Misc.
MGTOW - Dalrock: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?
The world you have made:
Of the people I know who have graduated college, less than half are gainfully employed. Worse, most of the ones who are employed are women. In my major, women made up the majority. 2/3 of them have jobs in the field. I’m unaware of another male I graduated with who has a job in it. Worse yet, a lot of the men like me doubled down and took extra concentrations and minors in with our degrees. Along with writing, I studied media/critical analysis and Public Relations. Essentially, I crammed an extra year into college into my four years to stay competitive in a competitive field.
As to whether the girls could write better, I must answer with a resounding “NO.” Their research papers, which I often proofread, took naive positions and failed to argue articulately whereas I typically chose an uphill position and argued it with robust reasoning and heavy sourcing. More than a few profs privately admitted my papers constructively challenged their world-views. So why, then, did the girls get the jobs? Surely companies want to hire better writers, particularly ones with GPAs above 3.5 and other honors associations, additional education and accreditation in the field, and a robust sense of communication and argumentation. (White women college grads are second only to Asian men in post-baccalaureate employment levels
It all comes down to the shifting corporate environment. A half century of government puppeteering, law suits, and sensitivity trainings have rendered companies deaf to reality. The corporate attitude takes no risks. The productivity of one man cannot compare to the financial risk that he might make an off-color remark that somehow triggers a woman to sue him and the company for supposedly subjecting her to his comment. The supreme irony is that, despite the playful joking attitudes of men in the workplace, women accomplish much less. Companies either willfully ignore this or are too scared to act on this fact.
And now, let’s return to what men have been doing. I call this the Scott Pilgrim phenomenon. Where men have encountered resistance to even their most sincere and dedicated efforts, they have assumed a fatalistic attitude towards achievement, especially since they have no family. With very few reasons to give more than a minimum hoot that they have accomplished nothing, they settle into the solipsistic world of drinking, video games, bad TV and other nonconstructive pursuits. (I grew up with video games and still enjoy them, however I treat it as I do TV and limit my use)
The truth is that when faced with difficulty and no rational cause to weather it, men retreat to the hibernation state and care only about basic comfort and enjoyment. Men, by nature, are not lazy. However, a combination of the “everybody’s special” culture, institutional resistance to their presence in the labor force, and the lack of real liabilities like a family hardly persuades men to better themselves and become more productive. The reason men marched into coal mines to do back-breaking labor had little to do with personal motivation and everything to do with familial provision.
Slow Food Quickens the Pace
The Trader Joe's Lesson: How to Pay a Living Wage and Still Make Money in Retail
A Prepper Series: The Lights Out Saga
We Are Made for Cooperation
No comments:
Post a Comment