this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
394 points (89.2% liked)
Technology
71866 readers
4573 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's quite simple, gender equality should stand for equal opportunity for both genders, but it's not. I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority. And worst of all, equal opportunity should not mean we will hire a less competent woman that a more competent men, to fill out some 50/50 quota.
This is exactly the result of abusing gender equality.
I feel like a Cassandra since I was warning about this for years now.
The gender equality narrative got too focused on excluding men specifically, instead of including the less represented gender in each profession. Somehow the idea was that men are privileged in the system and women oppressed, while the truth is that both men and women are oppressed.
Divide and conquer was a small step away from that point.
I think there is nuance here. My understanding is that there is a very small but loud percentage of women that want to exclude men. When DEI (inclusion of less represented individuals) is encouraged, it's often cut down by "only the most qualified should be hired", detracting from the core topic which is bias. Most of the discourse around privilege was to help understand that men aren't actively oppressive, but many are blind to the ways in which they contribute to the oppressive issues due to cultural programming. In parallel to what we're seeing with protests - inaction is not helpful. Those that are privileged are more likely to be able to change the minds of those that are actively oppressive. TL;DR privilege is just the ability to apply peer pressure.
As a man, I've never been made to feel excluded by gender equality in any way whatsoever.
Every once in a while my uni has some interesting events (at least based on the description), public announcement sent to everyone, and the last sentence has almost always been some form of "women only". There is usually no gender neutral equivalents to these events and they're done in the name of gener equality. So I very much feel excluded by gender equality.
Oh no, a place you couldn't go as a man?!?!? How could you ever survive?!?
You're part of the problem
Nah, I'm just not a fucking loser
Same here. However, I suspect you and I are not zero-sum thinkers, and can conceive of a future in which both men and women can apply themselves to their full potential.
But it seems like a key part of the counter-movement to gender equality is based on the notion that every time a woman gets a job, they are taking it away from a more qualified man. It seems to be built on a mountain of insecurity more than anything else.
That may be, but you are not all men ? So some have.
There have been several cases here in Australia where men have been denied access becase they are men and taken it to court.. and lost, I suspect that's sort of what the person posting is referring to. Theres a carve out in the law to allow womens only spaces.
Now, whether you agree with the ruling of the courts or not, is to some extent ilrrelevant to the discussion (the courts are notionally after all just following the law) because gender equality then isn't about what's on the tin and that's when you get push back.
I like how you were down voted for it. Hell there's a free online course in my country right know that is not open for everyone, it says in the description that anyone can apply for a chance but only women will be allowed to participate.
I mean it's specifically a girl's coding class, I suppose there's also open classes. Segregated resources are not the same as one side lacking resources.
The trouble with that kind of stuff is usually that the gendered version is some half-assed feel-good BS. There's not a single martial artist, gender doesn't matter, who respects "women's self defence" courses because the stuff they teach there is, at best, useless. More often it's actively dangerous placebo and reading the instructions for your pepper spray will be much, much more helpful.
Same, I've been saying it for a decade that the current anti-men direction can only mean that young men will push against that and not in a nice way.
Well, guess who was right? Feminism has come all the way from something great and noble towards utter shit.
Genuinely curious, got any examples of “traditional female majority places” that masculine individuals cannot enter/participate in?
Not OP, but positions like nurses or teachers are very female dominated. It's not like males cannot reach those positions, but there are social obstacles to that. To make an example from my country, in Italy primary school teachers are > 90% female. I believe in kindergarten they reach 97 or 98%. This is also partially the result of strict gender roles than discriminate both men and women in terms of caring for children (I.e., women are de facto forced to do that, men are pushed away), which then reinforces the social practice of women doing all the caring jobs.
This is IMHO a problem for both men and women, but probably it's not from the same perspective as what OP meant...
The difference is that, typically, the lack of women in male-dominated fields is due to them being actively pushed away from things they want to do, while the lack of men in female-dominated fields is due to those fields being less prestigious/well-paid (often due to being traditionally female) and them not wanting to pick them in the first place. But when they do decide to enter those fields, nobody's actively trying to stop/discourage them.
Superficially there may seem to be similarities in circumstance, but the amount of agency men and women have to enter opposite-gender-dominated careers is vastly different.
It's the same in female fields, it's not just prestige. Men face increased scrutiny when working with children. Male nurses are expected to perform the more physical parts of the job almost exclusively.
There are 2 issues here that are being mixed.
One is women not being allowed to positions of power. The other is with women being underrepresented in certain fields (e.g., stem).
The second issue is what I am talking about and I don't think at all that men "choose" not to try certain careers in the same way women don't "choose" not to study stem and pursue stem careers. For both, social pressure and expectations, an existing field dominated by the other sex with all its implications are factors of discrimination. Strict gender roles are damaging for both men and women, and this is a perfect example.
I think it's fair to mix them, to an extent, because I think the degree of underrepresentation is often directly proportional to the prestige/pay/power of the field. Both are symptoms of the same underlying issue, which is bigots discounting women's competency and refusing to entrust them with things of importance.
But, whats the difference from a male that also wants to get to the same position, and is also not entrusted with the thing of importance? I see plenty of this scenarios play on a daily basis by males who want to get on top but are blocked by fellow males. Its the same situation, why would we need to provide help for the women but not for the men? Would you say that properly competent person would overcome this issue, regardless of their gender?
And how are women pushed out of "man jobs"?
And how are we fixing that?
Is it bosses that aim to have male coworkers turning down women? How is that different than bosses wanting artificially 50/50 turning down men?
Is it not being represented in advertising? How is that different than what happens now. Where most advertising displays just women? Or if there is both a man and a woman, the woman is usually centered in the picture or doing a more important/powerful role.
By "encouraging" women in the workplace, what you see is things being done to men that you complain was done to women.
Better paid jobs are usually more risky, competitive and harsh with short deadlines, that why the are paid more than jobs where you can just do your shift and happily go home like daycare or teaching. It happens that men simply naturally want the adrenaline and excitement that comes with the first because they want to prove themselves.
If you look into history, men where those that went hunting which can be dangerous, while women were those who collected berries and nursed children, not much danger there.
As a man, I actually thing women are crazy for not wanting to keep being a houswife a thing. It's like being the CEO of the house. WFH guaranteed, you are the one making plans and deadlines, minimal stress, and you have probably enough spare time to do whatever you want as a hobby on the side (unless you have small children). I truly don't see the downside, I would thrive in home improvement and gardening....
The extreme depression and anxiety exhibited by women in the 1950s contradicts your claim.
True, if we are talking as if today was 1950 and the socioeconomic situation were the same. But it's not. There's almost 80 years of progress and the socioeconomic situation is not even comparable. So, although true it was a problem 80 years ago, its a bit shortsigthed to claim same applies today.
The 1950s was when women were relegated to the role of housewife. You are asking why women don't want to be relegated to that role.
There was nothing wrong with that role then, and there is nothing wrong with the role now. The main difference is that in 1950 women had no choice but to be a housewife, and today women have choices, and when comparing them, being a housewife doesn't look half as bad.
The lack of income independent from your spouse is a huge argument against being a housewife.
I’m sure it varies from country to country, but in the US women could not study medicine until the late 1800’s and the US Army did not allow female physicians until 1940.
It’s not unlikely to think we have many people today who were alive before women practicing as physicians was common place.
I’m convinced it’s less of a matter of a group “dominating” a space but rather being pigeonholed/forced into it due to a lack of options, and these circumstances have impact that are still felt to this day.
I’m not sure about Italy but in a lot of the US becoming a school teacher requires a college degree and has wages that do not keep up with the cost of living.
You can look up articles of teachers losing their jobs for doing sex work or provocative modeling to earn extra income because their job does not pay enough.
Doesn’t seem like that big of a win? Unless I’m missing something?
Edit: re-read your reply and realized I did not read it properly the first time. That’ll teach me to comment in the wee hours LOL. I greatly appreciate your response! Leaving the original reply in place for the sake of context.
In Germany at the moment around two thirds of medicine students are women and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the similar in most western countries.
It's a little over 50% in the US, and is largely due to women out performing men in school.
Like another comment stated about Germany, even in Italy medicine faculties have a majority of women today as well.
I agree that in general teacher jobs are not glamorous or high-paying, but it's still a very important role in society and we can still discuss how it's a problem that there is an effective (social, mostly) barrier for males accessing (lower level) education jobs.
I do believe that this is essentially another symptom of a wider problem related to gender roles.
Certainly agree with you there and I really appreciate your nuanced take.
I think many miss the greater overarching message that forcing gender roles only serves to hold us back as a human race.
Daycare, men who work with children in general. It feels like taboo, and I assume it's because the general opinion seems to be that men that want to be around children are most likely pedophiles. I never heard of a program to include more men in daycare.
Excellent example, and I sincerely appreciate you engaging in good faith discussion!
I agree that being masculine should by default not be a barrier - social or otherwise - from working with children.
How do we begin to change that as a society?
Although I can’t think of the solution myself, I also don’t see how advancing equality for feminine individuals would hold back equality for masculine individuals.
As mentioned in another comment, a lot of these problems seem to stem from the enforcement of dated gender norms.
This is one where I think the ball is very much in the women's court.
I've seen a trend of vertical videos of fathers playing with their children, with a caption similar to "my latest ick."
Millennial men are the most engaged cohort of dads in living memory, and women have responded pretty poorly to this.
Thank you, I am actually shocked by such positive feedback, as I never expect anything positive in online discussions :D
Well, there is not much that needs to be adjusted in traditional values. Or, to put it lightly, that was never the problem to begin with. In traditional roles, both genders use their advantage to the max, and it has worked for millenia.
The issue is that there is a smaller % of both genders, who wish to do something "out of the norm". Men who want to work in childcare and women who want to drive trucks. That small % should be able to do so, without discrimination. That's it. That's all to it, why this entire woke thing blew up. We should preserve the traditional roles as they have proven themselves to work effectively, but we need to adjust it to be flexible for things that don't fit in the traditional norms.
From somewhere came the narrative that men are gatekeeping women from all important positions, and women in fight for their rights to be equal went the same route to basically gatekeep men in the name of equality. And now we are in this weird limbo where the genders seem to undermine each other whereever they can.
And it started from that valid criticism and then takes the viewer on a tour by various faces and influencers to pull them into more and more into right-wing territory to radicalize them. Once in that box, they're not getting out again. It's a right-wing conveyor belt.
As a positive counter-example, I'd like to give a shoutout to German childcare. In 2022, 17.9% of under 20yolds, 12,6% of under 30yold childcare professionals were men, contrast with 2% among 60 and older. There's been an active effort both from the professional organisations as well as operators to increase the ratio, right-out masterplanned it, and they're making strides. As a side-effect: Plenty of young female childcare workers now don't feel weird at all about wrestling with the boys. Not that "boys need movement because their gross motor skills develop before fine motor skills" was unknown back in my days but the vibe was either "grandma watching you build wood block towers" or "grandma watching you at the playground".
There's three aspects to this: They recognised that "women know better than men when it comes to childcare" is BS and recognition was given to masculine styles of parenting, with that the pattern of dealing with the few men that were in the field by "promoting them out of sight", that is, into administration, was abolished, and finally an active push to advertise the job to men.
Not sure whether the ratio will ever reach 50:50 or whether that's even important at all, stabilising at 1/3rd or such would be plenty to ensure that things are even-keeled. If you rather become a construction worker I'm not going to tell you to go into childcare instead, and vice versa, not everything that's not 50:50 is due to gatekeeping. Women aren't going to become saturation divers en masse, and that's fine.
There is nothing that needs or requires 50/50 nor is there any benefit to society by forcing it besides being able to say "now it's equal". Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks. Men are needed there to provide strict authority for kids when they are not behaving well and for developing skills such as sports, engineering and emotional reslilience.
Your first sentence is completely sensible, the rest is completely toxic and also BS gender roles. Don't project your emotional and social incapacity on me.
If my wife were to tell my kids "wait until your father comes home" a) they'll get off 110% scot-free because they already suffered enough dread and b) she'll get an earful. Ideally, though, of course, you'll date someone emotionally and socially mature enough so that won't be an issue. Someone who can stand up for herself, is actually competent, and doesn't make your kids hate you.
Also please explain: Women are good at emotional stuff but then you need the man to do the emotional resilience thing... what? I know plenty of women who I'm pretty sure could beat you up and work with plenty of brilliant female engineers, and are you accusing me of not caring. Am I just pretending to care about people? Does caring about people not come natural to you? Maybe that's a thing you should mull over.
You went into extreme edge cases to prove your point. Of course both genders can do both, but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house? Will I just put the burden on my wife and say "hey, you are mature and strong and independent - handle it and let me get a beer".
As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once. Both are emotional aspects but they are exactly the opposite aspects and complement each other. Kids do need both. Women happen to be better at empathy, and men tend to be better at regulating emotions.
Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don't want to be in?
You want to be a housekeeper? More power to you then but if your wife is an engineer and earns the money why do you suppose she can't teach kids about it?
She's the housekeeper and does tell the kids "just wait until your father gets home"? She's training them to hate you, alienate them from you, that's a giant red flag. Make sure to connect up with them or you're going to have a hard time in custody court.
Nope. Both are very capable of doing both. Again: Please don't project your hangups onto others. Female fainting is just as much a trained behaviour (ultimately, an act the actor believes themselves), as male callousness.
I'm not forcing anyone here, it's you who's drawing lines in the sand, "men shall do this, women shall do that".
Boys, on average, like to wrestle a hell a lot more than girls, are interested in mechanical things more, when playing they care about outside things. Girls, on average, develop their fine motor skills well before boys, and their play focusses on social scenarios, in a bounded (inside) context.
Let them learn in the order and manner as they see fit, that's absolutely fine and natural. But you're an adult, not a kid, your competencies should, by now, have expanded beyond that initial set and focus. If you're under the impression that "women are better at this, men are better at that" then you're either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.
I absolutely never said most of the things you claim here that I have said. I never said that one gender can't do what the other can. Will you stop putting words in my mouth?
This seems awfully ignorant. I guess you think also men are equally good at giving birth and breastfeeding? If so, no need to discuss anymore. Let's agree to disagree.
No I think you're better at putting words in my mouth than I am -- allegedly -- at putting words in yours. Speak about going to extremes to attempt to prove a point.
Well, after your 2nd post with the same thing I thought this is how you wanna communicate.
Let's try this again: If, as you say "women do empathy, men do resilience", then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.
Because more women than men want to be in daycare, it's unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women. And the gender ratio of employees doesn't mean thats also the ratio of what kids will take away from this. Does this mean that in daycare without any men the kids have only 50% of the care they need? Of course not.
Again, ONE DOESNT EXCLUDE THE OTHER. Everyone has empathy and resilience, but so far in general women tend to be better at empathy and men in resilience. Why force one to do both, when both can thrive in what they do better?
I don't expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, "ideal". It is you who is saying "guys get some other job I don't care how much you want the job and how good you'd be at it, we already have a quota of 30%".
Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?
You said, verbatim:
and then went on to justify it with
implying that more men would mean worse results "because women are so much better at it": If the ideal is 70:30 then everything else is worse, no? And you were also being very essentialist, saying that "women provide one thing, men another".
The trouble with childcare in Germany wasn't absence of men as such -- it was absence of male insight into childcare. Doing things in way that make a lot of sense but women aren't as prone to do instinctively, but are very capable of doing. As long as there's a baseline level of diversity such that both approaches are present, things are just fine. There's no ideal ratio, there's a wide span of equally good ratios that ensure that everything is covered.
And btw you don't teach emotional resilience by being authoritarian. You teach it by being there, hold watch, while the kid figures out how to control their emotions, maybe some gently encouraging words. Shouting at them might shock them into silence but it's not going to teach them anything about actual emotional regulation. The very presence of the word "authority", on top of that "strict authority", in what you say betrays your ignorance about childcare. If you have kids I feel sorry for them.