this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
29 points (93.9% liked)
Ask Men
1863 readers
1 users here now
A community to Ask Men questions and discuss any and all issues relating to them.
Unlocking Perspectives, Advice, and Empowerment for Men Everywhere.
Rules
Follow the rules of lemmy.world, which can be found here.
Additionally:
- Be respectful
- Try to engage in a positive & constructive manner
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling
- Use appropriate language & tone.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions
- Report content that violates rules or needs moderator attention
Notes
-
The title of your post should contain the actual question being asked.
-
The rules are not meant to be exhaustive and may be modified/extended should if deemed necessary.
Would you like to help with moderating AskMen? Send a PM to the top mod.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
True.
The problem is that equity efforts inherently disadvantage white men. There is a target goal to hire more of X that isn't white men in order to establish equity. It establishes a system that is inherently rigged against white men and it is obvious why white men would be unhappy with that.
For young white men to accept that disadvantage would require the disadvantage to be meaningless. The system needs to be fixed so that it isn't rigged against anybody and the changes need to happen slowly or you get the whiplash we are seeing.
For that to be true, there would have to be statistics to bear that out. And yet somehow, white men are still employed disproportionately and earning disproportionately, even when controlling for education (which women far exceed men at).
The whole 'anti-dei' thing is entirely driven by perception, not facts. But since there is a whole industry built around keeping young white men angry and telling them that having their privilege stripped is actually disenfranchisement, the trend will continue.