There's a much bigger picture than this. It comes down to governments, media, community leaders, families and individuals. There's a huge problem with apathy toward abuse and it's all around us.
As a case on point, I am extremely disturbed by the way media and governments handle issues like domestic violence. 1800 respect (a government department in Australia) tried to shift the blame onto young boys in a series of heavily promoted TV commercials without any opposition from the community. When a female is caught abusing a family member (child/husband), the media's excuses flow readily "she lost her job", "she was under stress at work". The imagery on TV rarely reflect abused children, despite this being exactly what's happening across the spectrum of society. The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that about 25-33% of domestic violence victims are male (I haven't seen figures for children, but it is likely to be heavily under reported). That's a huge percentage of people who receive little or no representation by all media outlets and the government, let alone charity groups (ie. indigenous people are rarely represented, males are never represented, children are rarely represented - see the imagery as it speaks volumes).
Imagine being a young boy whose mother either mentally or physically abuses you. You turn on the TV and you only see fully grown white women who are (supposedly) the only victims. Politicians (eg. A prominent Queensland politician who should have been dismissed and charged long ago) are legislating for gendered criminal laws because fully grown white women are (supposedly) the only victims and never (supposedly) perpetrators. The people on the TV say how bad males are. The government (1800 respect) saturates TV with domestic violence ads saying "it's a boy thing". You open the newspaper and read the same message almost every week.
Even charity groups chime in. Most charity groups (about 95% of the ones I surveyed, using a public list of every charity that deals with domestic violence) won't even show images of male victims or house male victims. Some charities (like mission Australia) even go as far as to say that "men deny domestic violence happens". Which men? Where? This is almost certainly a ruse to justify almost all of their focus being on fully grown white women (even when Mission Australia say that indigenous women are 24 times more likely to be abused, they still mostly picture _white_ women as victims).
If you really want to talk about abuse and attitudes toward abuse, the problem starts at the top. Governments are prejudiced. The media is morally bankrupt. When somebody knows the government will turn a blind eye and the media will hand out a blank cheque and the courts will say "oh poor woman, she's oppressed/distressed/lost her job", you've got a complete system that's ripe to openly support child abuse.
I find some observations quite fascinating. For example, Steve Altman (Mr Y Combinator) expressed outrage because Muslims can't get on a plane. However, I am yet to see him voice outrage about domestic violence and the appalling attitudes in most media that are open for anyone to see.
The problem doesn't start with parents (although parents contribute to the problem). It starts with apathy.
I'm not under the illusion that this problem of violence and abuse is limited to one gender as that's patently not true. We need society to accept that truth and stop making excuses.
It appears to be deeper than that. I'll try to illustrate using a modern example.
In Australia, the media (and the overwhelming majority of feminists) refuse to acknowledge that Donestic Violence has female perpetrators or male victims. Mission Australia (a large charity organisation) even ran a smear campaign saying that men refuse to acknowlege it happens (a sleight of hand to redirect focus back on males). Some feminists even argued that domestic (of the home) violence only refers to female victims (I found that gem on ANC news). It even got worse when channel 9 and 1800 respect (a government department) took an aggressive gender based campaign that explicitly put the blame on young boys. "It's a boy thing" was one of the charming lines in the ads that saturated print time TV in 2016. Not one single feminist (not one that I could find) raised a single objection against any of this, despite it being a fundamental breach of human rights.
In case you are wondering, the Australian Bureau of Statistics identified that 1 in 3 victims of domestic violence in New South Wales (our largest state) was male. These statistics are totally ignored by government, the media and feminism.
You will see similar trends worldwide. For example, the majority of feminists in the U.K. Refuse to acknowledge many women were voting well before many men were and that women were running successful businesses long before they supposedly were according to the modern media (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Wom...).
This doesn't come down to critical discipline, it comes down to blatant pathological lying and bullying on a mass scale. Places like The Verge (among many media outlets) have embraced and driven this prejudice.
The media is extremely manipulative. The bullying of little boys today by most media outlets and many businesses blows my mind. I can't imagine any period in the last 100 years has been so committed to such extreme sexism. Even educational material like Horrible Histories has joined in on the gendered attacks.
I'm not sure what to put this down to. I usually use terms like feminism and political correctness. However, it's also the apathy of most decent people. It's a collective social issue, not just of individuals. People desperately need to take a stand against feminism and political correctness.
This goes beyond critical discipline. This is a collective social disease.
> I'm not sure what to put this down to. I usually use terms like feminism and political correctness.
This is sometimes called "cultural marxism". It is in my opinion the dominant ideology that permeates our thinking, our language and our behavior nowadays. That's why it is so hard to put our finger on it. We are like a group of goldfish discussing the concept of "water". Dr. Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto does a great job at explaining how emancipation movements that were born with the best of intentions can transition gradually into tyranny. Though he uses just the word "marxism".
Of course there's also the fable "Animal Farm" by George Orwell which masterfully describes the cycle of emancipation from tyranny to a new form of tyranny.
> I can't imagine any period in the last 100 years has been
>so committed to such extreme sexism.
I guess the fact women couldn't vote in a number of western countries in the early and mid part of last century or there were almost no women in charge corporations or govt power until the last 30 years (with a very few exceptions) doesn't qualify as extreme sexism?
One can decry the overreach and excesses of some "social justice warriors" without going red pill extremist.
Do some women commit domestic violence? of course. But how many men have killed women vs women who have killed men?
Save the extremism for some outraged subreddit.
Generally speaking, I personally think there's a fairly easy biological explanation for the emotive difference in reporting and society: men are biologically stronger than women, and thus will have a greater tendency to injure / harm when they engage in domestic violence. This is noted in the Time article as well as several references in the Wikipedia article on domestic violence against men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#...).
This is not to say that domestic violence against men should be ignored (on the contrary, it shows that there is a blind spot, contributed by certain social stereotypes driven by the biological fact that in general, men are stronger than women). But in my view, turning this into a tired "social justice warrior vs. men's right's activists" Internet argument is a great way to get this issue ignored. When this happens, activists tend to entrench in their circles and shout at each other, and the rest of the population ignores them and continues onward with their standard assumptions.
I respect your comment and the one you responded to. Being an old school nerd, only the toughest survived with a love of technology back then. I recall a stream of bullying and it either makes or breaks you. However, being a nerd is no longer the same as it was back then.
What frustrates me today is how the media (collectively) have revised the history books and promote some fairly extreme bullying (see the verge's article on Matt Taylor as an example of some extreme and unjustified bullying of Matt based on his gender).
I believe overcoming adversity is recognising you are not a victim and recognising there is something bigger than you. You are not a gender, you are not a skin colour, you are not a religion or an age group. If you can rise above these things, you are a huge step to overcoming adversity. You stop looking down on others and yourself.
I can't help but feel our society is further from this goal than I have ever seen in my lifetime. While it doesn't impact me personally, it disappoints me at how much we've regressed in even the last 10 years.
>Being an old school nerd, only the toughest survived with a love of technology back then.
Ah yes, only the toughest survive. Tech nerds are so tough that they get offended when somebody doesn't like their shirt.
>What frustrates me today is how the media (collectively) have revised the history books and promote some fairly extreme bullying (see the verge's article on Matt Taylor as an example of some extreme and unjustified bullying of Matt based on his gender).
They were complaining that he was wearing a shirt with scantily clad women on it? How is that gender-based harassment? Furthermore, how does it constitute revising history?
>You are not a gender, you are not a skin colour, you are not a religion or an age group. If you can rise above these things, you are a huge step to overcoming adversity. You stop looking down on others and yourself.
Unless you are in the category of people with the highest level of privilege in our society, you are not allowed to forget these aspects of your identity. The police, public restrooms, inaccessible buildings, and other people will relentlessly remind you of your abnormality and victimize you.
>Ah yes, only the toughest survive. Tech nerds are so tough that they get offended when somebody doesn't like their shirt.
No, you would know it was due to real, physical bullying back then. Not "someone said something I don't like on the internet", but injuring someone and/or degrading them publically due to them loving technology.
Oh, while we're at public degradation.
>They were complaining that he was wearing a shirt with scantily clad women on it? How is that gender-based harassment?
He was wearing a shirt his female friend made for him. She wasn't harassed for making it, he was - because he is a white male in a science field, the social justice warriors of the internet decided he is a target for abuse and public degradation, that a shirt is a reason women aren't getting into science. They decided he is a "misogynist" and a "sexist pigdog". That's abuse. That's bullying.
>Unless you are in the category of people with the highest level of privilege in our society, you are not allowed to forget these aspects of your identity. The police, public restrooms, inaccessible buildings, and other people will relentlessly remind you of your abnormality and victimize you.
Really? And let me guess, that would be a straight white male.
You're doing a good job of reminding people of their abnormality and victimizing them.
>No, you would know it was due to real, physical bullying back then. Not "someone said something I don't like on the internet", but injuring someone and/or degrading them publically due to them loving technology.
When exactly is "back then" though? I went through school about ten years ago and was beaten up for nerdiness all the time, why people think they can leverage this into a lifetime of misogyny is beyond me. Everyone takes shit in grade school, kids are mean.
>He was wearing a shirt his female friend made for him.
That doesn't make it not sexist.
>She wasn't harassed for making it, he was - because he is a white male in a science field
No, she wasn't harassed because she wasn't wearing it.
>the social justice warriors of the internet decided he is a target for abuse and public degradation, that a shirt is a reason women aren't getting into science. They decided he is a "misogynist" and a "sexist pigdog". That's abuse. That's bullying.
It's too bad a man was called a misogynist on the internet, it must have really hurt his feelings. I thought people like you think SJWs need to grow a thicker skin? Resilience is a two-way street, pal. If you expect us to be tolerant of your abuse, you'd better be tolerant of ours.
>And let me guess, that would be a straight white male.
Good boy! Here's your cookie.
>You're doing a good job of reminding people of their abnormality and victimizing them.
There's a certain kind of conservative who seems to think that any discrepancies in equality in modern western culture are due to individual failings of will because we made sexism and racism illegal like, last century, dude. I don't need to remind people of their abnormality, it's impossible for them to ignore.
I know because I'm neither straight nor a male. (though I am most certainly white) Far before anybody could tell me I was oppressed, I experienced oppression. In particular people in grade school beat me up for expressing femininity, because it is considered unacceptable for men to act feminine in our culture. Telling me I'm not a victim while I'm lying in a puddle of my own schoolwork mixed with other peoples' spit getting the shit kicked out of me doesn't make you clever or objective, it makes you a sadistic asshole.
on the other hand if one can be so disillusioned then it is the greatest gift, their entire brain cycles can be spent on the things that matter. But its hard to achieve the illusion.
You obviously weren't around in the 70s. Here are a few corrections (there are more, obviously),
>Because in the 1960/70/80s west, people ate only basic food (nothing "foreign" like Thai or Indian),
#We often used to eat Chinese food, Indian food and Italian food in the early 70s. I also remember eating Lebanese fast food occasionally too. We lived close to a Chinese restaurant but preferred a takeaway in the next suburb.
>very few had cable TV, and went out at most once a week to the movies.
#I went out to the movies more then than I did now. I remember seeing Stat Wars, ET, Close Encounters and a host of other movies. However, this is an odd measure of happiness in my view.
>They never bought an espresso, never owned a modern electronic device like a computer,
# seriously? The Commodore PET and a few other home computers were around in the 70s.
>never got to use the internet to settle an argument or play a computer game, unless they were extremely well off and got to play Pong circa say 1980.
#Read up on BBS culture (bulletin boards). Plenty of average joes were on there (girls and guys in case you were wondering). I met many women face to face through BBS boards back then. Early nerd girls were fantastic, like my wife!
Now let me give you some examples of modern culture.
1. My local paper has only had one picture of a boy in the last few months (vs dozens of girls). In the 70s, this was always balanced in my local paper and would have been labelled as extremely sexist but no longer is labelled as sexist. Yes, I have hundreds of archived photos from the 70s to prove it. I understand this imbalance is now called "equality" when it's a significantly skewed ratio, according to the overwhelming majority of MSM (media).
2. People could be whatever they want, not this modern politically correct horse shit that encourages extreme sexism.
3. The media in the 70s would never point the finger at little boys being the root cause of domestic violence (see 1800 respect, a government Department who saturated prime time TV with aggressive ads to bully young boys in a manner that shocked most non-sexist people I have spoken to), nor would people in the 70s refuse to acknowledge male victims and female perpetrators of crimes. Yet, it's common today.
4. An average guy (eg. Matt Taylor) would never have been viciously attacked by the media (like The Verge) for wearing a shirt designed by a woman in the 70s. There are plenty of examples of similar aggressive and unfounded attacks in the last 10 years in MSM, all targeting one gender.
I could raise many more points about how screwed up and aggressively sexist we've become. Culturally, the 70s had many advantages over today that are far more important than something flippant like an espresso machine.
In the 70s: Tolerance was ahead of today (look at 70s ads on YouTube for some examples. I really like "care for kids" and "life be in it" as examples of excellent diversity and inclusiveness, despite accusations to the contrary by a very dishonest gender based group starting with F (as in F for fallacy). Social freedom was ahead of today. Open a newspaper from the 70s and you will see far more open mindedness and far less sexism than you do today. It saddens me when I look back because I realise many of the social freedoms we've lost.
No generation is perfect, but, the last 10 years have been terrible for freedom, respect and sexism. I can't think of a decade that comes even close to the lows of today. See code.org and find me an educational institution in the last 50 years that was even close to that sexist. I'm yet to find one, despite code.org toning down the sexism significantly in the last six months. It's still worse than anything from the 70s/80s/90s that I have found.
The article says very little and I'm surprised it was posted. I could not find any specific data that backed this claim. I'm not doubting it. However, the Office for National Statistics didn't make it easy to assess full time vs part time work.
It's also unclear why this data is only looking at men. Why not discuss both genders (or look at the situation collectively)?
What I agree with is automation is part of the problem. What is also obvious is that female employment rate has changed since 1971 (see ONS website), which went from about 50% to around 70-75%. This looks similar to (but inverse to) male employment which went down from 90% to about 75%. This may be a social change that nobody looks after the kids anymore and both couples work to earn an income. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
However, I'm assuming the UK is similar to Australia where we have sexist hiring policies. For example, the police have mandated minimum quotas of 50% female police officers (regardless of number of applicants or suitability of applicants for the role. Suitability was addressed by significantly lowering physical requirements for the job and substituting it with more weapons for the officers). Naturally, these "equal opportunity" situations are a 1 way street (eg. Male teachers# are around 20% - see www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/how-can-we-get-more-men-to-become-teachers/). Think of Emma Watson's "He for She" campaign, everything he has, she gets. Yes, a 1 way street. Such discriminatory policies would logically impact employment negatively for some people.
What also concerns me greatly is that gendered bullying by the media and governments to actively discriminate against men and boys. Keep an eye out for articles about promoting girls in STEM and an absence of talk about promoting boys in learning language#. Look at posters of kids in education or front pages of magazines - by my reckoning, it's about 80% girls (if not higher#). Sites like code.org have been extreme in their sexist campaigning against boys. I see a train wreck coming in 10-15 years.
You will see quotes like 'girls perform equal to or better than boys on nearly every measure of achievement' and 'standardized testing indicates that girls outperform boys at all levels of reading and writing and in Alberta testing shows that girls, "...significantly outperform boys on reading and writing tests, while almost matching them in math and science."'. Yet, the article goes on to say how the education system is stacked against girls. Having observed significant class time at a few schools, I can guarantee that the gender bias is heavily against boys that would shock any non-sexist person. Even when I picked up sexism by teachers, they ignored it. For example, a group of kids was misbehaving (about 5 boys and 5 girls). A female teacher said "why is it always the boys" quite loudly. I responded "half said them are girls". The other teachers looked away as if to say "I'm staying out of this one". I see exclusion and ignoring of boys consistently. I even saw one classroom where the boys were so despondent at the sexism in the learning materials that they switched off and didn't ask a single question. Afterward, I asked the boys about the class (passively) and they unanimously voiced the extreme sexism of the topic as isolating them. To anyone with eyes open, it's a gender war and it's extreme: it's like nothing we have ever seen (despite false claims to the contrary). Watch Horrible Histories (especially the later specials) if you want to see examples. I can't believe how much sexism they cram in these episodes targeted at young kids.
I know you see a short-term zero-sum situation where gains made by women displace men to some extent, and it's scary. But think of how much better of a world we'll have in principle when there's real equality of opportunity. It will take some time and doing to get there and there will be a temporary period when awkward manual corrections like quotas are made, or posters featuring more girls than boys. We only have to deal with that for as long as we need it.
A man who earned his status through merit has nothing to fear. A man who had opportunity handed to him by default is the one who has something to lose.
Except that he made the good point that there are several female dominated fields that have no such push. So it's fair to ask why are we seeing such a selective focus?
If you accept there is a certain one-sidedness, can "awkward manual corrections like quotas" ever result in "real equality of opportunity"? Because equality of outcome is a great way to demotivate people.
I went to university in the UK where more woman than men attend. And while there's a real drive for more women in e.g. STEM (about 80% m/20% f), there isn't anything like that for e.g. psychology (roughly 90% f/10% m). The distribution of lecturers in gender studies is also hilarious. You'd think that's the one field you'd want to keep very even. So this striving for equality does seem inconsistently followed at best. I guess you could argue that you've got to start somewhere, but I find that a bit naive.
> A man who earned his status through merit has nothing to fear.
If the selection is based on merit, then quotas would be unthinkable and this argument would also apply to women, no? So somewhere along the line we're admitting it isn't based on merit.
It seems that there is enough demand from women to become police officers to justify the quotas (based on general population, not proportion of applicants), whereas not a lot of men want to be teachers. You see the same thing with nursing.
In summary, I dismiss the article as flawed (false and overly simplistic). No matter how noble (kind) your society, if the next society practices savagery and you are not prepared, your society will fail.
The level at which you pitch the concept of kindness is essential, as is the environment. To illustrate, many comments in this thread fail to hold for an example like the Mongols, or may argue that the Mongols wiping out civilisations was altruistic or kind. In a simplistic way, the Mongols survived through cooperation (as their society had some cruel rules that were definitely not kind), cruelty to outsiders and through theft. However, you could also contrast Chinggis Khan with Darius I of Persia who demonstrated far more kindness throughout his reign than Chinggis did. Both leaders in their own way were quite successful.
If you consider individuals, the dynamics can be quite different from those of nations, depending on the environment. If you limit the view to modern, first world societies, cooperation with ones peers is still essential and almost certainly more important than kindness. To illustrate, if I give everyone around me all of my money, that could be considered kind (think of a lottery winner). However, ultimately, such kindness (no matter how misguided) will usually lead to little or no benefit for the individual. Even if you compare two similarly cooperative people, the most competent cooperator will usually out perform a kinder cooperator. It will depend on the society as to whether an individual's empathy for those in need will add to the success of the individual and/or the community. For example, where a society has social welfare, an individual can point to the welfare system rather than directly contributing to the welfare of those in need.
Family dynamics are yet another level of complexity. Does a priority of kindness go to the family or the local community? What constitutes success of the family? Families that cooperate are more likely to succeed beyond those that are purely kind to each other. However, family cohesion is almost certainly dependent on both kindness and cooperation.
There are also work place environments, community group environments, local community environments, state and territory and country environments. In order to be successful, these environments require competency and cooperation. Kindness may or may not be required.
Regarding kindness.
In my observations of modern society (collectively), I observe that there are some examples that complicate concepts such as kindness. For example feminism* insists that domestic violence is something that only happens to females (through ignorance of statistics or for less savoury reasons). Ultimately, what this demonstrates is that kindness can be selectively applied and still be recognised as acceptable.
In summary, I don't see kindness as essential (at least not in all circumstances). Kindness can be selective (eg. Feminism's human rights failures with respect to domestic violence by representing only one gender) and, yet, such kindness can be seen as socially acceptable. Kindness can also be handed off to community and government groups in some circumstances. However, unlike kindness, cooperation is essential for individuals and groups.
* to be clear, feminism can not and should not be interchangeably used with female. Not all feminists are female and not all females are feminist. I think of feminism more like the KKK. Not all white people support the KKK and a criticism of the KKK is not a criticism of white people collectively.
It depends on how you define winner. Does it really matter how much someone else earns as long as you're happy with your pay?
I have taken a lower paying job because of my preference for that job and workplace. Money is not my principal driver (nor is it most people's).
I also agree that an open pay system could encourage super stars to leave. I once hired a woman who earned almost 50% more than her peers because she was amazing (it's the one time I recall paying a premium for anyone). If her peers knew, it would have been a shit storm, especially her male boss (who earned well less than she did).
We are too obsessed about comparing ourselves to others. I would most probably pick a culture where there wasn't transparency because I don't think someone else's income is anyone else's business and the emphasis on money is unhealthy.
My view is anecdotal. I come from a family with adopted children. My siblings say how I talk, act and think like our parents. I am the only biological child of our parents.
Does this prove IQ? No. however, I would be astounded if there was no relationship (just looks, voice, height, thought patterns, but no IQ correlation).
At the same time, my kids are quite different from each other. However, my siblings' kids reflect their parents and have diverged significantly from my family far more so than my kids diverge from each other.
My eldest brother (as an example), earned good money but spent it all. He put very little love or effort into his kids, despite him being raised in a household of caring and sharing. He's also a drinker and drug taker. His kids all have troubles with drugs and alcohol.
This is nothing like my family. We have continued down a path of caring and sharing and support quite a few community activities.
I'm not inclined to equate IQ directly, but, I am strongly inclined to say "there is a lot more than just looks that gets passed down to children".
My eldest sister is a behavioural clone of her biological mother. They didn't know each other until their 20s. That was the moment I knew that behaviour could be inherited by children, because my eldest sister is an aggressive hedonist. No drugs, just wild partying and ladette behaviour.
The other aspect of this article that is true is that luck favours the prepared. Some people send their kids to private schools so they can
Mingle with other well-to-dos.
What I do like about today's society is that there is a wealth of opportunity if you look for it, regardless of socioeconomic status. I am a huge believer in opportunity but I totally reject political correctness (and any other prejudice for that matter, PC just happens to be the most popular prejudice today).
You raise some really interesting points. I've seen similar as well. But what I draw is not so much that there's an IQ gene (though I'm sure that there are genes that affect brain physiology in some ways), but more so that there are known genes that affect compulsive behaviours which can trump rational processes e.g. addiction, risk-taking.
And while I'm sure lifestyle factors (including nurture, environment) may impact the "degree" to which the expression of these genes "take hold on behaviour", the overall probabilities are more likely to be based on the genetics. I'm thinking similar to how genes increase likelihood of getting cancer, while behaviour/lifestyle can affect treatment outcomes.
If we blame problems on genetics that means they are out of our hands. We cannot solve them. At least not without preventing reproduction of undesirable genes.
I apologise that I only got 1/2 way through this article. It said very little to me.
The article spent a bit of time talking about decline of empires. I watched a few documentaries on the topic yesterday. A central theme that recurred was environment and conflict with other regions. This was the point where I decided that this article wasn't for me. I'm no historian, but, the analogy lost me. This and the lack of details about her theory.
I both admire and feel sorry for the author. To pour your heart and soul for so long and not achieve your outcomes can be very hurtful and devastating.
The language in this document is telling in a few ways. There is not much about collaboration with peers or superiors other than conflict. The article left me with an impression of conflict and someone who wasn't a team player. I am guessing that cultural compatibility was an issue. It may be possible that the outcome may be for the best because it may help the author grow (although, public accusations will not be seen well by future employees as it's airing many people's dirty laundry).
I'm also note that the author raises some issues that I as a boss take exception to. For example, more diversity. I am aware that in today's climate, diversity is a highly charged, politically correct topic. The author talks about diversity by hiring by gender. What diversity is the author seeking? That of genitals? Is there some magic empathy or creativity that females supposedly have? I've always built teams based on needs of skills, personality, cultural fit. As an example, I knocked back a highly qualified, well presented male candidate because he was too ambitious for a maintenance role. This was not because of his gender, but, because he was unlikely to provide a long term ROI and would expect promotion that couldn't be delivered and cause unrest by venting disappointment as a lack of growth. I would most probably be seen by the author as being sexist for not hiring by gender to fill a quota and I would view the author as sexist for hiring by gender and being unable to see that diversity is not a gender, but skills and personality.
I would encourage the author to ask themself if they are a team player. I would encourage the author to understand themselves and the sort of culture they want to work in. Maybe, it is a culture of creativity rather than talent that the author craves (as an example). Seeking feedback from peers outside of work may be very helpful and revealing too.
I can be confrontational (too many fights over too many years), but I know who I am and I know what I want. I support my organisation above myself (during working hours) and I support and respect juniors, peers and more senior staff. I negotiate my views. I listen carefully. I seek feedback from my peers. I align my views with my peers where it doesn't compromise my principals. As an example, I would never work for a company that hires (or excludes) by gender or race because I want freedom to hire the right staff, not some boxes ticked. I know myself and my employee. I turn down jobs where I don't believe in the company for my own sake and the company's.
I wish the author the best of luck and hope they have the courage to ask the tough questions. I think they need to ask some tough questions.
As a case on point, I am extremely disturbed by the way media and governments handle issues like domestic violence. 1800 respect (a government department in Australia) tried to shift the blame onto young boys in a series of heavily promoted TV commercials without any opposition from the community. When a female is caught abusing a family member (child/husband), the media's excuses flow readily "she lost her job", "she was under stress at work". The imagery on TV rarely reflect abused children, despite this being exactly what's happening across the spectrum of society. The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that about 25-33% of domestic violence victims are male (I haven't seen figures for children, but it is likely to be heavily under reported). That's a huge percentage of people who receive little or no representation by all media outlets and the government, let alone charity groups (ie. indigenous people are rarely represented, males are never represented, children are rarely represented - see the imagery as it speaks volumes).
Imagine being a young boy whose mother either mentally or physically abuses you. You turn on the TV and you only see fully grown white women who are (supposedly) the only victims. Politicians (eg. A prominent Queensland politician who should have been dismissed and charged long ago) are legislating for gendered criminal laws because fully grown white women are (supposedly) the only victims and never (supposedly) perpetrators. The people on the TV say how bad males are. The government (1800 respect) saturates TV with domestic violence ads saying "it's a boy thing". You open the newspaper and read the same message almost every week.
Even charity groups chime in. Most charity groups (about 95% of the ones I surveyed, using a public list of every charity that deals with domestic violence) won't even show images of male victims or house male victims. Some charities (like mission Australia) even go as far as to say that "men deny domestic violence happens". Which men? Where? This is almost certainly a ruse to justify almost all of their focus being on fully grown white women (even when Mission Australia say that indigenous women are 24 times more likely to be abused, they still mostly picture _white_ women as victims).
If you really want to talk about abuse and attitudes toward abuse, the problem starts at the top. Governments are prejudiced. The media is morally bankrupt. When somebody knows the government will turn a blind eye and the media will hand out a blank cheque and the courts will say "oh poor woman, she's oppressed/distressed/lost her job", you've got a complete system that's ripe to openly support child abuse.
I find some observations quite fascinating. For example, Steve Altman (Mr Y Combinator) expressed outrage because Muslims can't get on a plane. However, I am yet to see him voice outrage about domestic violence and the appalling attitudes in most media that are open for anyone to see.
The problem doesn't start with parents (although parents contribute to the problem). It starts with apathy.
I'm not under the illusion that this problem of violence and abuse is limited to one gender as that's patently not true. We need society to accept that truth and stop making excuses.