"Some schools are trying to attract male applicants by improving their sports programs; others invest more heavily in buying boys’ email addresses or give incentives to boys that they do not offer to girls — such as free stickers or baseball caps — for filling out information on the school website. Marketing materials are sometimes designed to speak specifically to young men. Heath Einstein, dean of admission of Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, recalls fondly a pamphlet known internally as the “bro-chure,” which featured shots of the football team, a rock climber and a male student shoving cake in his mouth. But the easiest way for many competitive schools to fix their gender ratios lies in the selection process, at which point admissions officers often informally privilege male applicants, a tendency that critics say amounts to affirmative action for men."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/magazine/men-college-enro...

Even adjusted for maternity and career entry/exit differences, the gender pay gap is still big and real. And while there is overlap and outliers, many more women-dominated industries are at lower pay segments (and with fewer benefits) than industries dominated by men.

Also there is certainly a world right now that says, oh your a man? Life is pretty grand to be a man - especially if you are a certain social economic class. There is some truth to that but thats the exception not the rule.

I suspected that within healthcare, women tend to occupy the lower-qualification roles more than the higher-qualification. This article [2] seems to confirm that: women are large majority in roles like nursing, hygienist, technologist but only occupy 44% of physician roles.

So... yeah sounds like despite women getting most new jobs, they're not exactly privileged, just lucky to be in a growing industry.

[1] https://nchstats.com/us-health-industry-jobs/#:~:text=manufa...

[2] https://www.hiringlab.org/2025/08/26/august-labor-market-upd...

I also believe the number of female primary care physicians recently surpassed men. Or at least in Family Medicine, or something like that.

Though present day men don't seem to be biting the "let's join the military and fight foreign wars for our corrupt baby-eating pedo leaders" nationalist propaganda, like they did generations ago.

There will be more fires and at least one rich person will be eaten.

Why should he get to moderate this forum and own several houses???

He didn't do shit.

There's only so many lumberjacks needed in an economy. Sure you can depress the wages for awhile but there's still a limit.

So you need Men do to something else and the way you do that is with marketing (and also with Men being unemployed until they accept a nursing job).

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 'more attractive', generally, is rising fixed costs, like rent and energy, and stagnant wages.

The real issue is the opposite narrative. The idea that men broadly oppressed women across history, preventing them from participating in economic roles, and that modern outcomes are primarily the result of that dynamic being corrected.

There are a number of reasons at play here why that premise doesn’t make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points:

1. For most of history, labor was dictated by physical constraints and survival needs. Work like hunting, land clearing, construction, and early farming depended heavily on upper body strength and endurance, which skewed participation toward men. That’s a division of labor shaped by biology and environment, not a simple story of exclusion. As technology advanced, much of that physicality became unnecessary, which is a major driver of why participation has equalized in modern roles.

2. Women’s roles were not an absence from work, but a concentration in different forms of labor. Childbearing, childcare, food preparation, and household production were essential to survival, even if they don’t show up cleanly in modern employment statistics.

3. Many of the institutions we associate with modern economic life, including formalized science, engineering, and large-scale industry, were disproportionately created and originated in contexts where men were the primary participants. That’s not a claim about superiority, but it does mean the structure of what we now recognize as “work” and “progress” was heavily shaped by that historical imbalance.

4. The concept of a formal job market is relatively recent. In pre-industrial societies, most people, including men, were not participating in anything resembling today’s labor market. Applying modern employment categories backward creates a distorted picture of inclusion and exclusion.

5. Modern workforce participation is strongly driven by changes in technology and incentives. As physical constraints decreased and the returns to education and careers increased, more women entered and competed in the workforce. That shift is not well explained by a single narrative of oppression being lifted, but by broader structural changes.

So... seems like gender _does_ have something to do with that? Maybe just maybe more women gravitate towards these roles because these roles are associated with traditionally-feminine values (care, empathy, nurture)?

Maybe you're "just not interested" because as a man, you've been educated with traditionally-masculine values (strength? protection? power?), and if you had grown up in an environment where these roles are associated to these values, you'd be potentially-interested in them despite their obvious downsides

This is quite the claim, and I would understand anyone taking deep offence by it.

Can you substantiate it?

What about DEI rejects reality?

How have men /not/ been the clear benefactors of gender for effectively all of history, which negatively impacts women in the workplace today?

Human rights is about equality, and DEI achieves that through pulling up the mistreated to reach parity, no? Are you saying “it’s not equality unless everyone is treated equal”? (IE building a wheel chair ramp is not equality, because we’re treating disabled people different)