~ archived since 2018 ~

While men are still overrepresented in Congress, and big business does it matter that boys are struggling in schools? Of course: our future depends on making the best use of human capital. If that means nurturing boys with explosions, that’s a price worth paying.

[deleted]

March 30, 2010

20 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28kristof.html?hp

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	While men are still overrepresented in Congress, and big business does it matter that boys are struggling in schools? Of course: our future depends on making the best use of human capital. If that means nurturing boys with explosions, that’s a price worth paying.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	20
Comments	33
Date	March 30, 2010 5:30 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bkae9/while_men_are_still_overrepresented_in_congress/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/while-men-are-still-overrepresented-in-congress.1050080 https://theredarchive.com/post/1050080

Comments

[–]AltTab 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bruce_Leroy 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]catlebrity -7 points-6 points-5 points 16 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 16 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, of course I was claiming that heterogeneous group of >8000 people is completely perfect. You really got me there!

You know, if that's the only way left you have to support your argument, maybe your argument isn't worth sticking to. If you actually want to point out the flaw with my logic that I've missed, please do. If you can't find one, maybe I'm not the one who is wrong.

You were claiming that /MR was hypocritical because it thinks that boys under performing in schools is bad, and would support a way to fix this that does nothing to hinder girls. You claim that this is hypocritical, because /MR doesn't think that people should choose who gets a job based on their genitals or how many babies they look after. Please point out how these are the same thing.

Edit: Thanks for almost rejoining productive conversation. Preemptively calling everyone racist isn't helpful, but you're trying.

Yes, giving money to people based on their race is an equivalent to discriminating based on sex/parenthood. It is also discrimination. Has Mensrights shown itself to be in favor of well-meaning racism but against well-meaning sexism?

See, I'd be in favor of giving a scholarship to someone from a poor economic background, because people from a poor economic background are at an unfair disadvantage based on circumstances above their control. A lot of those would be minorities, which is aok. This is veering to a different topic, but why would you propose that giving money based on race is better than giving money money based on need?

Giving scholarships to economically disadvantaged would be supporting equal opportunity in a way to fight discrimination. Giving it based on race might incidentally do that, but you're liable to give money to a rich black kid and ignore a poor white kid. Who is no less deserving an education because of his race.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Equality of outcome dictates that certain outcomes should be observed regardless of starting position or any position up until final outcome. If this were a race metaphor, runners a lap behind the leader should experience the same outcome as the leader, even if they are a lap behind in the final seconds. In the real world, this means that people who are unqualified for certain positions will still be in competition with people who are in certain positions, and by necessity of real world demands, replace them in those positions. This leads to things like quotas, in which minority groups have shortcomings overlooked simply because they are minority groups, while people who arent minorities dont get the same benefit. This leads to qualified people losing opportunities despite the fact that in all possible measurements, they may be the best candidate. This is unethical. Those who work the least may be given the most reward, while those who contribute th emost or work the most are seemingly punished.

Equality of opportunity dictates that all people should be allowed the same starting points to be taken advantage of as they see fit. Those who work the hardest will be rewarded the most. It also reduces unfair advantages suffered by minority groups who may be steeped in discrimination and poverty, but still forces responsibility on them to do the best they can.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I entirely agree with all the good social programs you've listed.

But, I know really well how unequal "starting" points can be - I'm from a very wealthy family, the opportunities and advantages I had growing up far outweigh anything those social programs could provide for the unfortunate child of that guy making 12k a year.

I'm not really suggesting anything here - but in my opinion, equality of opportunity and reasonable equality of outcome are two sides of the same coin. Another problem in our society is that money translates directly into power, and its bad for any democracy when power differentials between classes are as enormous as they are now in the US. One tiny class with all the political power is called plutocracy, not democracy.

Which is fine, if you're down with that sort of thing - I know most of my relatives are.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity -4 points-3 points-2 points 16 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

As I pointed out in various posts in that topic, citing specific evidence, women entering into the science and technology fields are in fact as qualified as the men in the field, and in fact in their early years in the profession women actually get better evaluations than men.

The problem is that these equally qualified women are driven from the field later because in our society an unequal burden of child care falls upon them. The point of the proposal I was talking about was to try in some small way to offset this by setting aside some grants for women and for men who were primary caregivers.

There are countless examples in every arena of life in which people adopt programs that attempt to bring about equality of outcome. Many schools have geographic quotas so their students will come from all over the place, because this sort of diversity can enhance the educational experience for everyone. Do these programs make you angry too?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Why not support a proposal that makes paternity leave exactly the same as maternity leave? Why not support fixing divorce law so that men could try to raise a child and have a fair chance of keeping it? Maybe there would be more men raising children if there were less barriers to their opportunity to do so.

However, /MR probably wouldn't support a mandate that stole children from random mothers to give to random fathers in the name of equality. The end result would be 50% of each gander caring for children, but it would be discrimination and bad for the kids.

See, someone who takes a break from their career is generally going be be behind. This is a fact, like it or not. That's no reason to discriminate against people who don't have children. Science is competitive and important. It's all results and performance that matter, which is the opposite of discrimination.

[–]catlebrity -4 points-3 points-2 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I do think that paternity leave should more or less the same as maternity leave. (Though women might deserve a little more because they are the ones physically giving birth and recovering from that.)

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with the baby stealing stuff, which bears absolutely no resemblance to anything anyone has ever proposed in the real world and doesn't even make sense as a reductio ad absurdum analogy.

Many professions that are as important and as competitive as science have been able to work out ways in which to balance work and child care far more effectively than science has done. The rate of female attrition in science and technology is much higher than in other professions, and this means that countless women as capable as men in the profession are unable to do the important work they are capable of doing; that's bad for them and bad for science. I don't know what the best solution is, but I'm not willing to simply give up and say, "science is too important for those baby-having women."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

The fuck I'm talking about is that equality of outcome is stupid and discriminatory. Equality of opportunity is a good idea. Guess which category handing out grants based on babies works out to?

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with the baby stealing stuff

I think it works well because it points out how discriminating for equal outcome hurts everyone and is plain old silly. It actually does bear resemblance, because you're taking something (a grant/career/baby) and handing it out to whoever has the "right" genitals, regardless of who is best able to (do research/work a particular job/care for a child). It just brings the crazy to light because people have much more of an aversion to a maltreated baby than to ill-performed research. No one has proposed it in the real world because people recognize that it is goddamn ridiculous, and you can call it that without being accused of bigotry.

Yes, the rate of female attrition is higher. Maybe more women want babies, maybe men just don't have the opportunity to care for them as much as women do. If a women scientist was denied a grant because she was a woman, that would be horrible. This isn't happening, though.

People who devote less of their time to their career (in a very demanding, constantly changing field) are under performing those who spend more of their time on their career.

The options are these:

Forbid scientists from working too hard so that you can be a successful scientist even if you take time off. As someone who aspires to do science myself, this would be pleasant, but it would hold back the human race far too much to be worthwhile. Science is important.

Deny grants to people who devote their lives to science, and give grants to people who are less committed to it, regardless of ability. This would slow science down and be completely unfair, as it's simple discrimination for equal outcome regardless of which deserving scientists get held back and which unqualified scientists get pushed ahead.

Leave everyone alone, recognizing that these women are just as capable of choosing a career instead of children as men are. They are not facing discrimination. Women who have children and then get caught up are allowed back in science, just as men who care for their children are.

It almost seems as though the discrepancy is because (gasp) women have much more of an option to have children than men do!

[–]catlebrity -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Best of luck with that ridiculous sexism where you don't give a shit if men have a harder time having children and a scientific career. And with that debating technique where you just sort of drop out and make snide comments when you can't support your argument.

There's a difference between the world you want to live in (Anyone can drop out of their career at any point for as long as they want and expect to be given special treatment if they want back in. Having an exactly equal gender ratio is far more important than fairness, equal opportunity, or science) and the real one (If you want to succeed in a meritocratic field, you need to put the effort in. No one is specifically being discriminated against for having children. People are being judged on their merits, and people who devote time to children are less likely to have those merits).

[–]catlebrity -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, when you decided to end things with that fantastic zinger I didn't have terribly much to go on. This is why trying to win a discussion by ignoring everything and spouting off a clever quip is stupid.

I do like how I've just been "making a bunch of assertions", and yet you still fail to respond to them. Have I been making statistical claims without evidence backing them up? No. Have I been trying to explain to you the difference between equal opportunity and equal results using simple logic? Yes. Have you responded with why my arguments are failing or flawed? No. Have you responded with a statement that my arguments are logically valid but otherwise flawed? No. You've just individually and silently dropped every point you don't have a clean rebuttal to, leaving you to make quips and me to try to figure out where the hell you're coming from. I've been asking questions because I wanted to hear your answers. When you throw out a reason that everyone is racist for disagreeing with a policy, then refuse to defend that policy yourself, you're not actually doing anything but grandstanding.

I've had to make shit up about what you believe because you won't tell me. You seem to be treating this like some sort of card game where you don't want to show your hand. I suppose I should have given up back when you almost quit, but then decided to come call everyone racist to feel superior. Then failed to explain why racial discrimination was the best way to deal with poverty.

Edit just to clarify: You've certainly only been talking about women having a hard time in science because they want to raise kids. You propose that women are being discriminated against, and that running science in a meritocratic fashion discriminates against women. You really haven't mentioned men having a hard time if they want kids, even though it's safe to say that there is at least a little more holding them back from doing both than women. Yes, it's nice to say that you'd rather things were equal, but look at your last post. You certainly sound like only the concerns of women bother you, and if you only say one sentence, I have to guess.

Anyways, it's been a long time since you've tried to claim that supporting a book selection in grade schools that appeals to both genders is directly analogous to giving away a grant based on having had a child in the past. Do you want to try that again? I'm still waiting for the logic on that one.