bjornstjerne

> This is an honest question to people who side with the proposal. At what point would these measures become unnecessary? What are the conditions?

> Btw what is the name of the ideology that one would use to justify this?

I'm not one of the supporters, but I've talked many times to such people and have encountered a lot of resistance to them laying out stopping or success conditions. I'm of the option that the diversity activists want these diversity programs to continue until they are happy with the results, which (more than likely) will be never.

I've also seen a lot of resistance the idea considering the perspectives of anyone who's not a member of one of these "victim"-groups (at least not until their group has experienced "10,000 years of oppression and discrimination."

The parent comment shouldn't be downvoted, men definitely do receive an extra level of suspicion when it comes to children, especially younger ones.

> Through 21 years running one of the few campus support centers exclusively for men, he said, “I’ve thought it can only get better. But it just has gone nowhere. Not only are there not programs like ours that are supportive of male students, but at most college campuses the attitude is that men are the problem. … I’ve had male students tell me that their first week in college they were made to feel like potential rapists.”

> Added Maloney: “There’s a lot of attention on empowering girls. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but males are the ones in crisis in education.”

We could start by fixing this problem, which seems like it should be one of the easiest to solve. Lets make sure college is not a hostile environment for anyone, including men.

Honestly, I think it's because there's this feminist idea that a woman should bear no responsibility for anything labeled bad that happens to her, especially if it involves anything sexual.

Like most things, that idea began as one legitimately applied to certain, limited circumstances; but that complexity was forgotten in its popularization. Now we're left with an over-simplified (and wrong) remnant that's still treated as gospel.

Not really. What I was getting at was that social forces change over time. Certain members of the "man" class benefited from past social forces, not some innate powerful characteristic of the "man" class. So, it's wrong enact (and justify) policies to counteract that non-existent characteristic, like denying that class access to sex-segregated networking groups that are equivalent to those available to other classes.

Power usually goes to the classes who are most organized and cooperative. If you forbid cooperation, you eventually forbid (equal) power as well.

> As long as you ignore who in society actually has power

> ....Senate...president...board members...ceos.

A man or a group of men having power is not the same as men, as a class, having power.

It's kinda unfortunate that this is the top comment. Couldn't we talk about Turkey instead of quoting books that are at best marginally related to the present situation?

> than critiqued the attitude behind it.

That response was more contempt than critique.

> In fact, Dr. Cheryan’s research shows that young men tend not to major in English for the same reasons women don’t pick computer science: They compare their notions of who they are to their stereotypes of English majors and decide they won’t fit in.

I wonder how long it will take for humanities departments to adopt a more inclusive culture? Why must our obsessive hand-wringing be be reserved exclusively for computer science and engineering, which are mostly hidden and do not set the wider cultural narrative (for the most part).

I'm glad she was able to figure out that the team culture didn't fit her and leave for something more suitable to her preferences. Different people are different, and a single team cannot accommodate every style.