Manhood:Badly educated men in rich countries have not adapted well to trade,tech(economist.com)
economist.com
Manhood:Badly educated men in rich countries have not adapted well to trade,tech
http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21649050-badly-educated-men-rich-countries-have-not-adapted-well-trade-technology-or-feminism
2 comments
So very true. From the article:
In almost all societies a lot of men enjoy unwarranted advantages simply because of their sex. Much has been done over the past 50 years to put this injustice right; quite a bit still remains to be done.
Yes, and then they explain how teachers in OECD countries will give a paper a lower grade if they discover it was written by a boy. How then far more women are admitted to colleges than men (it's now about 50% more women than men) and how much of an employment advantage a college degree is. That 78% of never-married women consider it "very important" that a man have steady employment, while only 46% of men make that same demand of women.
Ah, the unwarranted advantages of being a man. Much has been done to men already, but apparently quite a bit more needs to be done to them to put this injustice right.
In almost all societies a lot of men enjoy unwarranted advantages simply because of their sex. Much has been done over the past 50 years to put this injustice right; quite a bit still remains to be done.
Yes, and then they explain how teachers in OECD countries will give a paper a lower grade if they discover it was written by a boy. How then far more women are admitted to colleges than men (it's now about 50% more women than men) and how much of an employment advantage a college degree is. That 78% of never-married women consider it "very important" that a man have steady employment, while only 46% of men make that same demand of women.
Ah, the unwarranted advantages of being a man. Much has been done to men already, but apparently quite a bit more needs to be done to them to put this injustice right.
Had the same reaction. How is this on the front page of HN?
Consider the role the tech industry has had in the automation of labor and the resulting unemployment of unskilled workers.
I'm glad someone else picked up on this. I cringed when I read that paragraph. For some interesting perspective on men's issues, take a look at the Men's rights movement. It's ambitious, broad, controversial, and contradictory, but full of interesting thought.
* Poorly educated
The social justice movement demands we be sympathetic to poor people. Using the word 'poorly' might arouse that sympathy before it's established that the subjects of the article are dog-fighting degenerates unworthy of it.
> "The dead hand of male domination is a problem for women, for society as a whole—and for men like those of Tallulah. Their ideas of the world and their place in it are shaped by old assumptions about the special role and status due to men in the workplace and in the family, but they live in circumstances where those assumptions no longer apply."
The author says this right after explaining what these men lost to time are jobs in factories and fields. They didn't lose a privileged place in society, they were at the bottom being worked to death and now they don't even have that. But right next to this is an infographic showing the male share of new billionaires which has nothing to do with the uneducated men the article is talking about. It only serves to help the reader keep in mind who the real victims are. (The infographic of the male share of prisoners appears later)
The author tries to give a balanced picture but to me this is a great example of how feminism struggles to talk about men's issues in a meaningful way. The first word of the article is a woman's name, the first statement is a woman calling men lazy. By the end of the second paragraph the author has painted a picture of the men the article is about as lazy, gambling and unemployed.
I can't imagine an article ostensibly about women's issues that opens up with a man explaining these particular women are good for nothing and then the author trotting out various ideas of why that's the case.
edit: This is just ridiculous. The author suggests that these men need to do more housework, like maybe that's their real problem, they just can't get with the program because they're clinging to pre-feminist revolution gender roles.
It's almost a dangerous view, mass unemployment is an economic problem and instead of discussing it frankly the (anonymous) author would have us focus on how backwards men are now that the patriarchy isn't showering them in privilege anymore. It's sad to see thinking this shallow appear in The Economist.