[kevincrane]

> A country needs strong, highly-engaged men who act as leaders. America is losing that more each and every day, and it saddens me.

Literally every president in US history has been a man, 80.6% of Congress are men, 95.5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are men, and you're sad that it's getting marginally harder for men and that the country is lacking in strong male leaders?

[hnthrowaway4819]

Men-as-homogeneous-group fallacy. Given a high variance, it's entirely possible that the top [small-percentage]% of men hold presidencies, CEO positions, etc, while the large majority of men are suffering a degradation in status, respect, resources, etc. (And objectively so -- look at earnings trends in inflation-adjusted terms for men vs. women over the past 40 years.) The way these two are conflated seems to be at the root of a lot of animosity in the Gender Wars lately.

I'd tend to agree with GP that while existing as a white male today is still "easy mode" in many ways when you do push yourself, there's definitely this feeling that society is celebrating everyone else while you're sort of left on your own without much encouragement.

[jbpetersen]

It'd be interesting to see historical statistics on the variability of different "success" metrics with regard to sex.

[andromeduck]

I don't really agree with the sentiment but your example is also pretty poor rebuttal because those are some of the laggiest indicators.

[argonaut]

They also represent exactly what the poster wanted: the leaders of America (who are mostly strong aggressive men).