Good argument why more men in leadership positions doesn't automatically mean women are being discriminated against?

bufedad · 2017-08-30T16:57:34+00:00

Honestly, I would point out that the majority of women want to drop out of the workforce after having children.

SporkTornado · 2017-08-30T17:50:18+00:00

I think a good argument would be.

"Can you name any law or official policy in any western nation that explicitly favors men as a group over women as a group?"

RapeMatters · 2017-08-30T19:20:50+00:00

There's that study that shows while women tend to have an in-group preference (automatically favoring women), men do not. They have varying preferences ranging from "no gender preference" to "out-group preference", which was related to their attitude on sex (those positive towards sex had an out-group preference, while those negative towards sex had no group preference at all).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

SpellonYee · 2017-08-30T17:11:56+00:00

Here's the non-PC answer.

Women sexually select for wealthy dominant males. Men sexually select for fertile young women; they don't care nearly as much about a potential mate's social status or financial well being. That's why a young Gloria Steinem dated the hideously ugly war criminal Henry Kissinger, whereas no young man in his right mind would want to date Madeline Albright.

In hierarchal systems, men compete with one another to rise to the top of the hierarchy. They do this mostly because women sexually select for the men at the top of said hierarchy. Therefore men work much harder in order to achieve financial success. They have to: men have to earn their worth. Women don't, they have wombs and neoteny.

The other issue is that the vast majority of geniuses are males (males also make up the majority of idiots). However this is of less relevance imo since statistically it is inheritance and social class, rather than IQ, that accounts for most wealthy individuals in a capitalist society.

ee4m · 2017-08-30T17:21:22+00:00

I say its because women are marrying less ambitious men and supporting them while they stay at home or work part time.

Its women discriminating against work, which is what any group would do in significant numbers given the chance.

xNOM · 2017-08-30T19:34:33+00:00

? Ask them why it's discrimination. The argument is not your problem. It's theirs. Do not buy into their stupid assumption that men and women are exactly the same. There is plenty of hard evidence to the contrary. Ask them why there are fewer women in prison, homeless, or crippled on the job.

Lethn · 2017-08-30T17:22:29+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU7AewaHr0Q&t=651s

EyeRedditDaily · 2017-08-30T18:41:42+00:00

Most people, regardless of gender, don't want to work at all. Work is a means to an end. Priority one, of course, is to have enough money to live.

But once you get past that, people want enough money so that they don't have to work any more. Men try to achieve this by attaining higher and higher paying jobs that will reduce the amount of time they have to work. Women do this by attaching themselves to men with access to money, meaning the women don't have to work any more.

Floppuh · 2017-08-31T17:37:39+00:00

Women have children, work less hours in general, less likely to take risks, ask for raise, etc etc, not to mention women are (naturally) discriminated against in labour works since (it just makes sense biology wise, not sexist). More men picking higher income jobs naturally leads to them having more ambitious careers more often. That's not to say women don't dominate fields, quite the opposite (e.g. biology, veterinary science, fashion, education etc)

Stunner900 · 2017-09-02T05:18:03+00:00

Because society sticks to what works. Men have ruled society for millennia.

DavidByron2 · 2017-08-30T17:13:18+00:00

Women in charge are sexist towards women whereas men in charge are sexist towards women. Everyone is sexist towards women (see the "Women Are Wonderful" effect), though men somewhat less so.

Feminism tells the lie that men in power favour other men but that makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view, it's not something animals do for example, and by observation it's not something men do in real life. By nature males compete against each other. They do not team up against women. Women, not men, have a built in self-selection bias (ie women are more sexist than men are).

Everyone knows this intuitively but feminists have sold a lie that is the opposite of reality for 150 years. Everyone knows for example that if a man is passing another driver at the side of the road that he's far more likely to stop and help a woman than another man. In fact men are told from birth to help women but not other men. The natural behavior has been reinforced by the demands of society. But we're supposed to believe that men in power suddenly do a 180 and decide that they want to help their sexual competitors - other men - instead of helping women who they are attracted to? Feminist dogma denies common sense, evolution and the evidence of our eyes.

Title	Good argument why more men in leadership positions doesn't automatically mean women are being discriminated against?
Author	Blahblah565654
Upvotes	5
Comments	21
Date	August 30, 2017 4:26 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6x0ady/good_argument_why_more_men_in_leadership/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/good-argument-why-more-men-in-leadership-positions.915073 https://theredarchive.com/post/915073

Comments