So, what is your take on this? Do we ignore the fact that the top of our society is dominated by men and only focus on the men in the 40th to 60th percentile of income? Even then, you would see a similar pattern between the earning potential between men and women. I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here.
Why is there no push for women to be equally represented in the jobs that SUCK? Where are the feminists advocating for 50% of coal miners and loggers to be female? Nowhere to be found....because they want to secure the benefits that accrue to a small fraction of men, produced by the whole civilization (C-level positions, etc.) without sharing the bone-crushing burdens endured by the larger swathe of the male population that actually enables it.
100% of the males who get naturally pregnant. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. It's almost like there are biological differences between men and women, and that these organisms are largely optimized for distinct roles in the human system.
>>>Men have a choice to take dangerous jobs.
If men flat-out refused to do dangerous work....our entire industrialized economy would collapse, because at the end of the day all of it is built on top of natural resource extraction. Are you suggesting that all those men digging rare earth metals out of the ground should just #learntocode?
>>>Women don’t have a choice to have medical complications during labour.
But they DO have choice to not get pregnant at all, right? If men are accountable for their choice of profession and the inherent risks, are women not accountable for their reproductive choices and inherent risks? If reducing (obviously gender-skewed) labor complications is a valid societal concern, than shouldn't reducing (also gender-skewed) workplace fatalities also be a valid societal concern? I'm not really sure what you are arguing here with the pregnancy angle.
My take is that we ought to be careful about framing biases. I don't think "men" is the most useful variable to formulate every problem with. Unless we have evidence that there is an essence to every man that manifests itself in every one of these instances, we can't reduce solving these problems to "solving men".
> Do we ignore the fact that the top of our society is dominated by men and only focus on the men in the 40th to 60th percentile of income?
Like I said, we have to be careful not to treat them as joint issues. Unless proven otherwise, problems regarding a lack diversity of representation at executive classes is not related to economic problems of lower income percentiles, or educational prospects of young boys for that matter.
The other framing bias is to treat as if can only fix one problem and we can only focus on that. It is actually a blessing that these are disjoint issues and we can multitask as a society and make incremental progress.
> I just fail to see where men are getting a raw deal here.
I think again this is because of attaching too much valence to category "men". You sound like a compassionate person and I think you wouldn't disagree if we formulated the problem as "any individual who is suffering raw deals should be treated fairly", even if those individuals happened to be low-income men or undereducated boys. I think true justice can only happen if no one is left behind. And treating men as a monolithic category will have the consequence of leaving some behind that shouldn't have been.
