I disagree with feminists on most object-level policy questions, but I think they're right that society treats men "more fairly" than women. But I think they get the pros and cons of the treatment of each gender quite wrong. Society gives men a sort of harsh-but-fair treatment where they're left on their own, don't get unconditional help…
I disagree with feminists on most object-level policy questions, but I think they're right that society treats men "more fairly" than women. But I think they get the pros and cons of the treatment of each gender quite wrong. Society gives men a sort of harsh-but-fair treatment where they're left on their own, don't get unconditional help from others, are expected to take risks and live with the consequences (e.g. they can start a risky business venture where they'll maybe get rich or probably go bankrupt, and in either outcome people will think they deserved what they got). Women get an unfair treatment where people discriminate against them, but also receive benevolent sexism. I think if you do a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of being male or female, it's actually better on net to be female, which I think feminists would vehemently deny. Part of the issue is that men have far more variance in life outcomes, where they're more likely to be homeless, die, or get rich, and everyone ignores poor/dead people, compares stereotypical female jobs (e.g. nurse, teacher) to higher-paid "male" jobs (e.g. CEO, computer programmer) while ignoring bad or dangerous but common male jobs (e.g. construction, deliveries, manufacturing) and then concluding that men have it better so we should help women with affirmative action.
I disagree with feminists on most object-level policy questions, but I think they're right that society treats men "more fairly" than women. But I think they get the pros and cons of the treatment of each gender quite wrong. Society gives men a sort of harsh-but-fair treatment where they're left on their own, don't get unconditional help from others, are expected to take risks and live with the consequences (e.g. they can start a risky business venture where they'll maybe get rich or probably go bankrupt, and in either outcome people will think they deserved what they got). Women get an unfair treatment where people discriminate against them, but also receive benevolent sexism. I think if you do a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of being male or female, it's actually better on net to be female, which I think feminists would vehemently deny. Part of the issue is that men have far more variance in life outcomes, where they're more likely to be homeless, die, or get rich, and everyone ignores poor/dead people, compares stereotypical female jobs (e.g. nurse, teacher) to higher-paid "male" jobs (e.g. CEO, computer programmer) while ignoring bad or dangerous but common male jobs (e.g. construction, deliveries, manufacturing) and then concluding that men have it better so we should help women with affirmative action.