[flagged]
Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
91–100 of 160 posts
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#92[flagged]
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many stories where the only man in the room is expected to be, simultaneously, a punching bag, a mediator for drama, and a willing recipient of sexual advances. In other words, men in nursing are treated to the same indignities that women experience in most jobs?
What you're doing here is part of the problem. "Suck it up, buttercup!" Many men would rather not work and deal with the financial and social consequences of that than deal with the toxicity both in the workplace and later on if they talk about it.
> What you're doing here is part of the problem. "Suck it up, buttercup!"
I literally have no idea how you could have extracted that interpretation from my comment.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#94Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do not exist What happened was unqualified people stopped getting jobs and found groups of people to blame it on.
[flagged]
> while the DEI types waltzed right in with shitty grades
And you know that because you checked everyone's grades?
I'll also note, you didn't say your "white son" had good grades himself.
Given that "local state school" almost as a rule let most people in, I doubt your "white son"'s good grades. And besides, grades aren't what matters. SAT or ACT scores are what matters.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#96Postmodernist movements like DEI were never about objective reality — in fact the idea of an objective reality is outright rejected. It doesn't matter if men are being left out of jobs (statistically) — they're [according to the ideology] the eternal benefactors of invisible, omnipresent systemic privilege. This is of course the complete opposite of the ideals of liberalism and the human rights movement, which is why…
> It doesn't matter if men are being left out of jobs (statistically) — they're [according to the ideology] the eternal benefactors of invisible, omnipresent systemic privilege.
This implies a contradiction that doesn't exist.
Centuries ago, the aristocracy was statistically left out of jobs and also the eternal benefactors of (quite visible!) omnipresent systemic privilege.
There are multiple potential reasons for men to, statistically, be taking fewer of a set of newly created roles. It could certainly be some systemic bias against them, but it could easily also be that they are choosing not to take them for what are surely good reasons for themselves. It could be that fewer men are interested in new jobs right now period, relative to women. I'm sure there are many other potential explanations as well.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#97Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about adjusted for people who are welding things underwater or throwing 25 kilo garbage bins into a truck?
Thanks for being a big strong tall sexy garbage welder man from Europe commenting on an US specific article. When women put on scuba gear or touch a arc welder their ovaries explode, killing them instantly. 55lbs also is well known to instantly disable women who do, in fact, labor in physical jobs. The moment a child turns 7 and reaches that weight, women lose the ability to move the child at all, leading to tragic o…
This isn't the best way to use HN.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously;
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole manosphere problem shows that with correct leader you can forge your own army.
Manosphere is a symptom, not a problem. And manosphere is a boogie-man nothing burger that has no leverage over men, since it's co-opted by grifters and scammers trying selling you courses. There's no actual "leader" there that men recognize.
Some of those that you'd call grifters are actually seen as leaders by those who claim to be in the movement. That's the problem. If they admit it or not, that's besides the point - if young men look to the likes of Andrew Tate or Clavicular as thought leaders, then they look to them as thought leaders and thus said actors are leaders if they want to be or not.
It's similar to how some athletes are viewed as role models even if they outright tell people "I'm not a role model, I just happen to be good at a sport".
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#100There are a number of reasons at play here why the premise of this article does not make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points: 1. For years, men have have had a much higher employment rate than women, e.g. 85 million men vs. 66 million women in the US in 2024 [1]. In other words, women are just catching up. 2. Women have a much higher rate of part-time jobs [1]. That is, a certain job would…
> Employers are incentivized to hire women over men in case of equal qualification. You can't say this, unsupported by evidence, in Trump's America, where revanchist 'white guy DEI' is the ordering of the world. > Women earn better salaries than ever before ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men , but has been narrowing. What makes jobs that pay enough 'mor…
> ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing.
In fact, it has started to reverse. When controlled for experience and hours worked, and comparing pay for the same job, young women out-earn young men. The reason for this is simple: the ratio of men and women in college has flipped since the 90s, going from 60:40 in favor of men to now roughly 60:40 in favor of women.
We'll see if that remains true in the long-term, however, as women tend to pay a steep penalty, compensation-wise, for maternity leave.