Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Men Without Work (2016)

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 471 posts

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#151

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

dgfitz wrote: post #134
mfer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Do I want my daughter to be a plumber? No." How many people want their son to be a plumber? Likely not many of the people on HN. Does a lot of this view have to do with what people think of jobs like plumbers?

Plumbers, at least on the East Coast, make good money. If one of my kids became a plumber I would have no problem with it. Do I WANT them to become a plumber? Not really. If school is just not interesting to them and they like working with their hands a trade isn't a bad way to go.

They make decent money here too. I genuinely want my kid to do what they feel they want to do ( or have a strong predisposition for ). That is obviously not apparent now, but I absolutely agree that trade is not a bad idea from my perspective. I have an indoor job with no heavy lifting, but.. eh, there are days I wish I asked my dad to teach me about currents and cars.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#152

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #117
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no, I think. I agree in abstract, because I am sure it is a factor, but I will give my personal anecdata. Covid was a stroke of good luck for me, because I effectively was able to be a father and work from home at the same time ( 1st year kid - and she slept on a tight schedule ). And I will admit it was incredibly fulfilling ( albeit tiring ). We are a dual income household and above average in terms of inco…

Why doesn't your cousin want their daughter to be a plumber?

It was not explicitly stated. The unspoken reason was "She should get a degree and have a BS job in an office." It is possible I am just projecting my own prejudice here.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#153

Post by sharkjacobs »

marcusverus wrote: post #52
afavour wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The American Zeitgeist around gender issues is distorted to dehumanize men and alienate anyone who even dares to recognize this fact. I'm conflicted about that. Not denying that what you've said is true but I specifically chose the term "red pilled" because there are huge toxic (predominantly online) communities that are openly misogynistic. e.g. in theory I'd like and participate in the "men's rights" subreddit, i…

> I'd also add: a lot of this societal pressure against men being accepted as stay at home parents comes from men. Maybe men are just more vocal about their opinions regarding stay-at-home dads? Women may not exert "societal pressure" against stay-at-home men, but they're ~30% more likely to divorce them than working men (a 3.3% chance of divorce in a given year vs. 2.5%)[0]. > For marriages formed after 1975, husban…

> Women may not exert "societal pressure" against stay-at-home men

I'm not sure that the study supports this. I think that the terms "stay at home dad" and "stay at home man" implies a male spouse who stays at home to do unpaid housework or child rearing instead of working a full time job.

The study seems to say that, for men, being unemployed is positively correlated with divorce risk, but that doing a larger share of household labor is not.

Not all unemployed men are "stay at home" men.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#154

Post by watwut »

danaris wrote: post #140
javajosh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in theory I'd like and participate in the "men's rights" subreddit, in reality it's a pit of toxicity. Indeed, but so is the equivalent feminism subreddit (try "r/askafeminist" for example). And yet "women's rights" don't have the same stigma as "men's rights". What explains this asymmetry? Why is it some movements get defined by their extremists, and others don't? >: a lot of this societal pressure against men bein…

I'm not familiar with r/askafeminist (or any other part of Reddit, really), but from what I've seen, the mirror "equivalent" to MRAs more generally is radical feminism, or radfems. For those who are unfamiliar, the basic tenet of radical feminism is that the source of women's oppression is the patriarchy (OK so far, if reductionist), which is run by and for men (broadly true), and thus men are all inherently bad (who…

Radfems I have seen were significantly less hateful then what I found on Redpill or MRA subs. It is not that some of them were not hateful or mocking men, but the levels and amount of it were much different.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#155

Post by spacemadness »

scottLobster wrote: post #69
ianai wrote: post #2

In lieu of any particular review I’m submitting the Wikipedia page. I was unemployed for most of the Great Recession and can empathize with much of this book. I also just remember the “tragedy of my twenties” realizing society had basically no interest in me. Despite a math degree and IT/programming experience. Then the myriad people I’ve interacted with in the last decade plus who are in this situation. Luckily I no…

Yeah it seems like there used to be a cultural value of putting people to work. Generally speaking you had to be a real fuck-up to not get a job. Maybe the jobs available weren't the best, but you could get something to pay for basic food/housing with little effort or credentialing. The attitude was, if you were a decent person and willing to work, "come by and we'll find something for you to do". Now the zeitgeist i…

Well, there is the other side of some engineering, particularly with software, which is ageism. So those on the “wrong” side of the hump get laid off and can’t find work. Now it’s because they didn’t manage their career well enough, etc. etc. which translates to “you are a failure.” So what seems exempt is only exempt at the beginning of your career.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#156

Post by watwut »

chasd00 wrote: post #60
garettmd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember during most interactions with healthcare providers during my wife and I's pregnancies, hardly anyone ever talked to me, sometimes never even looking at me. I get it, I'm not the one carrying a baby to term, but I would have thought the fact that I was showing up to all these appointments, staying by my wife's side, taking part in decisions, and supporting her and the baby through the whole thing would have…

i know exactly what you mean. I remember an early doc appointment with my wife she was pregnant with our first child, the doctor was going over things with my wife like what she should be doing and what she should not be doing etc. I asked the doctor what i should be doing and what i should look out for, she just glared at me and said "you've done enough." implying i was only there to get my wife pregnant. That was 1…

I mean, what you think doctor should tell you about what you should be doing while wife is pregnant? If the wife wants your support, I would expect the wife to tell you what kind of support she needs. She does not need doctor to be her speaker, presumably. And doctor giving you instructions on what she should be doing in pregnancy would be patronizing toward wife.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#157

Post by ZGDUwpqEWpUZ »

afavour wrote: post #104
ZGDUwpqEWpUZ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you believe the Global Boyhood Initiative, who published that report, are an extreme minority, and are accusing me of a fallacy because of that? Fascinating. This is exactly the sort of half-baked lie I was talking about. Edit: At some point, rubber has to meet road. Either you accept that boys falling behind in education is an issue, or you don't. If you don't accept it as an issue, then you cannot simu…

You added that after I replied. To be honest your entire tone here is an example of really unproductive online conversation, I don't have any interest in participating in it (this whole thread is dead because the "purple haired feminist" parent comment was flagged anyway)

[flagged]

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#158

Post by javajosh »

xg15 wrote: post #133
javajosh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in theory I'd like and participate in the "men's rights" subreddit, in reality it's a pit of toxicity. Indeed, but so is the equivalent feminism subreddit (try "r/askafeminist" for example). And yet "women's rights" don't have the same stigma as "men's rights". What explains this asymmetry? Why is it some movements get defined by their extremists, and others don't? >: a lot of this societal pressure against men bein…

Depends what the goals of the movements are. Most feminist discussions I've seen acknowledge that "the partriarchy hurts men as well". So highlighting issues like being discriminated as a male single parent or stay-at-home dad would probably find support in feminist spaces: Dealing with them shares the same vision as feminism does, just from the perspective of men instead of women. In contrast, many spaces that are b…

>, many spaces that are branded as "men's rights" today seem...

That's the thing, that's the branding. The left (with Tucker Carlson's help) managed to get everyone to think of a man tanning his balls with any mention of men's rights. This is a major coup for leftist feminists, and a major loss for human rights.

Men's rights are human rights. They are father's rights. They are worker rights. It means equal protection under the law, protection from rape and violence, protection from discrimination and threats. These are basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone. This should not be a zero-sum game: to give one group rights you should not take them away from another group! There are plenty of rights to go around and they won't run out.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#159

Post by ZGDUwpqEWpUZ »

TylerE wrote: post #122
tonightstoast wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the minority that historically was doing the oppressing? Is it so difficult to realize those oppressors are dead and these men weren’t alive in 1920?

[flagged]

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-p...

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#160

Post by watwut »

tejohnso wrote: post #38

> Statistically, the labor force involvement for men twenty and older fell from 86% to 68% between 1948 and 2015 So what are they doing instead? How are they surviving?

Waaay more people go to college and way more people are retired.

Also, 1948 was fairly close after war. There was general systematic effort to get men returning from war into work. That includes goverment policies seeking that and employers firing women just to get men to work. Also economy was doing very well. Also, not insifignicant amount of men died in war.

Incarceration rates went up, America locks more people then most world countries. Majority of people going to prison are men. Being in prison or jail means being unable to work and having very hard time to find work after.

The world was different in a lot of ways.

Post reply on HN