High rate of male suicide, high adoption of men in far right ideology. Why do you think that is? Because every other male than you is a weak specimen and you're such a renaissance man?
Also your statement was anecdotal and dismissive, so we'll scratch the renaissance part.
So you’re saying a high male adoption into far right ideology correlating with high male suicide shows…
Democrats are to blame?
You may want to get your logic chip checked out. No wonder you have these beliefs.
Edit: and you trying to be toxic by insulting my manliness isn’t going to win any support for your cause.
I mean, it's not untrue either. Here 58% of the students who completed their masters degree last year are women, yet the vast majority of the gender quota based bonus points still go to women. And then there is a group that claims this is still not enough progress - it seems they are more interested in revenge than equality. So I can certainly see how some men get the impression that "the left is not for them".
I'm sorry... what? It's the left's fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
Apart from anything else, isn't that suggesting that men getting more masters degrees than women is some sort of natural state? I'd like evidence for that one.
I'm sorry... what? It's the left's fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
I didn't say that. I said 58% of masters graduates here last year were women, yet the gender bonus points that favour women remain. I didn't even say that I disagreed with that policy. But if we are going have such policies I don't think we get to stand around and act confused when some men don't feel welcomed by the left.
What? What are "gender bonus points?" What masters degree program is even based on points?
They make it easier to get into university for certain genders where there is a historical imbalance of students in the subject. Men here get them for a couple of courses too: vets and nursing for example. But the vast majority of the bonuses are for women. The point wasn't to debate this system, it was just to say that we shouldn't be surprised that men feel alienated by such policies. (edit: especially in light of the recent graduate data)
Why do people get hung up on academia when it's statically likely you will make more money than women doing the same work?
'The thing that gives grades that don't ultimately matter may be treating women better, we must fix it now!' But you're utterly silent about the pay gap, the all male presidential line up, the mostly male scotus, the mostly male ceo and government makeup.
To me it feels like such a bullshit argument? Why does it resonate? Is it just that these guys are super young and basically don't get that previous generation of women were sexually harassed out of all the profitable professions, so now academia is trying to backfill?
Dude what? This is a thread about why some people are joining the right. I provided a single non controversial data point for an issue i wasn't even trying to argue.
If you cant see why a policy that has seen graduate rates rise for one gender to 58%, yet still pushes for more inequality, is going to turn off some members of the 42% then you need a kind of assistance I am not qualified to offer.
So you're saying addressing historical imbalances is a bad thing? Keep the white guys on top where they belong?
Wow that's not what I wrote - I can see now you're just going to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent anything I write.
But you are making my point for me, so thanks I guess. If you don't see a problem with one gender of masters graduates being at 42%, then you sure aren't interested in equality. That such a position is not universally appealing should mystify nobody.
What evidence do you have that this disparity is due to trying to level the admissions playing field and not, say, the dropout rate? Lots of people never finish their graduate degree. Maybe women are better at finishing it than men? Do you have actual evidence to back up your claims?
Of course. None of this data is in dispute, I just use it as an example of how it makes perfect sense that these policies are gonna alienate some men. It's not a difficult concept - I don't see the controversy.
Imagine for a moment that the gender data was reversed. There is zero chance you'd be speculating on alternative explanations.
I don't speak Norwegian. Do you have this data in English? And does this only apply to Norway?
Also, it's interesting that you got upset about my making assumptions about the things you said and then decided you knew what I would say if the data were reversed. Seems like a double-standard. A bit on the ironic side really.
That's the evidence you demanded. For a point i wasn't trying to debate. But of course you never wanted the evidence and were just acting in bad faith the whole time.
Your behaviour is incredibly hostile and alienating. Which is the whole point I've been trying to make. Don't be shocked when some guys have had enough of this stuff and decide to join the anti-science anti-progress team.
I demanded nothing, I requested. And, again, I don't know Norwegian, so I can't read the evidence. Your getting upset about that seems... hostile. And alienating, since it suggests it's my fault that I don't know Norwegian. Which, again, seems like double-standards. Seems like you need to work on those to me.
That’s… that’s not true.
Source: a male.
High rate of male suicide, high adoption of men in far right ideology. Why do you think that is? Because every other male than you is a weak specimen and you're such a renaissance man?
Also your statement was anecdotal and dismissive, so we'll scratch the renaissance part.
So you’re saying a high male adoption into far right ideology correlating with high male suicide shows…
Democrats are to blame?
You may want to get your logic chip checked out. No wonder you have these beliefs.
Edit: and you trying to be toxic by insulting my manliness isn’t going to win any support for your cause.
I mean, it's not untrue either. Here 58% of the students who completed their masters degree last year are women, yet the vast majority of the gender quota based bonus points still go to women. And then there is a group that claims this is still not enough progress - it seems they are more interested in revenge than equality. So I can certainly see how some men get the impression that "the left is not for them".
I'm sorry... what? It's the left's fault that women are getting more masters degrees than men?
Apart from anything else, isn't that suggesting that men getting more masters degrees than women is some sort of natural state? I'd like evidence for that one.
I didn't say that. I said 58% of masters graduates here last year were women, yet the gender bonus points that favour women remain. I didn't even say that I disagreed with that policy. But if we are going have such policies I don't think we get to stand around and act confused when some men don't feel welcomed by the left.
What? What are "gender bonus points?" What masters degree program is even based on points?
They make it easier to get into university for certain genders where there is a historical imbalance of students in the subject. Men here get them for a couple of courses too: vets and nursing for example. But the vast majority of the bonuses are for women. The point wasn't to debate this system, it was just to say that we shouldn't be surprised that men feel alienated by such policies. (edit: especially in light of the recent graduate data)
Why do people get hung up on academia when it's statically likely you will make more money than women doing the same work?
'The thing that gives grades that don't ultimately matter may be treating women better, we must fix it now!' But you're utterly silent about the pay gap, the all male presidential line up, the mostly male scotus, the mostly male ceo and government makeup.
To me it feels like such a bullshit argument? Why does it resonate? Is it just that these guys are super young and basically don't get that previous generation of women were sexually harassed out of all the profitable professions, so now academia is trying to backfill?
Dude what? This is a thread about why some people are joining the right. I provided a single non controversial data point for an issue i wasn't even trying to argue.
If you cant see why a policy that has seen graduate rates rise for one gender to 58%, yet still pushes for more inequality, is going to turn off some members of the 42% then you need a kind of assistance I am not qualified to offer.
So you're saying addressing historical imbalances is a bad thing? Keep the white guys on top where they belong?
Wow that's not what I wrote - I can see now you're just going to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent anything I write.
But you are making my point for me, so thanks I guess. If you don't see a problem with one gender of masters graduates being at 42%, then you sure aren't interested in equality. That such a position is not universally appealing should mystify nobody.
What evidence do you have that this disparity is due to trying to level the admissions playing field and not, say, the dropout rate? Lots of people never finish their graduate degree. Maybe women are better at finishing it than men? Do you have actual evidence to back up your claims?
Of course. None of this data is in dispute, I just use it as an example of how it makes perfect sense that these policies are gonna alienate some men. It's not a difficult concept - I don't see the controversy.
Imagine for a moment that the gender data was reversed. There is zero chance you'd be speculating on alternative explanations.
https://www.ssb.no/utdanning/hoyere-utdanning/statistikk/studiepoeng-og-fullfort-universitets-og-hogskoleutdanning
I don't speak Norwegian. Do you have this data in English? And does this only apply to Norway?
Also, it's interesting that you got upset about my making assumptions about the things you said and then decided you knew what I would say if the data were reversed. Seems like a double-standard. A bit on the ironic side really.
That's the evidence you demanded. For a point i wasn't trying to debate. But of course you never wanted the evidence and were just acting in bad faith the whole time.
Your behaviour is incredibly hostile and alienating. Which is the whole point I've been trying to make. Don't be shocked when some guys have had enough of this stuff and decide to join the anti-science anti-progress team.
I demanded nothing, I requested. And, again, I don't know Norwegian, so I can't read the evidence. Your getting upset about that seems... hostile. And alienating, since it suggests it's my fault that I don't know Norwegian. Which, again, seems like double-standards. Seems like you need to work on those to me.