Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

> The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 cents for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero. It’s not zero.

> In other words, women who are doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a man, are still paid one percent less than men at the median for no attributable reason.

Given these circumstances and given the development of recent years, I can't help but hear their clear agenda and it's very likely that this development is partially attributable to overcorrections as in the context discussed here.

Also, since male/females have some differences due to our different biology (especially thinking about hormones influencing behavior to some degree, e.g. causing males to be more aggressive in salary negotiations), the notion of it having to be zero and "no attributable reason" doesn't seem rational to me, but again just underlining their agenda.

I think that link is actually a good example for the current anti-male societal tendencies.

* The majority of suicides are male

* The majority of homeless are male

* Men are less likely to go to college

* The vast majority of prison inmates are male

* The vast majority of workplace deaths are male

* The majority of violent crime victims are male

* The vast majority of police brutality victims are male

Now if we were talking about say India it would be a different story, and this is not to suggest that being a woman doesn't come with its own hazards, like a higher risk of being sexually assaulted.

But it's an objective, quantitative fact that there are way more men in awful life circumstances than there are women. Frankly in 2023 if a woman is strutting around an American college campus with a shirt that says "The future is female," she's a member of the ruling class who's rubbing it in.

In fact men so overwhelmingly dominate the worst outcomes in our society that I would go as far as to say that we cannot fix its worst injustices until we recognize many of them are uniquely male problems. Police brutality will remain permanently unsolved. Our world-leading incarceration rate will remain permanently unsolved.

But as a society we simply ignore the gendered nature of these atrocities. For some reason we can shrug off another human being's suffering when it's a son or a brother, far more easily than when it's a sister or daughter.

If you want him to avoid people like Andrew Tate, provide some other positive male role model for him. Don't seem to be a lot around. Be honest with him: "Yes, you picked this up. Yes, it's true. Yes, I may have benefited from this. No, it's not fair. No, it isn't going to go away any time soon. No, I don't think it is a good idea either. I'm sorry."

You'll have to prepare him against people who will say dumb things like "it only feels like oppression because they had it so good." Your child isn't a collective they, he's an individual, he never experienced it being Great to Be a Guy. The people who want to tell him that have visions of some elderly ass-pinching stereotype from Mad Men who is finally getting his comeuppance, not your child ... but they're pretty okay with your kid taking the hit by proxy. They're pretty okay with it, they're not going to lose any sleep at night. They'll tell you this to your face if you ask. You're going to have to warn him about the world he is entering.

> Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college.

Outnumbered in undergrad, when you account for all fields. But that’s not what's relevant here. What's relevant is PhDs, specifically in the sciences, because that's the pool from which scientific researchers are drawn. And the gender ratios there have changed dramatically since the 80s [1].

> You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started

I never said that these programs hadn't yet started. I said that they didn't exist to the same extent that they do now. There is plenty of data showing a uptrend in the number of university positions dedicated to DEI over the past few decades. And it's not just an issue of naming.

[1] https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-ea...

No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair.

A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power.

People always confuse these things.

Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.