I don't know how to say this in a way that people will believe, but unless the patriarchy is dismantled in the next 25 years, the US will cease to exist because women will have simple withdrawn from the social process. Why continue to create new people to throw into the financial/social/political woodchipper that is the US when opting out of it will eventually cause it to end in demographic collapse? If you want to save it, make it worth saving.
If, as the article says, the overturn of the constitutional protection of abortions wasn't the greatest causing factor towards a desire to leave the country, what does this demographic seek to gain in other countries such as Canada?
Popular problems such as the housing and employment crises are only worse in our northern neighbors.
They won't be burned at the stake, so there's a lot going on there. USA doesn't want them to have a life, and will gleefully let them die from basic medical complications.
All in all, Canada lacks the clear and present "cruelty is the point" the US has gone all in on.
guys, it really was worth looking at the article: the number is 40% of women ages 15-44 would love to leave US if good opportunity came along. That's insane. But then again, the political situation in the US is insane, too.
> But then again, the political situation in the US is insane, too.
Yup.
> would love to leave US if good opportunity came along.
Yeah, well, that's the problem. They need a good opportunity compared to staying in the US. That is, Afghanistan or Yemen might allow them to enter, but that's not an option - they want something better than what they have here. Well, that's fair - that's how many of our ancestors wound up here, after all. But the fact is, despite the insanity here, there aren't tons of "better" out there for people to go to.
Could things get enough worse here for that to change? Certainly. Could they do so surprisingly quickly? Also yes. But right now, things aren't worse here than they are in much of the world.
Try it: anyone younger than 30 can get a year-long working holiday VISA in New Zealand or Australia. The conditions are not that difficult, although you obviously can't be broke. See what opportunities come up!
Somehow we have been building a not-that-social workerbee america. It's not that romantic to live in the US. Add to that more female independence, lower marriage, easy divorce and fewer families.
Where is the law that forces them to get impregnated? Advocating for killing offspring because of refusal for personal responsibity is not something a healthy adult would be for.
But a trend with a delta that visible, at the scale of the entire population, marks significant cultural change. Regardless of the number that actually move.
Without any accompanying action taking place, there is no trend. There's just cheap tawk. The only meaningful metric in this conversation is the very one you dismiss, the number of people that actually move.
You incoherently dismiss a significant measured change, against a history of responses, with significant demographic correlations, because you want some additional unmeasured information.
Then you incoherently accuse someone completely uninvolved in the measurement, of dismissing that unmeasured information.
You could have just said you would be interested in more information. As would I.
> But didn't women benefit from DEI? I see some workplaces and occupations completely woman dominated locally
I'm not sure what you're asking, here. Do you think all of those women are only in those positions because of "DEI", and not because they're vastly more qualified than the men around them? Do you think other countries don't also value qualified and capable women?
Or is this just some regurgitated Joe-Rogan-aligned schtick, where we just say code words and pretend like men are the only people who could possibly have any value?
My man, you kicked this off with "women are all DEI hires" and now you're doubling down with fact-free bullshit you're trying to pass off as "real historical facts".
1. What, specifically, was "DEI Frenzy"?
2. Why are you implying that those women and minorities were not the most capable people for the job?
3. Even if we suppose that the "DEI frenzy" nonsense is actually a real thing (and not a thing mediocre white boys and the YouTube manosphere invented so they could be angry they weren't given jobs and money just for showing up), why do you suppose that ensuring that more people who weren't previously applying for your jobs started applying wouldn't result in more women and minority hires?
Your entire premise is nonsense you've invented or been fed and are now regurgitating, and now you're desperately trying to pretend I'm like, super duper mean for calling you out on it, because what you really want is to be aggrieved and a victim. It's boring and trite.
> Just sayin' that the facts reveal - real historical facts - that 90% of corporate hiring at the peak of the DEI frenzy was "women and minority" .... I hope that you enjoyed it.
Literally how the fuck is this "real historical facts".
You can't just say something is "real historical facts", proceed to pull a number like 90% (???) directly out of your asshole, and then also try to take some high ground around civil discussions.
Nobody wants to have a civil discussion with you because you're a liar and fundamentally a bad faith actor. There is no civil discussion to be had - you are incapable of understanding it.
Once again: maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. The guidelines make it clear we're aiming for something better here, and we eventually have to ban accounts that post like this.
Downvoted? You must be thinking of the success women have as senior politicians and military officers. Or the societal rejection of viewpoints like incel, tradwife or manosphere.
There are a surprising number of right-wing people on HN, or bots - impossible to tell from just downvotes. If anything is even remotely critical of Cheeto Benito[1], it is automatically [flagged] as well. This site is a part of the trumposphere…
1: I love the fact that autocorrect capitalises that for me!
As someone who reads the discussions for hours each day, whenever this trope "anything even remotely critical of [blah] is flagged" it seems always to actually be an example of the opposite of what it's purporting to prove.
These kinds of comments get flagged because (a) flamebait and political/ideological battle is against the guidelines and longtime users know that very well, and (b) those sentiments about particular figures have been expressed so often for so long that they're now considered completely uninteresting.
The purpose of HN is curious conversation about interesting topics, in which we hope to learn something new. Saying the same critical things about the same people year after year is antithetical to that, and is not the kind of thing people value HN for, even if they've agreed with the sentiment for years. People who are comfortable with their views about the world don't need to say – or read – the same things over and over.
Calling a spade a spade, while quite repetitive, is pertinent. The business and social environment needed to work in the field and more importantly start or maintain businesses in the field is inherently political. Politics ebbs and flows or a long time scale and the current trends really suck for most groups.
People who are comfortable with their views could and often are full of shit. Reality happens independent of one’s viewpoint.
The purpose of HN is to increase the gloss on Y Combinator, increase the allure of startups and get some more business heading their way. Any altruism is merely the price they pay for marketing.
The purpose of HN is to be interesting, and to gratify intellectual curiosity.
That's it. There's no need for any secret corporate or political agenda. HN is most valuable and useful to YC if it just attracts an audience of people who are intellectually curious, because those are the kinds of people who are interested in learning about new things, including new technologies and companies.
Given that, the most counterproductive thing we could do is alienate more than half our potential audience by promoting/tolerating views that they find abhorrent.
It also means our audience isn't easily deceived, because the most intellectually curious people are hard to bullshit, pretty much by definition. And this is the thing you learn quickly as a moderator here: even if you ever wanted to get away with any kind of deception of the audience, you soon find you wouldn't be able to, because people are so quick to notice and point it out if anything seems a bit off.
My greatest hope for HN is that if we could somehow keep raising the bar of intellectual curiosity, maybe we could yield new ideas that might help to break the world out of the stupid politics that seems to prevail these days. Hopelessly idealistic perhaps, but we all need something to dream about.
Repetition of the same old rhetoric, day after day, year after year, doesn't get us anywhere, other than making this place boring and miserable. By all means, criticise powerful figures and institutions. Sure, let's talk about the ways "current trends really suck for most groups" – we talk about that a lot here. But an argument only really belongs on HN if it gives us something new to think about.
