The Pink Ceiling: Workplaces Rigged against Early and Mid-Career Men

This is partially to inform but also vent at how rigged modern workplaces are against young men. In my (33M) final year working in the university system I realised how far we have tipped the scales towards favouring women. Part of the reason I quit was I came across information regarding promotion statistics for lecturer, senior lecturer and associate professors in my faculty of science and engineering— men had a 30% chance of promotion within a given cycle while women had 100%. That's right. 100%.

In the past, the figure hovered over 50% for both men and women. This bias (along with other reasons) resulted in a mini exodus in the faculty of early to mid-career male academics into industry. But after speaking with young guys in industry working for larger companies (we are looking at those ASX 200 companies with strong emphasis on ESG points), these discriminatory policies are almost universally adopted to get women into future leadership positions at the expense of men. I don't blame the women for taking advantage of such a rigged system, how could you? But, this young male demoralization will lead to some severe societal consequences.

Honestly, if the game is so rigged, why play it? I don't see these practices disappearing or even lessening in the near future so I'm working for a small company now. But, I aim on founding my own sole-tradership to avoid this whole gender political circus.

So, if your son is entering the workforce in the next 10 years what would you tell them?

Play the game and claim female status?
Recommend they just put up with the discriminatory practices?
Work for smaller companies?

===== Edit ====
Let's clarify a few things because it appears that a trend of name calling and preconceived notions have set root. Typical OzBargain groupthink. I'll clarify the main topics here:

You are making excuses about your own ability, you are terrible at your job.

You can believe I'm incompetent if you want, I won't lose sleep over this.

Look at the official statistics

I've seen the internal statistics at my university. Yes what I'm presenting anecdotal, but that hard ceiling that all young men would encounter at that institution exists whether you shove a booklet in my face or not.

You are an Incel, you are whining like a woman, you are not a man, you are a misogynist, you're an Andrew Tate fan, you are a "gardener" (do you think gardeners are stupid?), you are a liar etc…

Given the reaction here, most people either don't care that I uncovered obvious institutional discrimination or have resorted to name calling. Even if I were an incel or a misogynist or god forbid, an Andrew Tate fan, that is irrelevant. I'm looking out for young guys who have are now on the end of a long line of affirmative actions. Looking out for my son— your sons… It's this societal response which is why so many young men out there are just giving up. Going NEET, going 'incel', going MGTOW, MRA whatever the latest trend is— these movements are destroying men here in this country.

You hate women.

I don't know how this became a preconceived notion— to stand up for young men, instantly means you hate women. Sure.

You don't know how statistics work, was there only one woman.

I should have been clearer. There was a sample size of around 40 women and about 60 men.

Comments

                • -1

                  @SpainKing: Top 10% worldwide 😂 Okay mate, stopped reading there. No gender equality until we lift Africa out of poverty, got it.

                  • -1

                    @Cheaplikethebird: I guess other places just don't exist and gender inequality isn't a thing if you go to those non-existent places 🤷🏻‍♀️ And counting 86% of the population when calculating the 1% is batshit crazy

                    Wonder how tunnel-visioned we have to be with our quest for gender equality. Should the hunt stop once it no longer personally affects you and your workplace? How far can it extend before you go "haha those people are poor mate, why are you worried about them? I can barely afford to buy a pool and I'm not being promoted! I'm the one really struggling"

                    • @SpainKing: If all the cashier girls at McDonalds started protesting because all the store managers were guys would their protest be invalid because they're not also protesting to lift Africa out of poverty?

                      Are you doing anything to lift Africa out of poverty?

    • -5

      Also remember that men are the ones who have to fight wars. People don't realize how gory and painful wars are; limbs frequently get hacked off, blown off, or have to be amputated. Ukraine and Russia are going to have a big increase in permanently disabled men because of their current brutal conflict.

      • +1

        Are men the only people injured and killed in wars?

      • +9

        People don't realize how gory and painful wars are

        If only more people had seen the things you've seen in Call of Duty.

        Also…

        Ukraine sees surge of female fighters

      • +1

        Which rock did you come from?

      • +2

        Whereas wars are like holidays for women

        I mean, I'm guessing that's what you heard from all the women you've spoken to

        I love how you think though

        "Hi, I'd like to apply for the senior lecturer vacancy"
        "OH YeAH WeLL wHaT AbOuT aMpuTatiONs iN uKRaiNe hUh"

  • +14

    OP’s follow up topic: I cannot get a date and don’t know why girls don’t want to be with me

    • -1

      Funny— you stand up for guys so you must be an incel.

      I love my wife and kids and I want my son(s) to have a good future.

      • Genuine question, what are your wife's thoughts on this topic?

        Do you only have son(s) or daughter(s) too?

      • +2

        Gosh, I hope your wife never gets a promotion

        However would you cope

  • +5

    If you spent more time focusing on work and less time looking for a conspiracy to why you're not getting promoted, you might actually get that promotion.

  • +3

    Change ya gender my good sir!

    • waiting for a bargain on double H prosthetics

  • Identify as female

  • In the large well known multination I work for there are still slightly more men in senior leadership roles than women but generally I find the women in the senior roles to be amazing people who are actually better at their jobs than their male equivalents.

  • +5

    anyone with a brain can look at the statistics and see that the percentage of men in management roles usually exceeds the gender split within the industry.

    • +1

      One little fact most of the gender theory/feminists seem to ignore is that women only make up about 30% of the full time work force.

      So, IMO, you can't expect part time Karren to be an executive, so the "50/50" split of management should really be considered made at a 70/30 split… but of course, that doesn't fit the narrative, get media headlines and more funding so yeah…

      • I'd go from part to full time if I was getting paid an executive's salary for it

        One of the problems is men can get preferential treatment because the hiring managers worry about someone being a woman and potentially taking time off (because of child). This is a valid concern as 99.5% of parental leave is taken by women. To not have an executive at a company for 18 weeks society, and the world as a whole, would collapse

        The only solution (as I see it) is to force men to take every day of parental leave they're legally entitled to (and it should be equal to if not more than that of women, and paid at salary rate as opposed to minimum wage). This means no more bias against women (a slight bias for them, even)

        • Yeah but you don't just pick a random "part timer" to be an executive do you, the people who are in the pool for selection at that level would be the ones who, over time, have consistently put in the work and been a the top of their game (you would hope). You just aren't going to get that out of a part timer.

        • entitled to (and it should be equal to if not more than that of women

          Do you know why a woman who has given birth may need to take parental leave? Are men allowed to drive or lift >5kg after the birth?

          • @Ughhh: Lol some coward/mwgtow negged because they don't like facts. 😂

        • More and more employers are giving equal paid parental leave. But forcing men to take it wouldn’t be equitable either as women aren’t ‘forced’ other than needing to be medically fit for work.

          • @morse: If men aren't encouraged to take leave they are unable to help raise their child and the mother will have to drop out of the workforce to cope. The only reason women take parental leave is because they are physically unable to work according to you. For 14 weeks.

            This way the average wage of women stays low, the gender pay gap remains, and women like you who remain in the workforce get to claim the benefits of the policies meant to help working mothers.

            That is what you want right?

            • @greatlamp:

              The only reason women take parental leave is because they are physically unable to work according to you.

              Nope…. Didn’t say this. Some women are. Some women actually take a combo of sick and maternity leave at the same time. For most women, returning within 3months would be very difficult, but this shouldn’t preclude their partner having leave at the same time or within the first year.

              SpainKing said ‘force’ men, not encourage, I’m all for paid parental leave for men. My workplace now offers 14weeks parental leave for both parents.

              • -1

                @morse:

                women aren’t ‘forced’ other than needing to be medically fit for work.

                You haven't explained why this ridiculous comment is relevant to the conversation.

                I don't think you have any understanding of the gender pay gap at all. For you it is simply explained as "men don't respect women". Men do not take up their parental leave rights because they know it will damage their career prospects.

                When men take time out of the workforce for family responsibilities, they face exactly the same career limiting discrimination that women do. If men took as much parental leave as women, including taking time out for carers leave, and working part time, there wouldn't be a gender pay gap, there would only be a parents pay gap.

                You seem to have the view that because some men are sexist narcissists that all men are. These low iq men are narcissists to other men too.

                • @greatlamp: I have no idea how you extrapolated all of this from what I wrote. My experience is that men do take advantage of paid parental leave where it is available to them, including for extended periods, which is a relatively new development. I think paid parental leave is a good thing for men and women and being accessible to both promotes equity.

  • +3

    Yes it is! 100%
    Civilian life AND ALSO the military (armed forces in general)

    And we brought this to ourselves, to our society. Good luck now, we reap what we sow

    Better decisions next time.

    • +1

      Thank you for your service as an elite gravy SEAL

  • +8

    OP, respectfully, you're wrong on this.

  • Put a (She/Her) at the end of your email signature and wait for the promotion fast track.

  • +5

    Way too much red pill Andrew Tate bullshit on ozbargain lately…. I'm done. Cyas

  • +16

    StaTisTicS is My sTrOnG pOint!!!

    BeLieVe My AnEcDaTa!!!

  • +2

    Its definitely an over correction in big companies, or companies that are actively looking to create a visually equal environment

    Its a sacrifice some for the greater good mentality

    I don't consider sexism in the wokforce the big issue that needs to be tackled. People like to give extreme examples, but they're never examples that happen everywhere or is common

    Its socialised sexism that is the real issue

    You can't fix what happens outside the office

    I was in a big company that tried to get women up, in the end we had a bloated middle management of women, where the average age was 5-10 years lower than their male counterpart. With few trying to actually climb the corporate ladder.

    We still live in a society that wants women home with the baby/child. That results in women either quitting all together, going part time, or just doing their standard 38 hrs and leaving on the dot.

    I was told a while a go what happened to a former manager, who was clearly primed for leadership, if not the CEO.

    She disappeared then came back a few years later in what I call a 'side executive' role. Important but not directly in charge of the business. She decided in her late 40s to go over seas, pay for IVF and come back as a single mother.

    • +4

      I somewhat agree with your post, but

      We still live in a society that wants women home with the baby/child

      This goes far beyond some social issue. It's arguable to what extent it's a problem. I'd like to see men given the same maternity leave as women once kids are older, and removal of subsidized child care, and higher quality of life so families can live off one income.
      but
      Women biologically are the birthing gender, and they are the natural primary caregiver. Their biology is specifically adapted to grow, birth, feed, and nurture babies. Men are more likely to roll over on a baby in their sleep than a women is, due to hormonal differences. Arguing that women being at home with the baby is some kind of forced social norm is just so far off the deep end. It's our natural state.
      It's actually gross and sad that we implicitly devalue motherhood so much, i.e. that women are failing if they don't wage slave like the men!

      • -2

        Yes biology plays a role, but you are being a plain fool if you discount historical suppression of women in the past and how it has flow-on impacts now. No one smart (smarter than you anyway) is devaluing motherhood.

        • +2

          No one smart (smarter than you anyway) is devaluing motherhood.

          Of course they are. But your ad hominem is really a great argument that our conflicted modern values are totally not in conflict.

          Don't believe me, go read some feminist writers on the subject who grapple with the problem of "having it all" being an elusive ideal - that something has to give, and their struggle over feeling like feministic failures for not being better mothers while pursuing high profile careers. Plenty of discourse around it.

          You could also read about our social identity being strongly individualistic and eschewing ordinary and common place competency such as motherhood.

        • -1

          Plenty of 'woke' feminists (i.e. the ones who loudly proclaim their views for attention) promote the view that motherhood = failure, and a female leader needs to act like an aggressive male and wear an ugly pantsuit.

      • We have fake paternity leave, as you can put it all on the women

        There is a path way to equality… the nordic nations went through this 30+ years ago

        When they introduced paternity leave, men wouldn't take it. What they did was men were forced to take paternity leave.

  • -1

    I was 38 and married with 2 kids, when I joined the Australian public service. It became clear fairly quickly that I was too old and the wrong gender. My previous experience and educational qualifications were dismissed as irrelevant. If you were 25 and female, then you would probably be promoted. I only stayed because I needed a paycheck. I always felt like the square peg in the round hole.

    • +13

      Maybe youre just a terrible person to work with?

      • +3

        Wow. How did you work that out, Einstein?

        • +6

          I only stayed because I needed a paycheck. I always felt like the square peg in the round hole.

      • +6

        Why would they have boxes for gender, race and disability on promotion forms if they were not going to use them?

        • That's a question that baffles me. They are on a lot of forms, and I can't think of a single one where it was relevant other than for unjust biases.

        • They couldn't possibly be checking if hiring managers are a bunch of racist, sexist d*&^heads who exclusively hire entitled insecure underskilled white men, could they

          Sorry, that probably felt like a personal attack

        • +1

          Have you considered employers might want demographic information for less sinister reasons? Like planning toilets, predicting workforce needs (e.g. parental leave cover), workplace accessibility. It’s pretty standard to know the demographic of your workforce. I wonder if these kind persecutory thoughts are impacting on your interpersonal relationships and how you are perceived in the workplace - might be more of an issue than gender.

          As an aside ‘race’ isn’t common on Australian recruitment forms. They’ll usually have ‘country of birth’ which is more around verifying someone’s identity as per their ID, for criminal record checks and visa/work entitlement checks. In the US ‘race’ is commonly asked for and whilst I get it for positive action strategies and understanding the population, I also am not entirely comfortable with the concept of ‘race’, my child is mixed ‘race’ but both me and my husband are Australian born of migrants, it makes more sense to me to think of my child as Australian than of any particular race. I think that’s becoming more common in Australia and in no way diminishes culture.

    • +7

      Am male, working as a manager in government. Can't confirm.

      I suggest this is a skill/personality issue - lots of incompetent males (the majority in fact) in executive positions in government.

    • +2

      As a male career APS manager, f'n lol

      People get promoted because they have pulses

      Seriously, what was wrong with you

      • Potentially lack of pulse.

    • +2

      Maybe you didn't get promoted because you kept talking about your pegging fetish?

  • +5

    In my multi-national, multi-billion dollar company that I'm working in, every single senior executive is MALE. I'm not counting the HR head because she's the wife of the big boss.
    Sure, the balance between the genders begins to even out the lower you go in the management totem but the non-managerial people is an even split between the genders.

    Yeah bro, I'm not apologetic for my gender getting more recognition and START to climb the ranks.

    I'm sorry you're feeling adequate that women now have a fighting chance at sitting at the "grown up" table.

    • +3

      You tell 'em sister. Fight for those minute handful of women in the future who will hold exec positions and be the ones to initiate mass redundancies and extract wealth from the large "evened out" lower levels. The plight of those potential senior exec women who missed out is a disturbing social issue.

    • +2

      " I'm not counting the HR head because she's the wife of the big boss"

      LOL, one potentially highly qualified female but it doesn't count for you?

      And all the other females will get in because of … because of quotas perhaps? … government pressure?

      It doesn't sound right.

  • +2

    Sounds like a skill issue.

  • +4

    Play the game and claim female status?

    What a braindead thing to say TBH

    • I reckon OP should (de)nut up or shut up.

  • +1

    This might be an indication you hold a femine role like nursing or such, try tree logging or a masculine job let the females try dominate those industries…

    EDIT: a quick search seems teaching is indeed a feminine role (which makes sense because teaching is a form of nurturing) and has been dominated by females in the industry for a long time. this is nothing new.

    • No the problem OP is referring to occurs in the opposite situation- where a hiring quota is applied to an industry that attracts few female applicants. The ones that do apply only need to meet the minimum requirements as there is so little competition with the quota applied.

      What happens when these people are in the job, don't their colleagues assume they don't deserve their role?

  • +1

    you're only complaining now.. coz your pre-decessors have been getting away with the minimal effort & got ahead, now u as a male actually have to prove yourself to be worthy of the same status..while many women these days are given these roles on a silver platter just for the status quo

    • +2

      Your male predecessors also got away with minimal effort, should you be discriminated against to make up for it?

      • -2

        I don’t believe they will be if they don’t follow in their footsteps and also expect to be rewarded for minimal effort.

        Good workers with good personalities will find jobs and be successful irrespective of their gender.

  • -1

    If only we could capture more opportunities for white heterosexual men the world would be a much better place!
    /s

    • +5

      Its all well and good to make comments like this but it is a serious point.

      Yes in previous years men had the majority of opportunities, the point the OP is making (and it is valid) is that we're not going for equality, rather pushing for inequality as we favour females over males. Its present and for the first time in their lives men are purposefully being held back to make way for women who aren't necessarily as qualified, just to appease HR. This has resulted in greater staff turnover where i am and a drop off in productivity as no one can call HR out on it.

      • -2

        Sometimes you need an unequal action to promote an equal outcome.

        E.g You have two 5 year olds one is able bodied, one has spina bifida and can’t move their legs. You want both to be able to get from the front of the school to the class room. You give the one with spina bifida a wheelchair and make sure paths are in order, for the kid who can walk, you do nothing. Unequal action for equal outcome. And yes, on odd occasions able bodied 5yos get jealous of said wheelchair (because let’s face it wheels of all kinds are fun), until that 5yo develops insight into the reasons behind it - insight that seems to be sorely lacking in OPs case.

        Have equity strategies always been implemented well? Absolutely not, but dismissing any strategy that is not purely ‘equitable’ is not assessing the merits of the strategy. Let’s also remember poor recruitment practices occur outside of gender equity strategies and the reason they came to be - sorry to say but collectively men only have their forefathers to blame for this.

        • +3

          I dont think your analogy says what you think it says.

          At no point in time is the kid without spina bifida set back, your analogy talks of equality which is what we're pushing for.

          The OP's point would be the equivalent of the able bodied kid no longer being able to play or hang out with their friends because they have to take and care for their sibling everywhere so as to give them the most normal experience possible. In order to bring one forward the other is set back.

          And no i dont think its fair that one party should be held back because of diversity rules

        • +1

          Equality of outcome would be having the non-disabled child walk to the front of the class, then picking up the disabled child and dumping them at the front of the class because that's where the other child happened to be (they both make it to the front of the class = equal outcome)

          You're talking about equality of opportunity , where both children have the option of going to the front of the class if they choose. This is better because they have free agency to go or not to go to the front of the class (they both can make it to the front of the class = equal opportunity)

          Whoever is making and implementing these policies is seeing an inequality of outcome and to address that making the opportunities provided inequal based off your genitals or which you'd prefer (which I thought this whole thing was to address)

          In your example the child with Spina bifida isn't being held back, he's being provided with additional resources. When it comes to reality men are being disenfranchised so that women can make an arbitrary statistic closer to 50% (whatever will we do when there's an odd number of people in the workforce that identify as men and women :o ).The policies that are being put in place are more like surgically giving the non-disabled child Spina bifida and a fancy wheelchair. Or trading their spines and the wheelchair. The ideal would probably be to cure the child's Spina bifida which would make both equal without discriminating against one for something he/she can't easily change

          …but dismissing any strategy that is not purely ‘equitable’ is not assessing the merits of the strategy

          Implementing strategies just because they sound nice and no-one thought too hard to come up with them isn't helping. Assessing the strategy in action it's inherently unequal and causes anguish for ~50% of the population who have to worry about being passed over on behalf of their genitals. Is the goal just to have every man and woman working so that children only get to see them outside of the hours of 9 and 5?

          …until that 5yo develops insight into the reasons behind it - insight that seems to be sorely lacking in OPs case

          At what age do those 5 year olds learn to make an argument without insulting the other party's intelligence?

          …sorry to say but collectively men only have their forefathers to blame for this

          Thank God for our foremothers who sat back and let it all happen

          • -3

            @SpainKing: Bahaha you spent way too much time writing this up. My foremothers taught me better.

  • +11

    Should always be the best qualified person for the role. End of story.

    • +5

      100% agree

      HR and the PC brigade: BuT WOmeN DoN'T haVE EqUaL RePreSenTatioN iN tHe WorkPlaCE.

    • +1

      Qualifications and experience alone are not the only measures of worth in an organisation. I'm sure every person in this thread can tell a workplace story of someone with all the knowledge in the world, but either not good at their job or make life difficult for every one around them.

      • +3

        No one's arguing that they are.

        They're not the only measures but they do make up the majority of your capabilities. Obviously you'll still need to interview and demonstrate your ability/communication skills.

        It's when someone who is blatantly more capable is dropped due to HR requiring quotas to be met, that's where we have an issue.

      • I strongly suspect the people loudly complaining about strategies to support women’s careers and harping on about “it’s not fair” “poor male me” stand out as being exactly those people to those making recruitment and promotion decisions.

    • And sometimes your diversity (work history, life history, gender, hobbies, disability) makes you the best qualified person for the role. End of story.

  • +5

    You are just complaining about having a equal playing field where growing up you were privileged and butt hurt your not just pushed into positions for life

    Any data analytics will tell you your data source is bias. You can't just survey a bunch of young men to say women have it easy you need to survey everyone.

    Also if so many young men werent Andrew tate loving incels they would probably have more success

    • +4

      OP didn't do a great job at setting up the argument and i feel it's an emotional one under the guise of pseudo factual figures.

      The question stands though, isn't an equal playing field what we're striving for?
      Currently it's being pushed so far in one direction it's no longer "equal" but rather biased the other way.

      Last time i checked two wrongs don't make a right, and yes it is prevalent in industry (preferential hiring quotas).

      • I don't think it's swayed the other way. I just think people are used to the privileged playing field and now it's harder for them to be equally in competition with the other 50% of the market.

        When you are continuously unsuccessful you have to ask what is the common denominator. You can seek out answers and speak with recruiters . You can't just blame a shift in equality it's not.

        • +3

          Oh this is first hand experience where HR would rather we don't hire than hire another "God forbid" male. They set themselves unobtainable KPI's because it's "in the interest of the company" and don't realise it's not reflective of whats actually coming out of the universities.
          This isn't just in my workplace it's across all (4) the workplaces i've been at the past 6 years. Diversity is reserving spots for anyone but males now.

          But don't take my word for it.

  • +8

    People like to bring up diversity, affirmative action etc and say we should hire the best for the job instead. But the reality is there's always other factors, we see mates hiring mates, hiring someone because they look a certain way or look attractive, or if they like the same sports, have a more outgoing personality etc. Meritocracy is bs

    • +2

      The best person for the job isn't just about the best education/qualification/experience, but also whether you're a good fit. If you're a knob who thinks he's a genius and no one wants to with with, you're not a good fit. Easier to blame other factors though.
      .

  • +5

    Lol this is such a poor understanding of the issue and biased look at it all.

    I'm a male manager. I didn't do shit to get my position. Most of my colleagues are male managers. It's much easier at executive and managerial levels to get promoted as a male still.

    I wonder if your stats are because it's something like 3 females and 30 males competing for spots. In which case 100% success rate for females and 30% success rate for males is quite reasonable, and still shows a problem that females are being pushed away from the position.

    I'm almost positive in fact that's the case, but if you present this in a biased way using % it looks much worse.

    • +5

      "reee 100% of women got a promotion"
      "how many were there"
      "jenny"

    • I should have been clearer. There was a sample size of around 40 women and about 60 men.

      • It’s the ‘around’ in this sentence discredits this. OP is claiming these firm percentages of 100% and 30% - and then says it’s ‘around’

        Also how does OP known who applied for promotions and was/wasn’t successful? 100% of ‘around’ 40 women got promotions?

        I can with 85% certainty predict why OP didn’t get promoted, and with 75% accuracy say it was probably only 5% his gender. Let’s be real, OP is going to start this ‘sole-trader-ship’ and there’s a 95% chance (based on reading his rant) that he’s going to have interpersonal difficulties that will likely, in at least 50% of cases be detrimental to business. Hopefully his technical/professional skills are 100% to make up for it.

        • I'm surprised his use of "about" isn't equally problematic

          If you see 💯% that's an easy number to memorise (like 10). Most people remember the initial digit when doing mental considerations (like buying a TV where the price is $X99). I believe this is what OP has done and why he doesn't remember the exact number. With a number like 100% this is much easier to remember than, say 43 women or 68 men or 32%.

          Also how does OP known who applied for promotions and was/wasn’t successful? 100% of ‘around’ 40 women got promotions?

          I assume he looked at the column with the percentages in it. It's unlikely he'd know all of the (around) 40 women

          Let’s be real, OP is going to start this ‘sole-trader-ship’ and there’s a 95% chance (based on reading his rant) that he’s going to have interpersonal difficulties that will likely, in at least 50% of cases be detrimental to business. Hopefully his technical/professional skills are 100% to make up for it.

          Can we stop lambasting OP for being a man that wants to talk about gender issues? Obviously not everyone's going to agree with him but I feel he made reasonable points in a reasonable manner. This is the equivalent of a woman being laughed out of the room if she asked for a job as a math teacher ("You're a man, you obviously don't have the capacity to have a good opinion on gender issues because men dumb at sociology"). All these people inferring he's a woman hater, incompetent or (profanity) to be around wouldn't be doing so if they weren't under the guise of anonymity and had to publicly put their name behind the statements that make them feel so superior for 8 seconds

          • @SpainKing:

            Can we stop lambasting OP for being a man that wants to talk about gender issues?

            As if, if a woman wrote a similar critical post with minimal evidence and lacking insight they wouldn’t receive the same reception. OP can write whatever they want, but why be angry when people disagree or find flaw with it?

            • @morse: Because those people are getting angry and disagreeing over a real phenomenon. Primarily because it benefits them. And they think "(profanity) you, I got/am getting mine." whilst continuing to act like victims and like no privilege could ever be bestowed to a group that's not white men (may throw cis or straight in with that categorisation)

              A woman would probably get a worse reception because she'd be lying/making it up considering the mandates and targets in place today. Corporations aren't going to promote 100% of male applicants unless they're the only ones in the workforce

              If they had a photo of the piece of paper and it confirmed their claims, then would it still be warranted? Or would you be more willing to engage with this hypothetical that men could be oppressed and discriminated against just like every group in history

  • +1

    yep work places needing to meet quotas to look the part, i was applying for jobs with cba and one job you had to be female to apply for a general finance role

  • +2

    I'd tell my son that it's a test of manhood. Build your skillset, start a business, make loads of money, employ people and realise that the real ceiling is the 100k-200k middle management salary bracket. He will look back at those numbers and laugh along with his stay-at-home wife and 6 children.

    • Easier said than done…
      Dont fall into the tiktok entrepeneur mindset where its apparently so easy

      • Easy won't be in his vocabulary.

  • +14

    wtf did I just walk into Incel Linkedin or somthing?

    EDIT: Quick flick through their past posts. They're anti vax, scared of wifi, and generally misogynist. They also think they are "belittling" themselves by working back in academia after being on big bucks elsewhere. Everyone they work with probably thinks they're a massive up themselves A*hole.

  • +1

    The aim is not just prioritising women over men. The aim is to NOT penalize women for things outside their control. For example someone returning from maternity leave should not missed out on promotion. Society put a lot of pressure for women to focus on both family and career so when they have to go early or arrive late they should again not be penalized for that.

  • I think most women can emphasize with OP because they have been treated like that for centuries lol

  • It's official, the patriarchy is dead. Australia is a matriarchy. In a matriarchy feelings are more important than facts.

    I read an article a few months ago about males struggling in law: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/men-… . It is a paywalled article though, but there is a paywall bypass browser extension.

    Brief summary: "Male lawyers are missing out on promotions to partner as top law firms impose aggressive gender equity targets that favour women.

    “There is now a disincentive for males to join the legal profession and that is showing up in the data – females now make up 67 per cent of law graduates,” Ms Dalton said."

    The only way to (mostly) escape the Cultural Marxist dominance of Australia is to form a small business or be self employed. Corporations and government agencies are aggressively pushing "rainbow capitalism"; moderates and conservatives and libertarians have no future there.

    • +1

      The only way to really escape what you think is happening is to leave.

      • +2

        The sane countries of the world are effectively closed to immigration. Only countries with "liberalism" as their dominant ideology accept large number of migrants.

Login or Join to leave a comment