"Feminism" has been taken over by the group that is self-interested in themselves. E.g. if I was voting & I was a born & bred, very patriotic British then looking at a list of parties you'd think the party calling themselves British National with the Union Jack would be for you. But its not, its just they have taken over what it means, at least honestly. I mentioned to Tapner in the early post about feminism's history & provided a link,
"the contrast between the egalitarian goals of first wave feminism and the unequal demands of modern feminism". Feminism lauded around is also bad for women.
This Feminism group specifically created has a certain type of basic equality, if it was named Egalitarian Society about men & women then I'd join! If I had time I'd start one.
Powerful women use the banner of Feminism for their hate words, eugenics & actions - google for what is being said about "Agent Orange Files" who has identified
women from "Radfem Hub" where there is the
SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men) connection. Some hate speech are from the UK e.g. Laila Namdarkhan (screen name “yabawife”), a well known feminist activist who was instrumental in passing legislation in the U.K; Lucy Nicholas worked at Uni of Edinburgh and Uni of Portsmouth. Even the most sexist man would not think of culling girls/women or men who oppose them; unlike some of these better known feminists. In case you did not know the global picture with the name & wonder why I am running
.
Keeping it to gender - I do not see how women are discouraged from physics (engineering), its just that is not the type of job that they want; there IS equal opportunity. The major women's jobs involve (managing) the general public or under 10s, not alone work like truck driving, fishing, logging, oil drilling, plumbers, electricians, construction, waste disposal, farming, forestry, etc
On Harvard's website for 2007 (can't find link) it showed that the number of women entering Physics/Engineering had remained the same, but the number applying for it had dropped for women & gained for men - more men disproportionally rejected.
You say there implementing affirmative action will help, can you cite me the most recent (preferably UK, but English speaking is fine) affirmative action/positive discrimination
benefitting Men? Do not mean age's positive discrimination like B&Q meet & greet, etc staff.
Did read Amazon comments(!) on The Spirit Level.
I will try to answer your question though death trumps ALL inequality & the privileged die older (talking about hundred thousands, not individuals like S.Jobs, A.Winehouse). That list (majority of 1.suicides, 2.workplace (not just 3.police/4.forces), 5.recently divorced people deaths are male; 6.more than 5+ years difference when men die early) of 6 shows, boys & men dying unequally. Valid stats first (for my own reason) & then there can be analysis, any takers?
For ages 15+ men have been 76% of deaths from 2006-2009 inc (2009 ratio 4,304:1,371);
Police deaths look 90% male;
UK military deaths in Afghanistan, ONS don't have names or by gender;
UK Life expectancy Men 78.5, Women 82.4 years, 4 years life gap, not 5. I.e. early death, be underpayed, be 8% of men that get raped, not have voting rights - if unequal which one should be priority?
I agree income equality is good for most people but not good for Govt who give benefit money to subsidise equality, sometimes equality comes in cuts in
heavier users of welfare benefits and public services. You will get more people being subsidised for the sake of equality, then people who genuinely should be in the job because they were discriminated. Results in net loss, a luxury to feel better which can't be maintained during recession. In India the Govt doesn't have the luxury to give an illusion/mirage of equality, it looks after its people with bureaucracy (EU countries with big Govt employment do the same & austerity measures hurt them first), i.e. why hire 2 people on an OK salary when 5 people can earn less, so have enough for food & maybe a roof at night. So income equality is better... when it does not lead to an early death.
I believe in poorer, less educated people having gainful employment rather than benefits, because first its 'new money' & second the poor to mid earners (£25K) are more likely to spend. The rich may not need to buy anything more, so save i.e. money does not get circulated, nor help the economy.