u/KollardBlue

I have spent most of my career in corporate office environments that were heavily female-dominated. Even my bachelor’s degree, which was in a STEM field and completed within the last eight years, was at least 70% female.

I am not claiming that the women in these spaces did not earn their degrees or jobs. They still had to study, perform, interview, and succeed. My concern is about the system of opportunities that helps people reach those positions in the first place.

For roughly the past two decades, schools, companies, nonprofits, and professional organizations have created scholarships, internships, mentorship programs, conferences, recruiting initiatives, and networking opportunities specifically for women. I understand why these programs were created. Women were historically excluded from many educational and professional fields, and there was a legitimate need to correct unfair barriers.

However, I think the response was too broad and lasted without enough adjustment as conditions changed. A random middle- or lower-middle-class man may have no family wealth, no professional connections, no inherited advantage, and no meaningful institutional support. Yet he is often treated as though he is already privileged because men as a group historically had more opportunities.

That man may receive little or no targeted assistance and may need to take on substantial student debt simply to have a chance. Meanwhile, a woman from a wealthier and more highly educated family may qualify for programs that exclude him entirely. This does not mean she did not earn her success. It means sex can be a poor proxy for actual disadvantage.

My view is that assistance should now be based much more heavily on factors such as household income, family wealth, first-generation status, school quality, disability, neighborhood, and access to professional networks. Sex could still be considered in fields where clear barriers remain, but it should not automatically outweigh economic and social disadvantage.

I also think it should no longer be surprising when some colleges, degree programs, and office professions become female-dominated. Institutions spent years intentionally increasing women’s participation, while comparatively little attention was given to declining male college enrollment, completion rates, and participation in many professional environments.

I think a better response would have been to make public college tuition-free, or at least far more affordable, for everyone. That would have expanded opportunity without deciding that one struggling student deserved help while another did not because of sex. It would still have disproportionately benefited people who faced real barriers, including many women, first-generation students, and low-income families, while also helping working- and middle-class men who had no inherited wealth or professional connections.

Instead, the system often addressed inequality by creating narrow demographic programs while leaving the underlying cost of education untouched. As a result, many students who did not fit a preferred category were still forced to take on large amounts of debt simply to compete for the same jobs. Universal access, combined with additional need-based support, would have been fairer and would have attacked the actual barrier: the price of getting an education.

What would change my view:

1. Evidence that gender-targeted programs have had little meaningful effect on access to college or professional careers.

2. Evidence that similarly situated men receive comparable institutional support through other programs.

3. A convincing argument that sex-based programs remain more effective or fair than class-based assistance.

4. Evidence that removing or reducing these programs would significantly recreate the barriers women previously faced.

I am open to the possibility that I am overestimating the role of targeted programs or overlooking other major reasons men are absent from these spaces.

I have spent most of my career in corporate office environments that were heavily female-dominated. Even my bachelor’s degree, which was in a STEM field and completed within the last eight years, was at least 70% female.

I am not claiming that the women in these spaces did not earn their degrees or jobs. They still had to study, perform, interview, and succeed. My concern is about the system of opportunities that helps people reach those positions in the first place.

For roughly the past two decades, schools, companies, nonprofits, and professional organizations have created scholarships, internships, mentorship programs, conferences, recruiting initiatives, and networking opportunities specifically for women. I understand why these programs were created. Women were historically excluded from many educational and professional fields, and there was a legitimate need to correct unfair barriers.

However, I think the response was too broad and lasted without enough adjustment as conditions changed. A random middle- or lower-middle-class man may have no family wealth, no professional connections, no inherited advantage, and no meaningful institutional support. Yet he is often treated as though he is already privileged because men as a group historically had more opportunities.

That man may receive little or no targeted assistance and may need to take on substantial student debt simply to have a chance. Meanwhile, a woman from a wealthier and more highly educated family may qualify for programs that exclude him entirely. This does not mean she did not earn her success. It means sex can be a poor proxy for actual disadvantage.

My view is that assistance should now be based much more heavily on factors such as household income, family wealth, first-generation status, school quality, disability, neighborhood, and access to professional networks. Sex could still be considered in fields where clear barriers remain, but it should not automatically outweigh economic and social disadvantage.

I also think it should no longer be surprising when some colleges, degree programs, and office professions become female-dominated. Institutions spent years intentionally increasing women’s participation, while comparatively little attention was given to declining male college enrollment, completion rates, and participation in many professional environments.

I think a better response would have been to make public college tuition-free, or at least far more affordable, for everyone. That would have expanded opportunity without deciding that one struggling student deserved help while another did not because of sex. It would still have disproportionately benefited people who faced real barriers, including many women, first-generation students, and low-income families, while also helping working- and middle-class men who had no inherited wealth or professional connections.

Instead, the system often addressed inequality by creating narrow demographic programs while leaving the underlying cost of education untouched. As a result, many students who did not fit a preferred category were still forced to take on large amounts of debt simply to compete for the same jobs. Universal access, combined with additional need-based support, would have been fairer and would have attacked the actual barrier: the price of getting an education.

What would change my view:

1. Evidence that gender-targeted programs have had little meaningful effect on access to college or professional careers.
2. Evidence that similarly situated men receive comparable institutional support through other programs.
3. A convincing argument that sex-based programs remain more effective or fair than class-based assistance.
4. Evidence that removing or reducing these programs would significantly recreate the barriers women previously faced.

I am open to the possibility that I am overestimating the role of targeted programs or overlooking other major reasons men are absent from these spaces.

how can magic be repaired? with so much product released in the last few years like short of banning 100s of cards the game is irrevocably warped

The ACA is one of those policies people defend like it is sacred, but if you have actually been caught in the middle of the system, you know how useless it can be by design.

People talk about Obamacare like it guarantees affordable healthcare. It does not. It creates a maze of eligibility rules, income thresholds, employer coverage rules, state Medicaid rules, and subsidy formulas that only help you if your life fits perfectly into one of the boxes the law recognizes.

My experience with it made me realize how fake the whole “affordable” part can be.

When I had a job, I had employer healthcare. But that still cost money. It was not free. It was just tied to my job, which already shows the problem. Then when I was laid off and working part-time, I went to the marketplace thinking that was the whole point of the ACA. I thought, okay, I lost full-time work, now I can use the marketplace and get help.

Nope.

I could not afford the plans. The cheapest marketplace plan was basically my entire part-time paycheck. And because of the way the subsidy rules worked, I did not qualify for meaningful help. That is the ridiculous part: the system has income requirements for subsidies that can be hard to reach if you are only working part-time. But if you are working enough to reach them, you are often working full-time, and if you are full-time, your employer may offer insurance, which can make you ineligible for marketplace subsidies anyway.

So what exactly is the ACA helping in that situation?

Too poor to afford insurance. Not “poor enough” or not in the right state to get Medicaid. Not making enough to get useful subsidies. Not full-time enough to get decent employer coverage. That is not a safety net. That is a trap door.

Then tax time came around, and the government penalized me for not having insurance I could not afford. That is insane. I hate Trump, but removing that individual mandate penalty helped people like me. I was in college and trying to survive. Being punished for not buying an unaffordable product was not healthcare reform. It was just another bill.

This is why I get annoyed when people act like criticism of the ACA means you do not care about healthcare. No. The point is that the ACA is not universal healthcare. It is a complicated patchwork that helps some people, abandons others, and then pretends the problem is solved.

People say, “But subsidies exist.” Okay, for who? Because a lot of working people do not actually qualify in any meaningful way. Or they qualify for plans that still have high deductibles, narrow networks, and premiums they cannot realistically pay. A subsidy does not mean much if the final price is still unaffordable.

The ACA was designed to preserve the private insurance system first and help people second. That is why it feels so broken. It was never built around the simple idea that everyone should have healthcare. It was built around rules, markets, employers, penalties, and exceptions.

That is why, for people like me, the ACA was not a lifeline. It was useless by design.

With the way cameras are how is it he hasnt be caught

He has repeatedly made references to men and how good they look. He's made unprompted references to Arnold Palmer's dick size. He's said male pilots are so hot, they couldn't be in movies because no one would believe it. One of his favorite praises for men he likes is that they are good looking. He's obsessed with the LGBTQ community.

I don't see many media outlets covering this or talking about it, despite him clearly saying these things in tons of interviews and rallies. The obvious exception is the Arnold Palmer comments.

No one is exactly the same, but I anecdotally notice that he shares a lot of similarities with closeted gay men I've known throughout my life.

Maybe he's just mad because he comes from a time when it wasn't as socially accepted as today, and he feels like he can't live his truth, so it only comes out in little moments. Maybe he feels pressure to uphold a version of himself that isn't entirely true, which is why he's got such a penchant for lying.

Trump is clearly attracted to at least some guys. Trump is at least a little bit gay. And that's fine. Maybe addressing his own homosexual tendencies with self-care would make him less angry all the time.

Note: Hard to find clips and examples because of aforementioned media outlets not covering it, but his story about flying in the dark in the Rogan interview is a prime example. Guy spent an awfully long time, unprompted, talking about how hot his pilots were. Go check that out if you're looking for what I mean.

If one imposes monogamy on their partner, they should also be open to exploring other sexual activities, including unconventional practices like scat sex, especially considering that their partner has no other outlet for intimacy. This principle underscores the importance of mutual respect, understanding, and a willingness to accommodate each other's needs and desires in a healthy relationship. Denying one's partner the freedom to explore their sexual preferences while simultaneously restricting their own options creates an unbalanced dynamic that can lead to dissatisfaction, resentment, and the erosion of trust and intimacy. Therefore, it's crucial for couples to engage in open and honest communication about their boundaries, fantasies, and expectations, including those related to more taboo activities like scat sex. By fostering an environment of trust and acceptance, partners can embark on a journey of sexual exploration together, enriching their connection and deepening their bond. Ultimately, the key to a fulfilling and sustainable relationship lies in embracing each other's individuality and celebrating the diversity of human sexuality within the confines of mutual consent and respect.

He has repeatedly made references to men and how good they look. He's made unprompted references to Arnold Palmer's dick size. He's said male pilots are so hot, they couldn't be in movies because no one would believe it. One of his favorite praises for men he likes is that they are good looking. He's obsessed with the LGBTQ community.

I don't see many media outlets covering this or talking about it, despite him clearly saying these things in tons of interviews and rallies. The obvious exception is the Arnold Palmer comments.

No one is exactly the same, but I anecdotally notice that he shares a lot of similarities with closeted gay men I've known throughout my life.

Maybe he's just mad because he comes from a time when it wasn't as socially accepted as today, and he feels like he can't live his truth, so it only comes out in little moments. Maybe he feels pressure to uphold a version of himself that isn't entirely true, which is why he's got such a penchant for lying.

Trump is clearly attracted to at least some guys. Trump is at least a little bit gay. And that's fine. Maybe addressing his own homosexual tendencies with self-care would make him less angry all the time.

Note: Hard to find clips and examples because of aforementioned media outlets not covering it, but his story about flying in the dark in the Rogan interview is a prime example. Guy spent an awfully long time, unprompted, talking about how hot his pilots were. Go check that out if you're looking for what I mean.

He has repeatedly made references to men and how good they look. He's made unprompted references to Arnold Palmer's dick size. He's said male pilots are so hot, they couldn't be in movies because no one would believe it. One of his favorite praises for men he likes is that they are good looking. He's obsessed with the LGBTQ community.

I don't see many media outlets covering this or talking about it, despite him clearly saying these things in tons of interviews and rallies. The obvious exception is the Arnold Palmer comments.

No one is exactly the same, but I anecdotally notice that he shares a lot of similarities with closeted gay men I've known throughout my life.

Maybe he's just mad because he comes from a time when it wasn't as socially accepted as today, and he feels like he can't live his truth, so it only comes out in little moments. Maybe he feels pressure to uphold a version of himself that isn't entirely true, which is why he's got such a penchant for lying.

Trump is clearly attracted to at least some guys. Trump is at least a little bit gay. And that's fine. Maybe addressing his own homosexual tendencies with self-care would make him less angry all the time.

Note: Hard to find clips and examples because of aforementioned media outlets not covering it, but his story about flying in the dark in the Rogan interview is a prime example. Guy spent an awfully long time, unprompted, talking about how hot his pilots were. Go check that out if you're looking for what I mean.

Like walk me through your brain dead logic? It's not like hes a new person. He was president before. first year he had obama's economic recovery. And by the end of his presidency and into biden's we felt the full effects of his disaster, his tax scam, the economy was shit. Biden finally got things under control at the end and what did you all do? vote for trump. and he proceeded to do what he did last time. instead of riding out biden's recovery, he starts a pointless trade war, and now real war and gas is over 4 dollars