I think that's backwards, and not substantiated. The "policy to close the wage gap quickly" was primarily removing roadblocks: more access to high wage jobs and high-status educational paths, higher wages for traditionally "female" professions, etc...
The problem detailed are actually endemic: women do better in primary education, and always have. So if you take the roadblocks out of their way they'd be expected to do better in early career paths that "look like school". I don't know that this is really that surprising.
So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix?
(Edit: the whiplash on the votes in this comment is dizzying, but I guess unsurprising. I do think that an awful lot of people on this forum aren't mentally prepared for the case of "What if women actually are better at entry level corporate work than men are?")
>So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix?
It's funny you put it this way. Feminists were never satisfied when men suggested that maybe men got paid more because they were more hard-working or talented, and maybe their success was simply the result of good choices and higher natural ability, or biological life cycle differences, or the preferences of women themselves to not work as hard.
To actually answer the question, I think the fix that should be put in place is to stop assuming that sex differences are because of discrimination, and immediately end policies that promote quotas on people based on characteristics like sex. It's clear that women have not been actually disadvantaged in general for a very long time, and pretending otherwise is harming men. Treat people equally as possible, and let the outcomes be what they must.
In my opinion I think men are also losing motivation because all the jobs they might like are being outsourced and undercut. They're told they are oppressors even though they have little real power in society. Most of them aren't getting any attention from the opposite sex either, because women don't want to date down. Demographic imbalances also make the dating pools skewed in favor of women.
In many/most cases women will regret choosing career over a husband and kids, or even be tricked into thinking they can have it all at 40. But by then it is too late.
So... you reject the idea that women might be inherently superior workers than men, despite data in the linked article showing that they seem to be. Instead, the reason is social and governmental repression of a disadvantaged class, and regulatory action is needed to address the unfair results.
How exactly is that not just DEI for men?
> In many/most cases women will regret choosing career over a husband and kids
>So... you reject the idea that women might be inherently superior workers than men, despite data in the linked article showing that they seem to be.
Yes! I don't care that you gave a reference. Men invented practically the whole world around us and are more physically capable than women. They have been doing half of the work or more for millenia, and aspire to do great things (for women's benefit no less). You think some pissant DEI-funded result that only applies to modern times, where men are abandoning college because it's not worth it and women proceed because they are highly conformist and do what they're told, changes that?
>How exactly is that not just DEI for men?
What I said was to stop favoring women. If I was a woman I could have my pick of jobs or at least a leg up. I might have also gotten scholarships and other opportunities in school. That is not even possible for men. Try to make a scholarship or other benefit for boys and see how much shit you'll get. Even the Boy Scouts were forced to take girls. Somehow you think treating people equally according to their characteristics is DEI for men. I think you're a woman trying to justify discrimination against men.
>And that's just plain sexist. Yikes.
So, me acknowledging that women may regret letting 100% of their eggs fall out before trying to have a kid is sexist, but saying something as stupid as women are better workers than men in general isn't? Yikes indeed.
> saying something as stupid as women are better workers than men in general
Is it? Girls do better than boys in school, period. Women are more likely to attend college and to graduate once they're there. The fact that they do better in school and not in early career earnings has, in fact, been a long time point of evidence that gender imbalance exists. Yet the instant it looks like that might be reverting to mean, we see men screaming that it's somehow unfair and we need to put the finger back on the scale.
This is what I meant upthread about people being mentally unprepared. Seriously: what if it's true? For myself, I think it's probably true that women are more valuable blue collar employees. It's the theory that fits the data best.
Schools have been changed since the 80s to specifically improve the performance of girls, particularly in maths and science. Is it unsurprising that this has worked, at the expense of boys?
Girls have outperformed boys up through high school since before they were keeping track of statistics like that. It's a cliché, even. This is not a new or surprising effect.
And I repeat my point: there are a lot of men here on HN who seem unprepared to accept a world where women's performance in entry level career work is actually higher than men's, even though that would seem like an obviously extrapolation from well-understood data.
I repeat my point from other comments again here: If women are so cheap and so talented, they don't need preferential treatment. They will be rewarded naturally according to their abilities without all that. You seem unprepared to accept a world where women aren't given preferential treatment over men under the pretense of victimhood. You claim women are better at various things but refuse to acknowledge that men are discriminated against purely to promote women (because DEI, not because they are better in any way).
> Girls do better than boys in school, period. Women are more likely to attend college and to graduate once they're there.
There are many reasons for this. They get more support at every turn, and they conform to rules and systems more easily than men who are inclined to think for themselves. They also believe in the narrative that college is necessary and if you don't do it you've missed out big time. That isn't necessarily true. Most of the degrees issued are overpriced and/or worthless now, and even 20 years back.
Most of the women who go to college now don't need a college degree. They would be better served by community college to do a useful job, or else taking that time to start a family. But they've been sold the lie that college always pays off, and they get lots of help to pay for it and survive it.
>The fact that they do better in school and not in early career earnings has, in fact, been a long time point of evidence that gender imbalance exists.
Men have to work hard in life to get the affection of a woman, and that skews everything. Then there is also the fact that women choose stability and flexibility to deal with children and their own social preferences (such as higher amounts of travel for leisure). A woman could literally be on the verge of homelessness and be able to find a man to take care of her.
If women are really such better and cheaper workers than men, why doesn't every employer hire women? They could quickly put everyone else out of business.
> Yet the instant it looks like that might be reverting to mean, we see men screaming that it's somehow unfair and we need to put the finger back on the scale.
There is no reversion to the mean here. I reject your claim that men are somehow inferior workers. Cut out all the DEI programs and go strictly based on merit, and you'll see how quick things turn around. Although I'm not sure that would necessarily happen. Women have not been disadvantaged in any area in at least about 50 years, but they've received preferential treatment the whole time.
This isn't a simple matter of fairness. Shitting on men constantly and propping up women is going to lead to a demographic collapse. Women don't want to date men who they outperform. They want men to provide for them so they can take it easy with the kids. That's fine but don't expect that while doing everything you can to make that as hard as possible.
>This is what I meant upthread about people being mentally unprepared. Seriously: what if it's true? For myself, I think it's probably true that women are more valuable blue collar employees. It's the theory that fits the data best.
Considering that blue collar jobs are the hard physical ones, women absolutely aren't preferred for those jobs by default. They might be favored by guys who appreciate having women around but they just can't do what men do (at least, with the same high level of output, in general). There are many better jobs that are naturally leaning toward women, such as waiting tables or tending bar in nice restaurants, certain sales jobs, nursing, teaching, child care. Good luck getting one of those jobs if you're a man. At the same time, you'll almost never see a woman welder or oil worker, or construction worker. The real high-pressure jobs that shave years off your life have no appeal to women because they don't need money that bad. Men do them because they need to support their families, or else their wives will hate them and/or leave.
In all that wall of text, did you really not hear yourself applying exactly the same arguments in exactly the same way that feminists have been for decades? Is there no moment where you maybe stopped to think that maybe there's a middle ground, but that when all is finally said that there (1) may indeed be a small divergence in gender performance but (2) it may not cut the way you want it to? Are you prepared to live in that world?
(FWIW, I wrote "blue collar" when I meant "white collar", apologies.)
>In all that wall of text, did you really not hear yourself applying exactly the same arguments in exactly the same way that feminists have been for decades?
Maybe a little. Are you suggesting that discrimination against men is fine because you think men did it like a hundred years ago?
> Is there no moment where you maybe stopped to think that maybe there's a middle ground, but that when all is finally said that there (1) may indeed be a small divergence in gender performance but (2) it may not cut the way you want it to? Are you prepared to live in that world?
If there is a difference, it isn't the way you want it to be. Cut out the favoritism toward women and let's find out. You can't just rest on your laurels as women enjoy all the benefits of DEI and men are denied advancement due to quotas, and lecture me about how much better women are than men at stuff in general.
For my part I think men are slightly better at most things, but left to their own devices they are extremely competitive (as women DEMAND of them, as this is their role in society) and they will collectively outperform by a lot because they are motivated. If men are unmotivated, we're in deep shit, because things will fall apart without men. We will be defeated by some other society that doesn't treat its men like the scum of the earth.
> So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix?
Your libertarian perspective is missing the individual humanity of the issue. It's not about systemic roadblocks, it's about society's values.
Our society has pushed a lot of messaging towards girls and women that encouraged academic and professional excellence. Media unabashedly points out examples of successful women. That's encouraged girls to dream and women to persevere.
As a middle-class white man, the messaging I've heard is that success shouldn't be celebrated because anyone with my level of privilege should be successful. It's not uncommon for me to feel shame from national media. I second guess myself on my masculine traits being toxic.
I'm NOT advocating to be less encouraging of women. But I think we should be more loving and encouraging of little white boys so they don't grow up to become NEETs, MAGAs, or DOGEs.
Edit - Sorry to have not answered your question.
>if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix?
Maybe. Action could be useful, but only a delicate touch that doesn't exacerbate overshoot in the other direction.
The problem detailed are actually endemic: women do better in primary education, and always have. So if you take the roadblocks out of their way they'd be expected to do better in early career paths that "look like school". I don't know that this is really that surprising.
So I'll reframe the question in a more libertarian way: if women are better at getting entry level corporate jobs and education-focused career paths (doctors, lawyers), is that something we should fix?
(Edit: the whiplash on the votes in this comment is dizzying, but I guess unsurprising. I do think that an awful lot of people on this forum aren't mentally prepared for the case of "What if women actually are better at entry level corporate work than men are?")