partner to sustain their needs (food, shelter, security, etc.) like in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. And given the fact that there are welfare programs to help single parents, it can sometimes be more beneficial to be a single parent then to be in a relationship, especially at low poverty ranges when men feel more like another mouth to feed then a partner.

Another point they brought up was the Birth control pill. Now that women had the ability to manage their birthing cycles, they were able to focus on their careers and educations while putting off child bearing until ready to do so. Now the magazine never mentions the wall out right, but it mentions it tangentially by describing women have trouble finding partners they deem worthy. my opinion I feel that when men can get a type of BC (like the injection in the vas defrenes) and are able to have autonomy over their child bearing ability, there will be a huge decrease in the amount of unplanned pregnancies.

The article even talked about other counties like Sweden, where they push for large effort gender equality even when negative. Example: Paternity leave, 480 days between both parents. If both parents take half of the time, the government gives them a bonus amount of money. I remember that 25% men on average take the 50%. This is because most men make more in that 240 days at their blue collar job over their blue collar job holding baby-mama.

Education is a huge factor in this, and they mention that boys do significantly worse at schooling than girls and the author believes it is a systemic problem in the effort to teach boys. And offers solutions like enticing more men into teaching positions and trying to advertise that men in "feminine" roles can be accomplished without sacrificing their masculinity. Similar to how women were enticed into STEM fields that are traditionally masculine without them having to sacrifice their femininity. my opinion But this has been such a long festering problem in our society that it will require many years to correct.

But what was interesting about the education spin is that the economy magazine predicted that of the top 30 future professions, about 20 of them will be people oriented and that is stereotypical a woman dominated field - nursing, education, services, etc. So they need to start with this generation of men to get them into those markets.

Anyway, I highly recommend reading it because it is well written (though less red pill, and written in a more PC context).