> society is fair and balanced (when it's not a white hetero-patriarchy), men just aren't fit for it, is the takeaway.
that is most certainly not what the article says. it squarely takes aim at soaring income inequality as a key factor, for example. Are we to read your anecdotes and then conclude, "wow Andrew Tate is right, women really should be treated as second class citizens, to be sexually trafficked and otherwise by people such as myself, otherwise men will continue be mistreated" ?
Re the Lockheed thing, that article is written by Chris Rufo who is pretty much the most successful right wing propagandist of our time right now, literally single-handedly convinced half the country that "critical race theory" is being taught to public school kids, which it is not, in any way, or has ever been, or will ever be [1]. One Chris Rufo is worth 25 "Mother Joneses" on the scale of bias.
I work for a large multinational company with a robust DEI program (Red Hat via IBM) and DEI programs are nothing like whatever that was that Lockheed was doing, which based on the ultra-right-wing propagandist source who wrote that story I would be extremely suspect is vastly out of context.
Just because I see through the false benevolence of media like MotherJones does not imply I fall for or agree with materialist misogynist grifters like Tate. Of course grifters are the only ones of the men's rights faction that publications like MotherJones will publicize.
Look at your reply again - I highlight unfairness towards men, you accuse me of hating women. Perhaps this confusion is excusable, since the article did bring up genuine preachers of misogyny like Tate [1], and attacking the article can be confused for defending Tate. But look at how similar it is to what Earl Silverman faced:
"any support for men is interpreted as being against women"
> literally single-handedly convinced half the country that "critical race theory" is being taught to public school kids, which it is not, in any way, or has ever been, or will ever be
That's what public officials claim when asked about CRT. But looking at educational materials and training directly paints a different picture [2,5]. I'd rather not get into the rabbit hole of CRT, as it is unrelated to the topic at hand. I merely highlight this to show Chris Rufo is not as unreliable as you allege.
[1] All I know about him comes from the likes of MotherJones or the BBC, whom I trust to report half-truths at best on such a topic, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they're accurate in this case.
that is most certainly not what the article says. it squarely takes aim at soaring income inequality as a key factor, for example. Are we to read your anecdotes and then conclude, "wow Andrew Tate is right, women really should be treated as second class citizens, to be sexually trafficked and otherwise by people such as myself, otherwise men will continue be mistreated" ?
Re the Lockheed thing, that article is written by Chris Rufo who is pretty much the most successful right wing propagandist of our time right now, literally single-handedly convinced half the country that "critical race theory" is being taught to public school kids, which it is not, in any way, or has ever been, or will ever be [1]. One Chris Rufo is worth 25 "Mother Joneses" on the scale of bias.
I work for a large multinational company with a robust DEI program (Red Hat via IBM) and DEI programs are nothing like whatever that was that Lockheed was doing, which based on the ultra-right-wing propagandist source who wrote that story I would be extremely suspect is vastly out of context.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conse...