Because men don't wants a free scholarship for a major that will net them a median income of 50l with a Master's Degree (Sociology, Gender Studies, Child Development, Human Resources, Social Services). Men are valued by there ability to provide, unlike women. That's why men take riskier jobs, high stress jobs and more competitive jobs. Also one of the reasons more of them have professional degrees in stem
Lots of high paying jobs are female dominated. At least in the US doctors now are. Nurses definitely are and that is a good paying jobs. Teaching, while not considered the best paying job, when you consider it is only 9 months of work and huge gov benefits like pensions, then it is quite good paying job. Female dominated.
Giving Women free passes has become an easy way for politicians to gain votes. It's just like in previous decades, where waving a Bible and quoting scripture would get you votes. Feminism has become a trick, a gimmick that politicians use to gain power - and not power for the sake of building up our society, but power for its own sake.
That's because women are united and they care for people of their own kind. They vote in large numbers unlike men, so it's is easier to win an election if you wooooo the weemin.
I think its true that women care for their own kind, so to speak. Due to women being naturally more empathetic, they are much more likely to help each other and organize. We men are much more disagreeable, and tend not to care for each other - usually because we are too busy competing against one another. Due to this, we don't organize on certain issues even though we should. As a result, women tend to get more of a say in many areas of societal problems than we do, simply because they are more well organized.
And then, at the end of the day, I don't like the idea that men and women should organize separately in this way. But it seems that people organize with their own 'kin' - women tend to organize for women's issues, black people for black people's issues etc. Only when a group has organized do people from other social groups join up and support them. Since we men are particularly familiar with problems that are unique to our group, we are especially well equipped to organize and create groups which revolve around our problems. Once we do that, women will be able to see in what way society is unjust to us, and they will join up. It's already happening to a small degree.
Women are not empathetic. If they were, then they would be able to put themselves in the shoes of someone different like men. A strong in-group bias excludes empathy. Empathy is all about looking outwards at the pain of others who are not yourself or tribe.
I should have expressed myself more clearly. When I said empathetic, I meant specifically agreeable, in the sense that women are more likely to avoid conflict and to seek harmony with those around them. Such people tend to naturally be drawn to those who have similar mindsets, because otherwise conflict might arise. This is basically one side-effect of being very agreeable, as I have come to understand it, that you might seek out people who are just as agreeable in order to avoid any conflict. So, naturally, women are more drawn to each other, and tend to form large groups. I am sure you have seen this in school and in workplaces - women are always extremely quick to form these large groups of friends, immediately becoming loving and close with each other. I think this is part of their agreeableness. And this is why they are so much better at organizing - not only do they naturally form groups, but since they dislike conflict they are more likely to modify their opinions to fit that of the group. This way, the group gains political/social coherence, and can act more cohesively.
For us men, it is much more different precisely because we are so disagreeable, and inclined to stand up and speak the moment we hear something that we don't disagree with. Unless it is a time of war, or heightened danger, we can be quite poor at organizing. Just look at most social groups throughout society - mothers against drunk driving, organizations fighting/supporting abortion, even parental communities in local schools - they are all basically led by women, or have a majority of women. So I would actually argue that women are more empathetic still, with agreeableness being an expression of empathy. You can check out Dr.Lippa's study with the BBC on personality traits, which was carried out with 200,000 test subjects. It showed that women tend to be more agreeable and people-oriented than men, along with many other studies. Here are Lippa's studies if you are interested.
and not power for the sake of building up our society, but power for its own sake
This is a bigger issue than most people realize. Feminism weakens nations and leaves its people more vulnerable. The price will take some time yo be paid, but it will be paid in full and then some.
I was once in a biomedical research facility in Spain. The whole fucking building was full of females. There were many all-female research groups, and in most lectures I was the only male in a class full of women.
Most of the men were professors in their 60s and almost all of the new staff was totally female. Spain is festering with feminists.
Reminds me of a law firm i visited in the UK. they were proud that 81 of 83 new associates were female. Yes all the older people were male, but almost exclusively hiring female doesn’t make a balance. It just means in 5 years you’ll be all female and won’t have hired the best possible candidates because you focused on gender over ability.
Here is a breakdown of field of study by gender. In the MAJORITY of fields, men are the minority. There is only one field where men outnumber women, engineering.
We're not far off from men being banned/restricted from certain studies, or from university all together.
This is the norm in most of western academia now it seems.
I'll use Norway as an example since I'm familiar with the stats.
In 2019 there was 119,2k men taking higher education and 177k women. We're already seeing a BIG difference.
With the exception of Engineering, where women get extra points and more, there are anything between 60 to 95% women in all prestige studies like medicin, law, architect, dentist and more.
The norwegian equality law states that its intend is to help women, minorities and those of a different sexuality. So, nothing for men. It even states: "The law aims especially at improving womens standing"
So, someone tried to use the same quotas to get men into the veterinarian studies where it was something like 95% women, but it was denied as there was no grounds for it in the law... And there was even articles talking about how using quotas means someone else losing a spot which isnt fair. That really made my blood boil. NO SHIT IT DOES? That has been argued for decades now and been met with how great quotas are and any concern comes from ignorance or bad intensions. Now that its a 95-5% disparity and it will be in favor of men they suddenly care? Dont get me wrong, I think quotas are stupid and unfair, I just hate the double morale so much.
They also tried getting quotas for men on a few studies, the quotas were aiming for a male percentage of roughly 30%, but it got denied by the government.
In short, women dominates higher education here, especially the popular studies and the one field they dont, they get quite strong help to get into.
Men are already the minority of university students in Spain; this would make the imbalance even wider. How does it make sense to give free tuition to the group already over-represented? A quick search shows that the male/female ratio is 45/55. Men are are underrepresented gender.
Of course not. Gender inequality, as defined by groups like the UN, only counts when girls do worse. Girls doing better, is considered equal. I'm not being facetious either, they literally say it in their reports, and they specifically give education as an example:
i know spain isn't like the countries in Africa. BUT if you give women an education they are less likely to have many kids they can't afford and thus be in poverty or living off welfare.
its not a new fact. if you target and help women in poor countries and educate girls from the ages of 13-18 it stops hungry mouths from being born and the cycle of poverty continuing.
I don't get why helping men into female dominated fields will help this? however i have seen men work in nurseries or midwives if that is what you mean or are interested in?
[–]BeDazzledBootyHolez 24 points25 points26 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Because men don't wants a free scholarship for a major that will net them a median income of 50l with a Master's Degree (Sociology, Gender Studies, Child Development, Human Resources, Social Services). Men are valued by there ability to provide, unlike women. That's why men take riskier jobs, high stress jobs and more competitive jobs. Also one of the reasons more of them have professional degrees in stem
[–]RagingHardBull 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Lots of high paying jobs are female dominated. At least in the US doctors now are. Nurses definitely are and that is a good paying jobs. Teaching, while not considered the best paying job, when you consider it is only 9 months of work and huge gov benefits like pensions, then it is quite good paying job. Female dominated.
[–]Hannubal 34 points35 points36 points (5 children) | Copy Link
Giving Women free passes has become an easy way for politicians to gain votes. It's just like in previous decades, where waving a Bible and quoting scripture would get you votes. Feminism has become a trick, a gimmick that politicians use to gain power - and not power for the sake of building up our society, but power for its own sake.
[+]CloudAreRed1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
That's because women are united and they care for people of their own kind. They vote in large numbers unlike men, so it's is easier to win an election if you wooooo the weemin.
[–]Hannubal 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
I think its true that women care for their own kind, so to speak. Due to women being naturally more empathetic, they are much more likely to help each other and organize. We men are much more disagreeable, and tend not to care for each other - usually because we are too busy competing against one another. Due to this, we don't organize on certain issues even though we should. As a result, women tend to get more of a say in many areas of societal problems than we do, simply because they are more well organized.
And then, at the end of the day, I don't like the idea that men and women should organize separately in this way. But it seems that people organize with their own 'kin' - women tend to organize for women's issues, black people for black people's issues etc. Only when a group has organized do people from other social groups join up and support them. Since we men are particularly familiar with problems that are unique to our group, we are especially well equipped to organize and create groups which revolve around our problems. Once we do that, women will be able to see in what way society is unjust to us, and they will join up. It's already happening to a small degree.
[–]RagingHardBull 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Women are not empathetic. If they were, then they would be able to put themselves in the shoes of someone different like men. A strong in-group bias excludes empathy. Empathy is all about looking outwards at the pain of others who are not yourself or tribe.
[–]Hannubal 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I should have expressed myself more clearly. When I said empathetic, I meant specifically agreeable, in the sense that women are more likely to avoid conflict and to seek harmony with those around them. Such people tend to naturally be drawn to those who have similar mindsets, because otherwise conflict might arise. This is basically one side-effect of being very agreeable, as I have come to understand it, that you might seek out people who are just as agreeable in order to avoid any conflict. So, naturally, women are more drawn to each other, and tend to form large groups. I am sure you have seen this in school and in workplaces - women are always extremely quick to form these large groups of friends, immediately becoming loving and close with each other. I think this is part of their agreeableness. And this is why they are so much better at organizing - not only do they naturally form groups, but since they dislike conflict they are more likely to modify their opinions to fit that of the group. This way, the group gains political/social coherence, and can act more cohesively.
For us men, it is much more different precisely because we are so disagreeable, and inclined to stand up and speak the moment we hear something that we don't disagree with. Unless it is a time of war, or heightened danger, we can be quite poor at organizing. Just look at most social groups throughout society - mothers against drunk driving, organizations fighting/supporting abortion, even parental communities in local schools - they are all basically led by women, or have a majority of women. So I would actually argue that women are more empathetic still, with agreeableness being an expression of empathy. You can check out Dr.Lippa's study with the BBC on personality traits, which was carried out with 200,000 test subjects. It showed that women tend to be more agreeable and people-oriented than men, along with many other studies. Here are Lippa's studies if you are interested.
[–]destarolat 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
This is a bigger issue than most people realize. Feminism weakens nations and leaves its people more vulnerable. The price will take some time yo be paid, but it will be paid in full and then some.
[+]CloudAreRed1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
I was once in a biomedical research facility in Spain. The whole fucking building was full of females. There were many all-female research groups, and in most lectures I was the only male in a class full of women.
Most of the men were professors in their 60s and almost all of the new staff was totally female. Spain is festering with feminists.
[+]1984wasaninsideplot1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Reminds me of a law firm i visited in the UK. they were proud that 81 of 83 new associates were female. Yes all the older people were male, but almost exclusively hiring female doesn’t make a balance. It just means in 5 years you’ll be all female and won’t have hired the best possible candidates because you focused on gender over ability.
[–]xNOM 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
And then they all quit or started working part-time after they made partner or had a baby.
[–]Pollomontus 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Men are second class citizens under law. Overall, men are only 45% of students at Spanish universities
Here is a breakdown of field of study by gender. In the MAJORITY of fields, men are the minority. There is only one field where men outnumber women, engineering.
We're not far off from men being banned/restricted from certain studies, or from university all together.
[–]RPDunkleBomb 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Isn't that stat even worse in the US too? I recall something like 60/40 here for either college or college grads. Shits fucked everywhere.
[–]Mugin 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
This is the norm in most of western academia now it seems.
I'll use Norway as an example since I'm familiar with the stats.
In 2019 there was 119,2k men taking higher education and 177k women. We're already seeing a BIG difference.
With the exception of Engineering, where women get extra points and more, there are anything between 60 to 95% women in all prestige studies like medicin, law, architect, dentist and more.
The norwegian equality law states that its intend is to help women, minorities and those of a different sexuality. So, nothing for men. It even states: "The law aims especially at improving womens standing"
So, someone tried to use the same quotas to get men into the veterinarian studies where it was something like 95% women, but it was denied as there was no grounds for it in the law... And there was even articles talking about how using quotas means someone else losing a spot which isnt fair. That really made my blood boil. NO SHIT IT DOES? That has been argued for decades now and been met with how great quotas are and any concern comes from ignorance or bad intensions. Now that its a 95-5% disparity and it will be in favor of men they suddenly care? Dont get me wrong, I think quotas are stupid and unfair, I just hate the double morale so much.
They also tried getting quotas for men on a few studies, the quotas were aiming for a male percentage of roughly 30%, but it got denied by the government.
In short, women dominates higher education here, especially the popular studies and the one field they dont, they get quite strong help to get into.
Sources in Norwegian:
https://www.ssb.no/utuvh
https://lovdata.no/dokument/LTI/lov/2013-06-21-59
https://www.nrk.no/norge/jentene-tar-over-prestisjestudiene-1.11866832
https://www.forskerforum.no/disse-studiene-far-kvotere-inn-menn/
[–]PaleoDrummer 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Men are already the minority of university students in Spain; this would make the imbalance even wider. How does it make sense to give free tuition to the group already over-represented? A quick search shows that the male/female ratio is 45/55. Men are are underrepresented gender.
[–]GalileosTele -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course not. Gender inequality, as defined by groups like the UN, only counts when girls do worse. Girls doing better, is considered equal. I'm not being facetious either, they literally say it in their reports, and they specifically give education as an example:
how gender inequality is defined/measured
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
i know spain isn't like the countries in Africa. BUT if you give women an education they are less likely to have many kids they can't afford and thus be in poverty or living off welfare.
its not a new fact. if you target and help women in poor countries and educate girls from the ages of 13-18 it stops hungry mouths from being born and the cycle of poverty continuing.
I don't get why helping men into female dominated fields will help this? however i have seen men work in nurseries or midwives if that is what you mean or are interested in?
[+]CloudAreRed1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
You don't get because you have a female mind.
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
no i can think like a man also. I do get it. I have three women in my family that have a high profile job. I do get it.