TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

In 2010, Sweden scrapped affirmative action in colleges because it ended up favouring men, as women outnumbered them: ''The education system should open doors – not shut them in the face of young women who are motivated to study''

EinesFreundesFreund

July 30, 2017
2208 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.thelocal.se/20100112/24330
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title In 2010, Sweden scrapped affirmative action in colleges because it ended up favouring men, as women outnumbered them: ''The education system should open doors – not shut them in the face of young women who are motivated to study''
Author

EinesFreundesFreund

Upvotes 2208
Comments 146
Date July 30, 2017 10:42 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6qkg6k/in_2010_sweden_scrapped_affirmative_action_in/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/in-2010-sweden-scrapped-affirmative-action-in.916835
https://theredarchive.com/post/916835

Comments

[–]EinesFreundesFreund 424 points425 points426 points 8 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

I keep this in mind everytime people act like affirmative action is in any way about equality. You will have preferential treatment for women in STEM but, whether it is overall or in branches like Medicine and Law, you won't see men getting preferential treatment. Because doors shouldn't be shut on young women who are motivated to study, only young men.

[–]Fisher3309 183 points184 points185 points 8 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

I have never met another human being who thinks about affirmative action logically like you and these others people. Every time I try to have a rational discussion about this with my "friends" I get called a misogynistic pig. People just refuse to think about it. It's like everyone in the world has a mental block regarding affirmative action.

[–]EricAllonde 123 points124 points125 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Karen Straughan talked about this in the unedited footage of her interview in The Red Pill, which Cassie Jaye just released:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L254KuLx-4Y

Karen says that one aspect of societal sexism is that men are seen as more capable, competent and self-reliant than women, on average. Women are more likely to be seen as helpless and needing assistance. Affirmative action is one consequence of that, the (largely unconscious) thinking is "We need to help women because they're not capable of doing it themselves, unassisted. And it's OK to discriminate against men because it won't hurt them, they're so capable that they'll be OK even if we prevent them from getting this job, because they'll be able to just find something else instead".

It an interesting line of thought, I encourage you to watch the (fairly short) video.

[Tag /u/EinesFreundesFreund]

[–]kellykebab 55 points56 points57 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If that were true, the utility of shoving less capable individuals into the workforce does not seem wise.

[–]EricAllonde 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. It's just one example of many showing how western society self-sabotages in the name of gynocentrism.

[–]AloysiusC 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not so much about capability as it is about pressure. Women just don't have the same pressure to provide resources and gain status through their jobs. So we end up pouring enormous amounts of money into training female doctors who then wind up just doing part-time or opt out altogether.

[–]bishnu13 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Women to a large extent are interested in the status of being a doctor and not actually being one. Well a lot of men are as well, but it plays out differently. Women think status is something you are where men see it as something you do (being capable and earning respect of peers). So men continue working as a doctor, but women can just get the degree and feel like they have the status.

[–]DevilishRogue 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really glad you posted this, Eric, thanks.

[–]Kuramo 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't that mysogynistic too? When did feminism become so pathetic?

[–]BigOldNerd -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

one aspect of societal sexism is that men are seen as more capable

Luckily that means men will be hired with less education or experience. The knife cuts both ways.

* I'm sure this will get downvoted, but I'm in a technical job where my peers have degrees and I don't.

EDIT: And we have achieved feels before reals.

[–]FeierInMeinHose 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's the opposite, really. Women get a huge leg up in the hiring process for high-paying professions, most of which happen to be in STEM.

Technical jobs don't usually require degrees, they're more based around what knowledge you have so if you can demonstrate that without a degree it doesn't matter. That's the more likely explanation as to why you're different from your peers.

[–]splodgenessabounds 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Luckily that means men will be hired with less education or experience.

Or not hired at all.

I'm in a technical job where my peers have degrees and I don't.

In a previous incarnation a little while ago, I was co-running a consultancy in a professional/ technical/ science-based field. Not to blow my trumpet too loudly, I was bl00dy good at it, to the extent that after a decade doing it I began teaching aspects of the field at tech colleges and, with my business partner, created, developed and delivered stand-alone courses in that field for interested parties. All of my peers (and my BP) had tertiary quals and many had post-grad degrees - I admire their tenacity cos uni bored me shitless. More fool me for not persisting with it and getting a degree.

There are still some excellent 'technicians' (for want of a better word) out there in 'professional' (ditto) fields whose formal quals are lowly or absent, and good luck to 'em - if you know your stuff, you know your stuff. The problem these days is that opportunities to sneak into a professional field through the back door (you get hired cos you're good at something, not cos of your CV and a string of tertiary quals) are fast disappearing. Everyone from Multinational Corporate Bastards to Your Guvmint dot com to Bob the Bloody Builder wants anyone and everyone to have a degree in tying your shoelaces before they'll take you on. Why? Because liability. In fact, many money-grubbing shitstains insurance companies will not offer PI/ PL insurance unless you have all the right sorts of qualifications - the result of that is that you can't even fly solo as a sub-contractor.

Still, that's progress for you (cough).

  • I'm sure this will get downvoted

Not by me: quite the contrary.

[–]BigOldNerd 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

wants anyone and everyone to have a degree

I have certifications and can prove my proficiency by answering interview questions. I'd wager that men dominate the certification industry, because that industry is focused on male "tech" careers.

You have an interesting familiar sounding story. I wish you the best of luck!

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points51 points 8 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

I'm a right-wing leaning gay, so I know your pain about people just shutting you down with labels. "Self-hating gay" is one I get a lot. You have to learn to take the little steps as success. A vast majority of people do not have a "red pill" moment when they change their thinking in a major way over a short-period of time. It's done over a long time. It's hard for people to call you "a sexiest pig" once they've known you for a while and have figured out you're not an undercover-super-sexist. It's more beneficial to come off as not being an asshole than trying to argue with them. I always also point out that their accusations are baseless and it's bad to accuse someone with no evidence. This sometimes leads to a more fruitful conversation because it's harder for them to explain why ____ is seixst/racist/homophobic/ect. You also just have to accept that some people won't change and you just have to avoid those topics all together. But remember not to poison the well, it is better if they know someone who believes X, Y, & Z in their life just to know you're not an awful person, and maybe those views you hold aren't just held by horrible people.

[–]Fisher3309 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I imagine that must be really hard for you. I'm sorry

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate the concern. I don't feel sad for myself or anything like that, more annoyed at how political discourse usually just goes to the absolute lowest common denominator. I just want to discuss ideas and people would rather just go to identity politics.

[–]DocHoliday96 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sexiest pig, not sure if I'd be insulted or not

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm just so sexist I have relations with dudes instead. I just hate women that much.

[–]DocHoliday96 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol i support it !

[–]vyssangull -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There are two completely different kinds of right-leaning gays. Most of them are simply liberal, or "libertarian" in US parlance (minus, in most cases, the loony, gun-toting, neo-Randian phalanxes that see free markets as an end in itself rather than a means to improvement). That means opposing most kinds of interventionism, including quotas - though not always, as, arguably, Swedish mandatory paternal leave has, at little cost to society and personal freedom, created arguably the most empowered fathers of the world.

Then there are the gay traditional conservatives. And yes, I CAN imagine there is an element of self-loathing to opposing the right to marriage, to reject abortion or surrogacy for gay men, or to oppose basic civil rights for homosexuals. But traditional conservatism is changing; it is about preserving what we have achieved, and accepting homosexuality is part of that achievement and, as a result, worth preserving. That, I submit, is a line you can use to explain your beliefs.

As a left-of-center classical liberal, I oppose most feminist interventionism (except paternal leave, for instance), but support abortion, most kinds of immigration, radical prison reform (punish men like women, not the other way around), adoption for men, and free, competitive markets with clearly priced externalities (carbon taxes etc). But even I hear every day that I am conservative, and sometimes that I want to hold women back and that I am "jealous". Not only from feminists. It befuddles me, especially as this reaction comes from a deeply conservative instinct to protect and prefer women. If anything, I feel like the opposite of reactionary.

[–]Themeparkmaker 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

to reject abortion or surrogacy for gay men

This line confuses me, how is a gay man supposed to have an abortion?

[–]ThatNinaGAL 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

People who want the government to restrict reproductive rights generally want to force women to gestate and prevent single men from hiring somebody to gestate on their behalf.

[–]Themeparkmaker 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

thats not what i was talking about, read what I said again

[–]ThatNinaGAL 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The comment was equating the two rights violations, one affecting females and one affecting single males, or men married to other men.

[–]Themeparkmaker 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A. The sentence I quote is phrased oddly because its structured in a way that it sounds like gay men need abortions and B. I'm joking about gay men needing abortions

[–]ThatNinaGAL 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, my bad. It was phrased oddly.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then there are the gay traditional conservatives. And yes, I CAN imagine there is an element of self-loathing to opposing the right to marriage,

I want government out of marriage entirely. That means I'm against both heterosexual and homosexual marriages sanctioned by the state. I don't see why that makes me self-loathing. The gov't has a role in enforcing contracts between two people but they don't get to "bless" a marriage with their approval.

to reject abortion or surrogacy for gay men

This is actually very interesting, not trying to be an asshole but can you site me major political thinkers that are against surrogacy? I am aiming to be a father when I'm older and I'm leaning more towards adoption (partly because I am "pro-life" & would like to less children suffer), but this is the first time the surrogacy issue has ever come up. I'd like to research it further if you have any examples. But in regards to abortion I line up pretty much with most pro-life views. I am not anti-sex though, so I agree with sexual education, giving out free contraceptives (if needed), and other support systems to prevent abortions. It's not a simple: "Abstinence only" as the answer.

to oppose basic civil rights for homosexuals.

This is one my biggest peeves about the "you're a self-hating gay" line of thought. This is way to vague. For example, I got called "opposed to basic human rights for gays" because I don't think the 1964 civil rights act doesn't apply to gays. Because it actually does not address gay rights at all. I don't see why this is "opposed to human rights" because it actually does not mention anything about gays. I am just being truthful. Of course, I am not strawmanning and saying you said this but this is just the kind of examples I get of people saying this to me.

[–]kellykebab 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Because 89% of people only care about being on the winning team. And right now, the winning team is still multiculturalism and identity politics. If Trump shifts the narrative sufficiently, many of these same people will be as knee jerk over nationalism and media distrust.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hard to shift the narrative away from being a real life kompromat

[–]kellykebab 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True. And identity politics didn't start with a single president. It started out of a few academic movements that have been growing for decades. So the tide may take longer to turn, but when it does, you will see public opinion change with it.

[–]BookOfGQuan 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As the Discordians say, people will wave a flag for the establishment as easily as they will a flag against the establishment, so long as it's a flag.

[–]Fisher3309 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's oddly reminiscent of the German people's nationalism to follow Hitler (not comparing Trump to Hitler just an interesting parallel)

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get what you are saying but it's basically like Nietsche's parallel of Ubermenschen. Most people are sheep following the narrative and several free thinkers lead them in the zeitgeist. So whatever is in right now is what most people just agree with regardless if it's true or not. It's just that our babyboomer parents decided that diversity and feminism were the noble causes (which they probably were in those days) and we are suffering through the backlash of it because it went too far.

[+]4Bongin1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

No, you are literally comparing trump to hitler. Btw, does anybody else find it odd that both trump and hitler breathed air?

[–]Fisher3309 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've also heard that had similar issues with their hair :o

[–]rmbarnes 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Partly that. It's also partly because people don't choose what to believe based on logic, they just unthinkingly adopt the ideals of the status quo. Guess it's evolved to make sure you maintain favour within the tribe, so I guess that is actually close to what you're saying.

[–]MisterDamage 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the most part, political opinions are less about thinking logically than signalling ones submission to the herd. When you refuse to say "baa", you signal that you reject the herd and are thus whatever the herd deems evil.

[–]BookOfGQuan 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their mental block is in regards to the need for a tribal people to provision/protect/jealously guard their females. This isn't about affirmative action as such, this is about primal instinct. You're asking them to set aside something foundational to how humans think as a social species (at least, those whose worldview and theory of mind were developed not through observation and self-awareness but through emulation of others around them; i.e. the majority of neurotypical people.)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We exist; it's just that we keep our mouths shut in public.

[–]Fisher3309 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well just know you are appreciated!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

:)

[–]NibblyPig 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The only winning move is not to play. And it's not even a winning move.

[–]Fisher3309 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah... it's no winning because you want to speak up against injustice, but feel powerless to do so

[–]NibblyPig 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Story of my life. I've tried a ton of different approaches but none of them work. Well, you can convince a group if it's only males but one female or more and they will effortlessly villify you.

You'll speak in facts and they'll phrase their statements as personal feelings, and then when you say they're wrong you've already lost because you attacked their feelings which makes you a monster. It comes very naturally to women to talk like this so you can't really use logic, and lol if you try to frame things as feelings...

[–]WillMeatLover 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You have shit friends. There are a lot of shitty people out there. But that doesn't mean you have to surround yourself with them.

[–]Fisher3309 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. I feel like it's everyone I am around though unfortunately. Maybe it's time to move

[–]Qwerkie_ 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The advantage that women get in my field is insane. I'm in software engineering and we had very few girls in any of my classes. One of the girls hardly ever went to any classes, tried dropping a core class only to be put back in it and the professor literally told her group "don't give her any work since she won't do it" and then passed her. They even put her back in senior design after she failed it once so that she could graduate. Then! There were two other girls who landed really awesome jobs at very prestigious companies while they were clearly worse at software engineering than some of our fellow students (not myself, I feel like a complete idiot compared to my graduating class)

[–]thehenkan -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, all tech companies want to hire female new grads, but they still have the hurdle of people subconsciously thinking they are less competent. This both makes it harder to negotiate for a higher salary (though tbf women are more likely to not even try negotiating, can't blame anyone else there), as well as generally not receiving the same amount of responsibility. Less responsibility may sound great in the short run, but long term it means less opportunities to grow professionally and less to put on your CV.

In short, women in software have an easier time with entry level jobs, but getting an entry level job as a developer isn't too hard anyways. They still struggle developing their careers though. And as someone in software, it's nobody's fault: there are just so few women that when you meet someone it goes against so much of your experience, which is inevitably going to affect your preconceived notions to some extent. The only way to counter it is to get more women into tech, because changing the subconscious of every person in the industry is hard.

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

No, if she can do the job, she gets respect.

Sexist / racist quotas ensure that women and minorities are sub standard at their jobs.

They are judged accordingly, like everyone else, by merit.

[–]thehenkan -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Do you really think that? That everyone are judged solely by merit? No, it's as much about who you know and if you get along well with your colleagues. It's not the case for everyone, but a lot of people don't form as close friendships with people of the opposite sex. If your colleagues are all guys, being a girl can put you at a serious disadvantage when networking.

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If your colleagues are all guys, being a girl can put you at a serious disadvantage when networking.

Completely the opposite, at least in trenches of actually productive technical fields where "personality" plays little roll, if any. You're talking more about management positions, not the actual workers producing product.

On the front lines, it has to do with merit. Again, if she's good at her job, she'll be respected for it, like anyone else.

If anything, females are given a bit of preference, because there are so few that are actually good at technical jobs, let alone have any interest.

Source: 30 years in IT.

[–]thehenkan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I'm not saying it's black and white. When they're asked if they know someone with a particular skillset, some people will recommend that person they respect a ton for their skills, but some people are going to recommend that person they also grew very close to.

It's certainly possible to have a great career as a woman in tech. I'm just saying there are some situations where you are at a disadvantage being a minority in the workplace - and yes, some where you are at an advantage.

I mean, I've seen both sides of it, having worked both in incredibly male dominated work places as well as being the only guy in the workplace. Was I given preference for being a guy? Yes, and getting the job is the first step, but socialising to the point where it's not just a superficial workplace friendship is an uphill battle, sometimes.

And you can try calling it the trenches, but the fact remains it's not a factory job where you can simply measure an employee's worth by the quality of the output and the speed they work at. I mean, you can still measure those things, but it's not as clear cut when it comes to productivity and code quality. What do you measure, number of commits and tests passing? It's clear that an objective measurement is non-trivial, and that personality and other intangible things matter as well in a creative and collaborative setting.

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's certainly possible to have a great career as a woman in tech. > I'm just saying there are some situations where you are at a disadvantage being a minority in the workplace - and yes, some where you are at an advantage.

So we hear repeated, again and again, from "studies" courses, rad-fem and SJW factions, in support of the ridiculous "wage gap" fallacy.

There is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, of the earning gap between men and women being the result of sexism.

What do you measure, number of commits and tests passing?

Speed, number of corrections needed, security and best practices, documentation. There are clear cut ways to measure productivity. It is very obvious to anyone in the field when someone isn't pulling their weight.

The other intangible things you keep insisting are oh so important are nothing of the sort. Not in actually productive IT, or other hard science fields. Actual merit of the product produced FAR, FAR outweighs any politics you're talking about.

Possibly this is why so few women are interested in such careers. It is very dry and technical. Most men have a hard time doing such a job for any length of time. Burnout in such fields is a very real thing.

The ones that do thrive, of either sex, excel based on the merit of their work, and are judged by their peers by that almost exclusively.

Also, the types of people that tend thrive in such dry, technical fields, are notoriously low on social skills. The whole nerdy, socially awkward geek stereotype has a solid base in reality. Not a judgement, there are advantages, such as being very good at dry science.

Point is, the social politics that outsiders claim are so important, are irrelevant (if even noticed) to the majority that are actually good at such jobs.

Trying to push people into such jobs that do not have the required aptitude or skill, with sexist / racist quotas, is destructive not only to the field of science itself, but oh so ironically, to the individuals it victimizes.

[–]thehenkan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree that quotas are not good for anyone involved, that people should make their own decisions regarding what career to pursue, and be judged as an individual on their own merits. Since our experiences seem to differ, however, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to what skills are actually useful in the workplace. Around here our job culture is heavily based around meetings and collectively making decisions, maybe that is a factor.

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"the workplace" depends completely on what field and where you work.

Again, there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that sexism has anything to do with the so-called "wage" gap.

It is an earning gap that is dependent on each individuals choices, regardless of sex.

Disagree if you want, as so many others do, completely devoid of any reason, logic or.. evidence.

Just please don't promote such lunacy, especially not in scientific fields (subject of this thread), as you yourself admit it is destructive.

And, in more "social" careers, if anything, men need the artificial advantage, as women are well known to be better at such political games.

Have a good one.

[–]xNOM 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because doors shouldn't be shut on young women who are motivated to study, only young men.

Too bad women aren't motivated to work.

Don't Quit This Day Job

[–]fengpi 683 points684 points685 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Thus, we see "equality" is not the aim and never was.

[–]expert02 30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Duh, it's equality over time. Clearly men must be oppressed for thousands of years before we're even.

[–]Pz5 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sweden is feminism in a nutshell.

[–]Wambo45 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sure it is. It's the pursuit of equality through the means of inequity.

[–]shloopyy 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope. If the goal was "equality" then feminists would be trying to equalize eg the massive disparity in workplace deaths, the massive gender sentencing gap (six times larger than the racial sentencing gap) etc. Feminism is a female supremacy movement full stop.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminist is a contraction of the phrase "female chauvinist" ....

[+]Wambo45 -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Inequity denotes supremacy, obviously. Equality is an intangible ideal.

[+]Istalriblaka1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Dropped this

(-_-)/^(/s)

[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not being sarcastic. That's their explicit mission: Equality of outcome by way of arbitrary, unfair and thus inequitable treatment.

[–]Istalriblaka 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oops, meant to put that on a different comment. It's been a really long day and it's only 3:45.

[–]wistonbeelze 158 points159 points160 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

The Svea Court of Appeal recently ruled in favour of 44 women who were not admitted to a veterinary programme because of their gender, awarding them damages of 35,000 kronor ($5,000) each.

The sex quota was introduced by them, after 10 years the balance its inclined by their side and they claim free competence. Hypocrites!

[–]EinesFreundesFreund 170 points171 points172 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

What is even more interesting is that veterinary programmes in several developed countries have been trying to attract men. Why? Because they are the ones who work in farms. Women get veterinary degrees and then work in cities to cure pets. Which leads to a shortage of vets in rural areas, since the majority of vet students are female.

In Australia, The move to attract male students by offering them scolarships has been deemed sexist by feminist groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

[–]EricAllonde 107 points108 points109 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The really funny thing is that all the fuss about the Sydney uni vet scholarship with a preference for men was a result of just a single scholarship funded by a private donor.

Not one dollar of taxpayer's money was used, and feminists still lost their shit regardless.

[–]Japak121 44 points45 points46 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Has there ever been an instance of the word male being used in a positive light that didn't make feminists lose there shit?

One day 'the boy who cried wolf' story will be replaced by 'the feminist who cried foul'. One day.

[–]mcavvacm 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends on your definition of positive light.

If the word male is used in combination with imprisoned, death toll, murdered, etc etc I'm quite sure feminists wouldn't lose their composure.

[–]MisterDamage 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

When women began to outnumber men as veterinarians, the average income of a veterinarian fell. Feminists claim this is the result of sexism. Color me shocked. The real cause is that a toy poodle is not an income generating asset, so there is less money to spend on health care and the working conditions of city vets are better than the working conditions of rural vets. Naturally, therefore, people spend more money on the health of income generators and rural vets are harder to find.

[–]Mode1961 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There is another factor you overlooked. When women enter a field they add to the available pool of applicants for a job, thus reducing salary. If there was a job that only a few hundred people could do to a high standard (look at sports for example) salaries will go UP. If somehow tomorrow there were a million people that could pitch a baseball accurately at 100 mph and throw a wicked curveball, the salaries of baseball pitchers would go down really quickly, in fact it would probably destroy the industry. Same with women entered the job market in greater numbers.

The fallacy of the 'when women enter a field it goes down because they are women' is that they forget the most basic rules of supply and demand.

[–]BookOfGQuan 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure it's a case of "forgetting" so much as "deliberately overlooking because it gets in the way of the narrative."

[–]Mode1961 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For sure.

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is another factor you overlooked. When women enter a field they add to the available pool of applicants for a job, thus reducing salary.

The pool didn't grow. The number of veterinary graduates was still set by the number of veterinary schools. Schooling/graduates is the limit on number of entering veterinarians rather than applicants (those who which to enter the field).

The reason that the pay dropped is because around half the female graduates switched to part time work by 10 years after graduation. Of course they're not going to earn as much as the men (who 90+% were working full time till retirement).

The same thing is happening on the human medicine side. It's causing doctor shortages in some countries.

[–]AcidJiles 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

At what point do we get to collectively stop hitting our heads against a wall? This is all so much nonsense with so much bigotry and stupidity involved, when will it end?

[–]HiilestTehtyAffena 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Giving women privileges is a biological thing and in free societies biological things are very hard to abolish. When you say you want less privileges for women most people think you're an evil person because saying so goes against their biology (evolutionary thinking patterns).

[–]Macheako[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Please, look at the middle east...its not biological....men in the west are simply brought up to believe a lie. I dont like it anymore than the next guy, but we gotta stop bull shitting ourselves.

Right now this country is in the habit of raising pussys, is what it is.

[–]EinesFreundesFreund 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even in the middle east, women have had it traditionally better than men. Because men are disposable while women are precious. Even the whole polygamy angle is supposed to make sure that every woman has someone to provide for them. Yes, in a modern society, a woman will scoff over it but a 1000 years ago, every single one of them preferred that over being conscripted to war or working on the cattle farm. When people say ''men are oppressing women in the middle east'', they are thinking about your sheikh with 10 wives who are forced to keep the burka. Not your average guy who is working on the construction sites under 110° heat so he can send back 5 bucks a month to his wife. Not the conscripted Saudi soldier dying in the war against Houthis in Yemen. Not the guy who is too poor to afford one of those wives. Not the guy who worked on mines or farms 100 years ago.

It's a huge fallacy to look at the glass ceiling for women and not the glass floor, the one that keeps them from falling as low as men can go. The average woman has had it better than the average man throughout history.

[–]Macheako[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dude....even I aint that fargone to believe some a those goat fuckers, no offense. Im sure Hitler thought what he was doing was good...oh wait, he did lol.

Yea, i get that they take care of them to a degree but when their testimony was only considered 1/2 a mans, that really clearly shows you what they think of women, i.e. theyre weak creatures who lack the same mental acuity as men. Thats really my point here. In the west, we lift women UP, in some cases above that "status" of men. THIS isnt whats natural or biological imo. Yes, we want to take care of them, but no, we dont innately go along with their bs cause we know they can be dumb due to their lack of interaction with REAL shit in life.

Im not saying there isnt something biological, just that some aspects of it, to me, hardly seem biological.

[–]HiilestTehtyAffena 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

In FREE countries certain biological traits start to dominate - unless there is a strong narrative against them. If there is a narrative FOR a biological trait (like giving women privileges) it's very hard to believe it will ever end.

But I believe that the counter-narrative is slowly spreading. And perhaps one day it'll become obvious even to the stupid that that giving women privileges and discriminating against men is destroying our culture.

[–]Macheako[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, I think I see where were getting mixed up lol. Youre right, men DO favor women...insofar as they have vaginas. Like, I read an old Jewish text about this, how the men, in seeking out a woman, give her some bit of favor. Im with ya there!

But, this OVER hyped sense of hysteria to placate and favor "women" as a class is not, by my knowledge, ANYTHING remotely biological. I can get that well favor a womAn, until we get our own, but Im not sure why were favoring every single damned woman these days. There just doesnt appear any basis in that.

But youre right too to point out that this narrative is in cahoots with the single oldest tale about male temptation....the first goddamn book of Genesis.....male weakness in the presence of pussy....how did we not see that one lol

[–]BookOfGQuan 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Please, look at the middle east

You mean the place where the "women are children who are provided for by men" is at its absolute strongest? Don't think that we're dealing with different things here. Patriarchal paternalistic societies and feminism are simply different shades of the same basic colour. Because it's ingrained in biology, as Hiilest said.

[–]Macheako[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See, these conversations are a bitch lol cause in all honesty I completely agree with you, just that, we "understand" the issue a little differently. Im trying to look at the more broad peinciples at work here.

We both agree, it is very natural for men to "care" for his woman, so we need to look at HOW that manifests itself at the societal level, i.e. what does "caring for their women" look like and how does it differ? Like, WHY does caring look differently is what Im trying to get at ultimately.

Theres a reason the way we, in the west, care for our ladies looks differently than it does in the middle east, right? So what is causing that rift? Its my understanding that this difference is whats not natural, or, has to be taught. And that is precisely my point.

We in the west are taught HOW to care for women differently than in the middle east. But even underlying that "how" is a differing perspective.

As simply as I can state it, in the middle east they are taught that men occupy a higher "status" than women, men are more capable, across the board. They give men and women specified roles to relate to one another, gender roles. Whereas in the west we are taught men and women have the same everything, we are taught that roles are limiting, and to abolish them.

Yes, men naturally seek to care for a woman so that in return shell care for him. But there are specified "roles" all throughout past civilizations. These roles, which ultimately lead us in the HOW we care for women are 100% societally constructed. So if its a given that men will care for a woman...that means we cant alter that, but what CAN we alter in this equation which will have a significant impact?

Gender roles and how men ought to "relate" to women as a class. The HOW in mens care for women isnt a given....and we need to see that so we can understand what exactly is our impact on society at those levels.

[–]bishnu13 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is a perfect example I believe of societal thinking. It has become an unquestionable belief. Because of that no one is socially able to argue from the other side. It creates a huge imbalanced pressure, so the ideas get progressively more absurd. The issue is even worse now since most people can't reason about what is okay from a consistent set of core beliefs, so they just accept what others say as to prevent becoming socially ostracized. This must have been a lot like it was like to grow up during peak Christendom or peak red scare. The difference being that this is an idealogogy mostly pushed via academics, so there are few antibodies.

[–]cbagainststupidity 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course women don't want to go arm deep into a cow. They never complain about taking men place in those dirty job.

[–]literally_____hitler 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The real question is why men don't sue.

[–]Snyggkille 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They do though. Four Swedish men sued the Police Acedemy because they weren't accepted because they were men.

The Discrimination department gave them right and a fuck load of cash as well as a position on the police academy.

[–]HiilestTehtyAffena 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not Swedish but I think that "positive discrimination" is against the law, at least so it is in Finland if the state does it, and the laws tend to be very similar.

[–]splodgenessabounds 41 points42 points43 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And a brief look at tomorrow's Swedish newspapers: following release of figures that show women are 99.99997% of graduates, columnists say young Swedish men need to "man up" and enrol in uni. On page 9, female students most affected by lack of marriageable male students...

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women need to women up, drop outta college, pop out a few kids, and make us some sandwiches. /s

[–]chaun2 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I've never nderstood the sandwich thing. I make my own damn sandwiches, cause I know how I like them. I've never said it to their faces, but not one GF ever got the ratios of toppings right. Hence why I cook as frequently as I can

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If your gonna be lazy you can't be too picky

[–]chaun2 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose there is that

[–]wanked_in_space 42 points43 points44 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course. Doors should only be shut in the faces of men.

[–]gevander 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The quoted sentence is missing two words: "... should open doors for women ..."

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm confused, I thought we were no longer to open doors for women. When I was a lad we would be beaten for failing to do this - really.

[–]gevander 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They still want the door to opportunity held open for them.
:-/

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How do women look at this and still have the nerve to claim that they are oppressed? How rotten do you have to be?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are blinded by extremism. They refuse to admit equality (and beyond) has been reached. It's hypocrisy in all its glory.

[–]shloopyy 72 points73 points74 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sickening but not surprising. Feminists have no concept of fairness or justice.

[–]Startthecar27 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Equality.

[–]HappyHurtzlickn 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Equality"

[–]Autumnland 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

eQuAlItY

[–]cuteman 34 points35 points36 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Only when we reach 106% female enrollment will we have truly achieved diversity

[–]AgentSkidMarks 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Affirmative Action is awful regardless of who it benefits.

[–]Nooblapse 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are second-class citizens now.

[–]boringcarpets 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Now"

[–]inyourfases 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whenever people talk about affirmative action, just say "so you think women/blacks/whatever aren't competent enough to get the job themselves? " Shuts them right up.

[–]NoFanOfTheCold 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because the SJW movement is only concerned with The Holy Narrative and logic and truth must not interfere.

[–]Mode1961 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you suggesting that Feminism is a religion. If you are suggesting that 'YOU ARE RIGHT".

[–]nocivo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are a cult.

[–]Lord_shitmeister 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This gender equality program failed to favor women and was therefore terminated.

[–]TrulyStupidNewb 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget when Harvard suggested companies roll back blind recruitment when they found out that omitting the name actually favoured men compared to showing the names.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/30/study-blind-recruitment-aimed-at-boosting-female-hires-actually-does-the-opposite/

Actions done in the name of equality are removed the moment they don't favour the target demographic.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women currently represent about 60 percent of university students in Sweden, a pioneer in gender equality.

60%

Equality.

....60%...

.......equality...

[–]thrway_1000 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/621Pj

[–]H_Lon_Rubbard 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

On the plus side, hypocritical, feminist Sweden is set to become a true Islamic patriarchy within a couple generations.

[–]EricAllonde 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully Swedish feminists will be happy to finally have a real patriarchy to rail against, instead of the imaginary one they whine about today.

[–]cbagainststupidity 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Remind me of that blind program where company were hiring people without information on their gender to prevent any discrimination. They scrapped that one too, after realizing how it "advantaged" men.

[–]UDT22 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is anyone surprised?

[–]WolfeBane84 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sweden: Welcome to the Rape Capital of Europe.

[–]Born_To_Roam 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get a pop up (on mobile) for this article and it's one of those sketchy ones that tells me my system is infected and that I should click here now to fix it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with affirmative action is that it is discrimination. If you give extra benefits to certain groups, then that is the same as taking away those benefits to the other groups. In order to create equality you have to find out where a minority group is being treated differently and then stop that from happening, not give them a different special benefit to make up for it.

[–]TheJazzProphet 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, so it's fine if the education system shuts doors in the face of young men who want to study?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TIL

[–]overhitting 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck men, unless they're colored

[–]edxzxz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So as soon as it becomes clear that the program isn't giving females an undue advantage, they end it or change it.

[–]Juan_Golt 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is about equality. Equality defined as: getting what you want that someone else has.

[–]TigPlaze 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the feminists prove their hypocrisy once again

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Equality of Outcome" goes out of the window when it does not serve their purposes.

[–]SaturnisVictor 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sweden is a broken country on the verge of collapse or civil war. Who gives two shits about gender equality when your women gets raped on a daily basis and your newspapers are trying to cover it up?

[–]cjnilsson 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What are you talking about? / Swede

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think he is talking about the recent festival that got shut down, the refugees and overall rape/sexual assault crisis.

I really know fuck all tbh these are just common things I've heard about Sweden (Even though it's a beautiful country)

[–]Mode1961 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

huh???

[–]nocivo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Our woman? People that do this shit to man aren't ours. Let the migrants take them to their home country.

[+]The__Tren__Train -42 points-41 points-40 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

men shouldnt be allowed anywhere near women :)

[–]timeslider 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How will they open their pickle jars?

[–]The__Tren__Train 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

pickle jars are a tool of the patriarchy

[+]1493271 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

So are lug nuts.

[–]Snyggkille 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What's a lug nut?

[–]blamethemeta 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It holds the wheels on your car

[–]Sekolah 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

stop mansplaining lol

[–]Snyggkille 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, one of those.

[+]beingrightmatters -15 points-14 points-13 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The us isn't sweden. Sweden doesn't have Republican's fucking up real peoples lives.

[–]morerokk 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"How can I make this discussion about my political beliefs instead?"

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter