The Damore memo (scientists tended to agree with Damore, the left went bonkers) provides just one data point. Literally, no one made the rather obvious point “here is a realm where young men are thriving and that should be celebrated, not condemned”.
PA, a few notes. I work in Tech (JavaScript, Java, Python, etc.) so I am not the best person to comment on this. However, I would tend to agree that without EMT's, firemen, police, contruction workers, garbage collectors, etc society would collapse. Without Tech, we would have to go to a store to get stuff (instead of ordering online). That's an oversimplification of course. However, you can see my general point. The larger issue is that all sorts of jobs have been downgraded over the last 30 years (Tech is something of an exception). The consequences (as I see them) have been dismal.
It is fascinating to me to read this explaining the hoarding and blocking professional class, which i agree with, and then the soft denigration of Jordan Peterson.
The lack of self-awareness seems a bit breathtaking. Are the professional class thinkers on this topic maybe just virtue signaling care while committed to protecting the status quo? I see that they still support the policies that favor THEIR bank accounts, social status and offspring privileges.
The structural changes required if implemented would allow more working-class boys and men to move up the social hierarchy. I think the professional class really does not want the competition. Postmodernist critical theory is commited to just that. So it seems are the policies of the Biden Democrats. Now that they are down, step on their "semi-facist" neck and kill them.
Some good comments here, but I think a lot missing, too. Mr. Reeves points out that men evolved certain characteristics under conditions that are no longer applicable, but he doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that pre-feminist societies also evolved gender roles, attitudes and practices that largely "worked", and that those conventions are simply out of favor, not objectively inapplicable. We don't seem to have a problem recognizing this when showing respect for other cultures, as long as they're safely in the pages of National Geographic, but many of us are convinced that our opinions as of fifteen minutes ago are the pinnacle of human thought.
It's fascinating, really, that major changes are made to fundamental aspects of society, society gets worse by a variety of metrics (and surely better by some others, but it's not necessarily a wash) and nobody with a "Science is Real" sign on his lawn thinks that perhaps this means the changes weren't a good idea and should be examined.
Also fascinating is that nobody considers the middle ground between banning things and promoting them. It's either "Women don't have a head for Math" or "We need to get more women into STEM," rather than "It's unusual for a woman to go into STEM, but so what?" I realize that there's a serious danger that whatever we deem "normal" descriptively will be made prescriptive, but let's weigh that danger against the problems that we're seeing and maybe look for ways to mitigate it rather than hold on to our social revolution and try to unscramble the saddest eggs.
If I am not mistaken, it is the upper middle class in the US that historically has provided leadership and support for the hugely important not-for-profit sector and the military officer corps. Therefore, let's think long and hard before we try to eviscerate the upper middle class.
Changing our educational system to do a better job with boys and young men will be like turning an aircraft carrier. First, recognize the need to turn. Second, decide to turn. Finally, make the turn, which will still take a lot of effort and a lot of water. We are slowly reaching the first step with our educational system. Do we have the political will to take the second step against entrenched vested interests?
I find it frustrating that Mounk & Reeves refer to "top 20%" without giving any monetary definition. Just for context, the website dqydf gives top 20% in terms of household income for 2020 at $141,100. But there are other measurements, perhaps most crucially savings/equity. But I just can't read "reasoned discussion" by people who can't be bothered to define what they're talking about -- it too vague; one might say, unpersuasive.
The Damore memo (scientists tended to agree with Damore, the left went bonkers) provides just one data point. Literally, no one made the rather obvious point “here is a realm where young men are thriving and that should be celebrated, not condemned”.
PA, a few notes. I work in Tech (JavaScript, Java, Python, etc.) so I am not the best person to comment on this. However, I would tend to agree that without EMT's, firemen, police, contruction workers, garbage collectors, etc society would collapse. Without Tech, we would have to go to a store to get stuff (instead of ordering online). That's an oversimplification of course. However, you can see my general point. The larger issue is that all sorts of jobs have been downgraded over the last 30 years (Tech is something of an exception). The consequences (as I see them) have been dismal.
It is fascinating to me to read this explaining the hoarding and blocking professional class, which i agree with, and then the soft denigration of Jordan Peterson.
The lack of self-awareness seems a bit breathtaking. Are the professional class thinkers on this topic maybe just virtue signaling care while committed to protecting the status quo? I see that they still support the policies that favor THEIR bank accounts, social status and offspring privileges.
The structural changes required if implemented would allow more working-class boys and men to move up the social hierarchy. I think the professional class really does not want the competition. Postmodernist critical theory is commited to just that. So it seems are the policies of the Biden Democrats. Now that they are down, step on their "semi-facist" neck and kill them.
This is why Trump will return.
Some good comments here, but I think a lot missing, too. Mr. Reeves points out that men evolved certain characteristics under conditions that are no longer applicable, but he doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that pre-feminist societies also evolved gender roles, attitudes and practices that largely "worked", and that those conventions are simply out of favor, not objectively inapplicable. We don't seem to have a problem recognizing this when showing respect for other cultures, as long as they're safely in the pages of National Geographic, but many of us are convinced that our opinions as of fifteen minutes ago are the pinnacle of human thought.
It's fascinating, really, that major changes are made to fundamental aspects of society, society gets worse by a variety of metrics (and surely better by some others, but it's not necessarily a wash) and nobody with a "Science is Real" sign on his lawn thinks that perhaps this means the changes weren't a good idea and should be examined.
Also fascinating is that nobody considers the middle ground between banning things and promoting them. It's either "Women don't have a head for Math" or "We need to get more women into STEM," rather than "It's unusual for a woman to go into STEM, but so what?" I realize that there's a serious danger that whatever we deem "normal" descriptively will be made prescriptive, but let's weigh that danger against the problems that we're seeing and maybe look for ways to mitigate it rather than hold on to our social revolution and try to unscramble the saddest eggs.
If I am not mistaken, it is the upper middle class in the US that historically has provided leadership and support for the hugely important not-for-profit sector and the military officer corps. Therefore, let's think long and hard before we try to eviscerate the upper middle class.
Changing our educational system to do a better job with boys and young men will be like turning an aircraft carrier. First, recognize the need to turn. Second, decide to turn. Finally, make the turn, which will still take a lot of effort and a lot of water. We are slowly reaching the first step with our educational system. Do we have the political will to take the second step against entrenched vested interests?
I find it frustrating that Mounk & Reeves refer to "top 20%" without giving any monetary definition. Just for context, the website dqydf gives top 20% in terms of household income for 2020 at $141,100. But there are other measurements, perhaps most crucially savings/equity. But I just can't read "reasoned discussion" by people who can't be bothered to define what they're talking about -- it too vague; one might say, unpersuasive.