> And outside relatively gender-neutral white-collar occupations, the economy as a whole has been shifting away from male-coded jobs toward female-coded jobs. The chart below shows the shares of employment in health care and social assistance (blue line) and manufacturing (dashed green line) since 1990:
Think about it: regardless of the gender dynamics, that's a bad evolution. A shift from making things to not making them, as part of general enervation of the country. In that respect, health care and social assistance are as good as hawking crypto-coins and social media influencing.
> While Trump is telling Americans that he can bring back traditional manly jobs, Charlie Kirk called for a return to traditional gender roles — getting women to marry and have children young rather than focus on career.
And it's pretty clear that "getting women" to "focus on career" will eventually lead to extinction. It's a shortsighted optimization with severe medium to long term problems, a lot like industrial pollution. Of course someone like Krugman will try to hand-wave that problem away with immigration, but the math there just doesn't work. As best, that's like moving the factory overseas to destroy some poorer person's environment instead of yours. Birthrates are declining everywhere, including in poor countries. Worldwide fertility is at replacement and dropping. The poor places will get depopulated (e.g. poor elderly left without caretakers), and eventually fail to provide the needed replacement workers.
netsharc · 1h ago
To reiterate this comment from a few days ago:
This anthropologist spoke before the UN about Islamic radicalization. It's not hard to see that a similar sort of radicalization is happening to white men in the US, and Europe for that matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc
In both cases the target are people who are aimless, and they're promised a cause to fight for, add a bit of religion because it's an undisputable "Truth" (never mind that the Truth is whatever the leader declares to be true).
polotics · 36m ago
This is one well-chiseled pamphlet. I wish a lot of head-scratching to the ones whose job will be to try and paint it as hateful or not constructive.
bix6 · 1h ago
Wow great piece.
4ggr0 · 34m ago
good points in the article, but it contains an angle i find funny.
women have been fighting for decades now to get equal pay and respect, sometimes for whole sectors which are "female-coded". these wants and needs are in my POV largely ignored by the men in power, because that's how things are, you know. if you want more money, just work more or become a housewife and stop caring at all.
when it's men who start complaining, we really gotta start thinking about increasing wages and creating better opportunities, we have to save them! and the gov has to do it!!
if i was a women i'd feel a bit ignored, but then again, i'd probably be used to it /s
of course i would find it lovely if people get better opportunities and more money regardless of their gender, i'm not saying that we shouldn't help men. but can we maybe try to help all people, instead of just again and again putting a focus on those poor, white, manly men?
Think about it: regardless of the gender dynamics, that's a bad evolution. A shift from making things to not making them, as part of general enervation of the country. In that respect, health care and social assistance are as good as hawking crypto-coins and social media influencing.
> While Trump is telling Americans that he can bring back traditional manly jobs, Charlie Kirk called for a return to traditional gender roles — getting women to marry and have children young rather than focus on career.
And it's pretty clear that "getting women" to "focus on career" will eventually lead to extinction. It's a shortsighted optimization with severe medium to long term problems, a lot like industrial pollution. Of course someone like Krugman will try to hand-wave that problem away with immigration, but the math there just doesn't work. As best, that's like moving the factory overseas to destroy some poorer person's environment instead of yours. Birthrates are declining everywhere, including in poor countries. Worldwide fertility is at replacement and dropping. The poor places will get depopulated (e.g. poor elderly left without caretakers), and eventually fail to provide the needed replacement workers.
This anthropologist spoke before the UN about Islamic radicalization. It's not hard to see that a similar sort of radicalization is happening to white men in the US, and Europe for that matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc
In both cases the target are people who are aimless, and they're promised a cause to fight for, add a bit of religion because it's an undisputable "Truth" (never mind that the Truth is whatever the leader declares to be true).
women have been fighting for decades now to get equal pay and respect, sometimes for whole sectors which are "female-coded". these wants and needs are in my POV largely ignored by the men in power, because that's how things are, you know. if you want more money, just work more or become a housewife and stop caring at all.
when it's men who start complaining, we really gotta start thinking about increasing wages and creating better opportunities, we have to save them! and the gov has to do it!!
if i was a women i'd feel a bit ignored, but then again, i'd probably be used to it /s
of course i would find it lovely if people get better opportunities and more money regardless of their gender, i'm not saying that we shouldn't help men. but can we maybe try to help all people, instead of just again and again putting a focus on those poor, white, manly men?