Are things really this bad for men? http://www.realsexism.com

>>35444358
Those men are also more attractive physically healthier stronger and smarter. They deserve more pussy

File: 800px-US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg (46KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x512px

Around 1950: women are expected to stay at home and help the family, men are expected to make enough for the whole family. By keeping about 50% of the population from working, labour in any field is rare and so wages must be kept reletively high. Also places like china and other 3rd world shitholes have 0 manufacturing capabilities.

1970s: women start being shamed for being housewives; they are encouraged to get jobs and be "equal" with men. All this really does is slowly start decreasing the demand for labour, as there is effectively twice as many workers qualified for the same jobs. Also china and other 3rd world countries begin building industry.

Now: women and minorities with low employment statistics are pushed into every job via diversity quotas and changing public opinion. Most low skill but high productivity jobs have been exported to places like mexico and china, meaning you need a pretty substantial (and pricey) education if you want to have any quality of life in most 1st world countries.

Yes things are bad for men, and I can only see them getting worse from here on out.

I can't figure out this fugging graph