Modern feminism increasingly seems to be an ideology based on the idea that women are always victims.

You've just described positive discrimination, and implied that you think it's a good thing.

Then you imply that you think women suffer unfairness for "literally your entire life". Which is it? You've either been a victim your entire life or you've benefitted from positive discrimination, in which case you probably need to stop acting like a victim.

The idea of giving someone an unfair advantage because someone like them possibly had an unfair disadvantage is ludicrous.

Based on your logic, in a generation from now we're going to have to start positively discriminating in favour of men, to make up for the fact that men are currently being discriminated against.

If it should be corrected, what specifically (i.e., what implementation) would you propose to do so? This whole issue is so contentious that I find people don't get much further beyond the surface disagreements.

At least in my country, all of the ways that females can be discriminated against in the workforce that are usually brought up are illegal.

(Pay gaps for the same work, promotions, sexual harassment, etc)

Yet people still complain they are problems. At this point, the onus is not on the rest of society to continue to try and make things easier for literally more than half the population. The onus is on the people being discriminated against to actually stand up for themselves and aggressively puruse legal action if they are the victims they claim to be.

For me personally, I find it quite ridiculous to hear people talking about all the gender stereotypes that exist today (and the discrimination that comes alongside them) and how we need action action action to solve them as if they are still problems.

My dad cooked more than my mum. I was picked on by girls at school. The girls always were told it's fine if they wanted to play a sport more dominated by guys, but god forbid a guy try to play sport with the girls. Rather than being discriminated against, the girls I know who went into software got given hugely preferential treatment over the guys and are routinely given better opportunities.

In everyone's effort to undo gender discrimination, they've forgotten that the aim is not to swing the pendulum to the other side, but instead to bring it back to the middle and treat people on their own individual merits.

For the sake of comparison, what country are you referring to?

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/p...

On whether structural discrimination exists, the question feels like a trap (even if not intentional) since we could probably spend hours arguing about what "structural" actually means.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, in general, I don't think it does exist anymore, in the western world. Gender discrimination against women is now both socially taboo and illegal. And yet this perceived victimhood is increasingly used to justify very real (and openly practised) discrimination against men.

We're going to raise a generation of young men who are continually told how "privileged" they are, while feeling anything but privileged.

the question feels like a trap

Would you elaborate as to how you mean, in particular how I could have phrased it better? I sometimes struggle with how much qualification is necessary when posing questions like this: not enough and a question can come across as pointed, too much and it's just tedious. I'd like to strike the right balance.

One issue your answers do point out is that in this discussion you and 'jen729w are likely working from different premises: I doubt 'jen729w would be talking about positive discrimination if they didn't think there was some sort of discrimination occurring that needed correcting. Given that, disagreeing over solutions is likely inevitable, as you disagree there's discrimination that needs to be corrected for at all. I think it would be better to be upfront about that, so you can either figure out a common understanding you're working from (whether or not there's an issue with discrimination to be solved) before discussing any issues with potential solutions. For example, there's no reason not to ask 'jen729w what their understanding of the problem is. I think this kind of problem happens quite often when discussing contentious issues, which is unfortunate because I think it tends to make the issue worse rather than better.

Thanks again! I appreciate it.

I am. I'm young enough, though, that I'm acutely aware that the roles are going to be completely reversed for men not that much younger.

I've been unable to attend technical talks at my university that sounded interesting, because they're 'women-only'. There are exclusive events, clubs, networking for women - but of course there aren't equivalents for men! Disassociate yourself from the poor fool who dare suggest such a horrid thing!

I'm all for equality, but manifestly not for 'positive discrimination'. At some point, the tables will turn, and the generation of men below me will perhaps have this feeling of having 'suffered it for literally [their] entire life', and will want to positively discriminate back.

Or, we could just consider people on their merits, rather than their gender. Y'know, what women say they want?

Control theory-wise, perhaps it's demonstrably impossible to obtain the former without some measure of the latter, unfortunately.

A rational though process would be that this just adds to the sum of injustice in the world.

I'm perhaps presuming to much but with a name that begins with Jen which is often a short or familiar form of Jennifer I would have to wonder if you yourself are in favor of "positive discrimination" because you yourself have suffered from plain old discrimination the bad and in fact only form of discrimination there is.

I believe my life thus far has been tremendously more easy than a 40 year old black woman's would have been. Do you disagree?

Edit: here's a concrete example. I've basically been offered every job interview I've gone for. I'm good at my job, no doubt, but in some of those cases I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been the strongest candidate.

But - forgive me if I sound like an asshole, I'm trying to make a point - I'm charming. I'm white, I smile, I dress well, and that makes me safe. I'm a safe option. Unsure who to hire? Hire that nice white guy.

This is the systemic, subliminal discrimination that positive discrimination is trying to address. I shouldn't be the default option just because I'm the white guy. I've had my time. Let's give the "hey we're not sure, so if in doubt hire the black lady" option a go. Fuck it, it can't hurt.

Now, I do absolutely disagree with PD where it favours a clearly inferior candidate just because of their race/gender/etc. That is clearly wrong, and gets people upset, and I see why and I agree.

It's a nuanced issue. But if you deny that there's an issue, or try to sweep it under the carpet, I believe you're being disingenuous at best.

The "funny" thing is that we are heading to a situation where the "positive" discrimination in favor of women will affect the weak side, the black/brown man, and they are not privilleged, of course. Now we have double negative discrimination.

BTH, if it wasn't so common for women to waste lot of hours everyday with cosmetic and aesthetic stuff, they would have more time to study computers and suffer less harassment. Win-win.

But people are upset because there is a PD that is favouring inferior candidate. In this case woman who failed. Of course a lot of assumptions, but still it looks like this.

Just focus in looking for candidates that are objectively competent at what they are supposed to do and fit in your culture. If you do it in an unbiased way then most groups should be represented.

Have you heard of the Equal Employment Opportunity commission? call them and tell them about your positive discrimination idea, they will surely like it... since you are in violation of EEO laws (sex discrimination = preferring females to males is as illegal as preferring males to females).

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

If you do, you will have a hard time proving that setting higher requirements for male employees is not unfavorable discrimination against them.

Your idea of a "make good" policy doesn't align with the laws nor does it make sense to punish people that have nothing to do with any prior discriminations made against the group you are advocating breaking the law for.

And yet, it's only seen as a problem if it's to favour the incumbent advantaged.

There's money in software development and women want it.

Note the lack of "positive discrimination" for jobs like coal mining, or any other profession on the top ten most dangerous jobs..?

You don't even have to go to the 'top ten most dangerous' - when did you last see a female plumber, electrician, gas technician, builder?

I was recently telling someone (female) that I was waiting in for an electrician. I said something like 'so when he comes', then said 'or she, sorry I don't know' - but then I realised actually, you know what I do know, the electrician is going to be a man and not because it's so hard to 'break into', but because women/feminists don't care about doing it.

Of course there are similar examples the other way around - male nurses or primary school teachers are examples to a lesser extent.

It's not really a problem, but we should at least be honest about what we mean.