Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

In more or less all western societies men are found in the top and in the bottom of society.

I am perfectly fine with accepting that there is an element of choice involved if that also explains why men are found in the top of society.

My experience is that many women will not agree on that but instead point to (if they are really stereotype feminists) patriarchal structures in society benefitting men.




The patriarchy isn't so black and white. Toxic masculinity is bad for women and also bad for men. Sexist social conventions make it still much more acceptable for women to be unemployed than for men and so the pressure to succeed is much higher for men. I believe this, along with other expectations of masculinity, is part of the reason why they may be more likely to get burnout or suffer depression and other mental illness, while rejecting help necessary help. This can easily lead to homelessness.

Feminism includes criticism of the social dynamics that hurt men too. I think it's perfectly explained from a feminist framework why men can be on the bottom and also on the top of society. Most feminists support a solution to these problems as well as the ones that affect women since they are inherently connected.


Well, toxic masculinity isn't really a thing I recognize.

There is masculinity but claiming it's toxic is an absurd form of shaming which rests on the assumption that there are masculine traits which are objectively toxic.


I didn't say all masculinity is toxic. I think masculinity is fine but then you have things like this:

"Man up"

"Boys will be boys"

"You throw like a girl"/"[blank] is for girls"

"When men were men..."

"No means yes, yes means anal"

You can't deny there are some really terrible behaviours and expectations that have been normalised in our culture and they are considered as being inherent to masculinity.


No, toxicity is generally determined by dosage of a particular toxin, not grouped by toxins and non-toxins (example: water). This definition holds here too.


It implies that too much of a thing can be dangerous which isn't always the case.


It is a loaded term. It doesn't belong here, anymore than announcing women are all bitches belongs in civil discourse.


>My experience is that many women will not agree on that but instead point to (if they are really stereotype feminists) patriarchal structures in society benefitting men.

I'm curious as to why you think this an "either-or" proposition? Can men make choices and benefit from a "patriarchal" society? In fact, might men have further incentive to make the choices that will convey the benefits that disproportionately await them?


I'm not a feminist. I was on the street with my two adult sons. I have a track record of making even handed comments about gendered issues on HN.


That's fine.

I wonder still though if you agree that it also explains why men are found in the top.


I think it is more complicated than that. And I doubt we would be able to have a good discussion on the matter. You seem to be driving towards "Women just don't want it bad enough." There is some truth to that. But there is also a higher cost to women to just do the will-to-power thing and, in the aggregate, it doesn't serve survival of the species.


I am simply responding to your claim about men making choices and wondering if you are consistent with this or whether you claim it only applies to men.


In general, men and women face a different set of choices. It tends to be an apples to oranges comparison.

I do think this is an element:

Generally speaking, women have an option men lack. They can marry well. Given this easy out, when things get challenging at work, some will walk, especially since they have vastly less reason to believe they can achieve stellar success and they also face sexual harassment to a degree that far exceeds what men face. So, with poorer odds of reward, a typically worse set of working conditions due to the element of harassment and another option on the table, this will lead a lot of women to give up where men have fewer disincentives to persist and no easy out.

Women need to "want" it a helluva lot worse for wanting it to have any hope of getting them as far as a man is likely to get. So it is a rather unfair question and it really comes across like it has a very polite facade, but dark agenda.

I will add that I have already previously indicated women make choices as well when they choose to put up with crappy situations to avoid being raped on the street. So I don't plan to engage you further.


[flagged]


you indicated that men often have a choice when it comes to homelessness

No, I said there is an element of choice. I said this was true about both genders.

Men do not face high odds of sexual assault on the street. When their choice is between staying in a crappy situation with relatives they don't much like or being homeless, homelessness may look like the lesser evil to them. When given the same choice, but knowing that life on the street is highly likely to involve being raped, putting up with crappy relatives is likely to look like the lesser evil to a woman.


You go to Denmark men are also found at the bottom and most of them are not homeless. So I don't think the homeless factor is useful even though I buy it's a matter of choice.


I'm not the one who brought up homelessness. I was asked about it. I replied. Then you had additional questions, that I answered to the best of my ability.

Also: Comments on HN talking about toxic masculinity and The Patriarchy should probably just be flagged/downvoted, not engaged in discussion. Talking like men are all evil pieces of shit for being born male in an overwhelmingly male forum is something I view as trollish. So I tend to downvote and/or flag them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: