I hate this term and the negative stink and connotations that come with it. Like it's somehow a bad thing to have men involved in anything, that men oppress women and it takes having women for the sake of it to make things right. Certain jobs and fields of work have more men simply because more men tend to apply for certain ones. More men tend to be in positions of power and leadership either because they genuinely earned it after years or even decades of experience and a proven, consistant track record; or they simply tend to take the initiative more and thus graduate to higher positions more quickly. But as usual, misandrists warp things to make it seem like men are intentionally dominating things to keep them out and oppress them. It's so asinine. Instead of "male dominated," why not something that isn't so ominous-sounding? Like mostly male? There's certain jobs that mostly consist of either men or women, and I have no problem with either as long as the workforce as a whole is qualified and reliable.

I hate it, and so what if some jobs and whatnot have more men and more men tend to be in powerful positions? What if they're actually qualified and reliable, and genuinely earned it? I don't think "male domination" as misandrists define it is truly a thing in the sense men are conspiring to oppress and keep women out. In that instance, it's pretty much a variant of misandrists' favorite imaginary boogeyman, the patriarchy. I'd imagine many here likely agree as well. Just another way of demonizing men, stigmatizing anything to do with being male and creating more animosity between both men and women. They show time and time again to not want genuine gender equality and harmony between both, just hate and division.