|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been told that at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, this year's freshman class was 71% female. I'm in the process of confirming this with the admissions office, but this trend is not specific to UNH - men's enrollment has been on the decline for a while now, and continues to get worse.
Whether or not women "learn as much" as men in college doesn't change the fact that they still get the degree, which has enormous benefits in their lives. And these days, significantly more women than men are getting these benefits.
Scott
PS - Sources for educational trends with regard to gender can be found in Warren Farrell's books as well as Christina Hoff-Sommer's War Against Boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Science Monitor is, most certainly, an anti-male publication. They've proven it a variety of ways in the past. Confront them with it, and, most often, your letters are ignored, although a few have made it through the filtering process (the one on Afghan men, for instance).
I stopped reading them after they redesigned their Web site recently. It made the articles more difficult to find and dissect for anti-male sentiment without reading the whole damned paper every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"this trend is not specific to UNH - men's enrollment has been on the decline for a while now, and continues to get worse."
The last year that there was approximately an equal number of men and women, in the student bodies of the nation's colleges and universities, was 1979.
Radical feminism is well on the way to eliminating all males from the academy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good point, Anonymous. If you're going to test for general knowledge, you should test in the humanities AND the sciences.
By the way, folks, I was a bit of a rogue in my major/minor schemes back in my college days (1990-1994). I double-majored in English and journalism (they go well together, right?) but I minored in computer science. ;) People back in 1990 were going "what the hell?" because the Web wasn't really around back then, and no one was thinking about journalism on the Net. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What this means, is that colleges (and really grades schools as well) need to encourage women to explore math, science and engineering more, and to encourage men to check out the humanities more.
Why? If people are choosing the fields that they are drawn to, why try to convince them otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's the rub, isn't it?
When women do worse in a subject, or choose not to take it (such as sciences), publications like the Christian Science Monitor chalk it up to "discrimination", "bias", or "an unwelcoming environment" in that subject.
When men do worse in a subject, or choose not to take it (such as English), these same publications blame the men for not showing an interest in the subject, or not working hard enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When men do worse in a subject, or choose not to take it (such as English), these same publications blame the men for not showing an interest in the subject, or not working hard enough.
Or claiming we're stupid/biologically inferior. Christian Science Monitor has been guilty of those at least twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oddly, and I don't know why, veterinary and other animal sciences are a blatant exception. My animal science courses are all- or almost all-female, though most are taught by a male professor. Most veterinary school applicants are female, and lemme tell you, admission into vet school is not easy. It is every bit as selective and competitive as human med school. Something like 95% of applicants are turned down. If you don't have at least a 3.5 GPA and tons of math/science courses, don't even bother applying. Then when you get into vet school, you step through the Gates of Hell and burn there for the next four years.
However, because most vet school applicants are female, most accepted are female. Therefore it is obvious that when female students apply themselves to science and math, they can and do learn it. There is no "bias." Those who don't learn it simply choose not to, because they majored in philosophy rather than biology, and only had to go up to Algebra II and Chem 101. OF COURSE they will not do well when tested in advanced math and science. Give me a French test, I'll fail it.
There's another, totally different side to all this. While it is true that fewer men are attending college, many of these men are going directly from high school into computer-oriented careers that pay very well but don't necessarily require a degree. I am all for higher education, but we must look at this realistically. Just because a guy doesn't attend college doesn't mean he'll be stuck working at Hardee's and forever living hand-to-mouth. College is NOT for everyone, and it is completely possible to be wildly successful without a degree. The fact that men as a group still outearn women as a group reflects this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree Claire. We need to trust people do act in their own best interest. If a person decides not to go to college after high school, we need to trust that they know what they're doing. After all, you can always get a college degree. Some people are not mature or ready for college at 18.
Likewise, if women have less interest in science/math oriented study and careers, there is no point evalutating how much the "learn" in those realms against other students who do have an interest in science/math. Seems like the researchers need a course in basic logic to me.
I was always good at math and to a lesser degree science but pretty good on the humainties side, English and Art. I excelled at what I am interested in, which is architecture. Architecture is one discipline which is more evenly split between math/science and the arts. Not surprisingly, people who were too tilted to one side or the other did not do well in architectural curriculum. (Consequently architecture has a very high attrition rate).
Perhaps the researchers should test people in fields which require critical thinking in both realms instead of compare apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claire, you have chosen to buy into several of the most popular and insidious lies spread by feminists.
You state, "While it is true that fewer men are attending college, many of these men are going directly from high school into computer-oriented careers that pay very well but don't necessarily require a degree."
The group least likely to go to college is black men. It sickens me everytime a cozy white woman insinuates that this is because they are taking great jobs in the computer science industry.
Another important fact: the recent explosion in computer science jobs began in about 1995 with the advent of the Web. The last time that there were roughly equal numbers of men and women in the student bodies of the nation's colleges and universities was 1979. The fact is that men, as a group, are fleeing the nation's educational system because it is a bastion of anti-male hate.
You also state, "The fact that men as a group still outearn women as a group reflects this."
Feminists know that this is such a gross distortion of the facts that it amounts to a bald faced lie. Women earn less than men because they choose to be in easier jobs and work fewer hours. Take a look at "Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America," by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba. They have done an exhaustive study of the matter. For men and women in a given field with the same background, ability and amount of work the difference in pay shrinks to negligible.
I have twice seen feminists challenged on this latter issue. (Once was in a debate between a man from the Cato Institute and the chair of NOW. The other was in a debate between Wendy McElroy and Kathleen Barry, a radical feminist, on the campus of the University of Colorado.) The radical feminists know the truth, but continue to spread their distortions and lies. In both cases they avoided dealing with the fact that women get equal pay for equal work. In both cases, they instead claimed that this society doesn't value the role of mothers. (No mention of fathers.)
The feminists believe that mothers who stay at home should continue to get paid as though they were still working in their careers. They didn't say where the money should come from, but perhaps they think that a special tax should be placed on those who don't stay at home with their children and the money should be given to women who do stay at home with their children. And, of course, when a woman returns to work after taking one, or five or twenty years away (and she has learned nothing new in the field, much of what she knew is obsolete, and she's forgotten much of it anyway) she should be paid the same amount upon returning to her career as she would have gotten if she'd never left. These, however, are separate matters. Make no mistake about it, the feminist liars know that for a given background, ability and amount of work, women are paid as much as men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Firstly, I wasn't talking about black men specifically, but men as a group, and I don't think men as a group are doing anywhere nearly as badly economically as you seem to imply. Also, black men are actually doing better than black victicrats like Jesse Jackson and Earl Ofari Hutchinson suggest. Yes, there are problems, but at the same time there are many very successful black men.
Pick up a book called "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America" by Larry Elder. Larry is a black libertarian radio host who talks extensively about race issues.
>men, as a group, are fleeing the nation's educational system because it is a
>bastion of anti-male hate.
How do you *know* this? Has any comprehensive study ever been done outside polls on Internet message boards? I don't think it's fair to paint all men who don't go to college as yellow boys who are doomed to be lifelong burger-flippers. Isn't that kind of a negative thing to say about men, to assume the very worst?
Truth is, men have always entered MANY fields that do not require college degrees. You don't need one to be a firefighter, construction worker or for many other physically oriented, well-paying jobs.
I am all for education, but college is not for everyone. It's not even for everyone who is highly intelligent. Many highly gifted people are frustrated as hell in college, and end up dropping out. That does not doom them to a life of failure.
You completely misinterpreted my statement about men earning more as a group. I did not say that this is because women are paid less. Yes, it is for the reasons you state, and in fact, when you look at CHILDFREE men and women, childfree women only earn 3% less than their male counterparts. As far as I'm concerned, 3% is negligible; they earn about the same, period. That's because childfree women have no reason to quit their jobs or focus on anything except work. Kids = someone has to take care of them = you end up having to turn down jobs due to lack of flexibility, too much travel, etc. = you end up losing money.
As far as SAHMs being paid by the gov't to raise their own kids, that idea is absurd and disgusting. If you CHOOSE to have kids, then you better be prepared to make the SACRIFICES necessary to take care of them. I guess you could just pay a full-time, live-in nanny to raise them while both spouses work 90 hours a week, but personally I don't see the point in even having a kid in that case.
If you CHOOSE to have kids, and you end up HAVING to quit your job or take a lesser-paying one to care for the kids you CHOSE to have, that falls under the category of "your problem." You don't want to lose money? Fine, don't have kids. Is that fair? Nope, but life's not fair.
I have no sympathy for these women, nor do I feel as a Libertarian, and especially as a childfree person, that I should be forced to subsidize other peoples' breeding habits. Nobody should be made to pay for someone else's kid, whether or not they themselves are childfree or a (GASP!) responsible parent who actually accepts the fact that children = sacrifice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is for the reasons you state, and in fact, when you look at CHILDFREE men and women, childfree women only earn 3% less than their male counterparts. As far as I'm concerned, 3% is negligible; they earn about the same, period.
Indeed. It doesn't matter what type of poll or study was conducted to collect that data. Unless they polled every working man and woman in the United States, 3 percent is well inside most margins of error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claire:
You state, "I don't think men as a group are doing anywhere nearly as badly economically as you seem to imply." I clearly never stated or implied that men are doing badly economically. In fact, I stated that men and women are paid the same amount for the same amount of work.
You state, "black men are actually doing better than black victicrats like Jesse Jackson and Earl Ofari Hutchinson suggest." This is sickening. While white women have the longest life expectancy, black men have the shortest. We are quickly approaching the situation in which the student body of the nation's colleges and universities will be almost exclusively white female. Black men are the most underrepresented in higher education. While white women are the least likely to go to prison, black men are by far the most likely. Your insinuation that black men, other than exceptions, are doing well is racist sexism to an extreme.
You state, "'men, as a group, are fleeing the nation's educational system because it is a
bastion of anti-male hate.'
"How do you *know* this?"
Studies have been done. I refer you to Christina Hoff Sommers' books, "The War Against Boys" and "Who Stole Feminism." The anti-male hatred in the nation's colleges and universities (and high schools and grade schools) is so extreme today that after exposure to it one could deny it only through an equally extreme dishonesty. Again, see those books. I attend classes at the local university and the anti-male sexism is pervasive, constant and fanatic.
You say, "I don't think it's fair to paint all men who don't go to college as yellow boys who are doomed to be lifelong burger-flippers. Isn't that kind of a negative thing to say about men, to assume the very worst?"
I can imagine this being said about Jews a few years ago in Germany. Again, the anti-male hate is extreme, pervasive and constant. Men aren't yet in the situation of German Jews in the late 1930s and first half of the 1940s, but the hatred against them is becoming as pervasive and extreme. Again, read those books. And open your eyes.
You say, "You don't need one (a college degree) to be a firefighter, construction worker or for many other physically oriented, well-paying jobs."
I didn't know that firefighter was such a great paying job. I thought they made great sacrifices for relatively little remuneration. (Think of the World Trade Center.)
You say, "As far as SAHMs being paid by the gov't to raise their own kids, that idea is absurd and disgusting."
I agree entirely, but this solution is what the radical feminists suggest should be implemented. And, in the future, if you state that women are paid less than men, you should make it clear that it is because women choose easier jobs and fewer hours. You should also make it clear that for a given background, ability and amount of work, women are paid as much as men. Not to do so is to spread the distortion that for a given amount of work women are paid less than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist:
You made a very good point that I forgot to mention. Anyone who knows about such statistical analysis knows that such studies have an uncertainty of, typically, plus or minus 3 to 4 percent. Within that margin, the studies indicate no difference whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to add that Claire said, "I don't think it's fair to paint all men who don't go to college as yellow boys who are doomed to be lifelong burger-flippers."
I neither stated nor implied that all men who don't go to college are yellow boys who are doomed to be lifelong burger-flippers. Stop distorting what I say. You're talking like a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"....... you should make it clear that it is because women choose easier jobs and fewer hours. You should also make it clear that for a given background, ability and amount of work, women are paid as much as men. Not to do so is to spread the distortion that for a given amount of work women are paid less than men."
Agreed. And when you state that men are not attending college you should make it clear that they CHOOSE not to attend college, they are not being excluded. And when you say black men have a lower life expectancly you should make it clear that they have a higher rate of death via violence as children and young adults, which scews down their life expectancy as a group moreso than if they were dying in their 30's or 40's. And when you say black men are incarcerated at a higher rate than women you should make it clear that they commit more crime than women as a group, including the aforementioned violence against their own.
By not mentioning these things you tend to paint a picture that black men are disadvantaged becasue of some action on the part of women.
While there are many causes, I haven't seen any research which suggests women are the cause of the societal problems of black men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And when you state that men are not attending college you should make it clear that they CHOOSE not to attend college, they are not being excluded."
The question arises, "WHY do men choose to go to college far less than women, even in time of recession?" If it is a response to a systemic anti-male hatred in the nation's educational system, then this problem should be addressed. Systemic anti-male hatred in government sponsored institutions must be ended. Boys should not be taught to despise themselves and to hate school and, if they are taught these things (and they are), those responsible should be dealt with accordingly.
To blame this entirely on choice is absurd. There is a reason so many men choose not to go to school and the reason is the all-pervasive anti-male hatred. I can imagine the nation's colleges and universities being 100% white female and the women sitting smugly and declaring, "Well. No one else wants to go to school!"
As for the plight of black men, it's due either to societal influences or their biology. I don't believe that black men kill each other and choose not to get educations because they are so-prone by their genes. This is a result of racist sexism.
Finally, there is no comparison between women's choosing to take easy jobs and work fewer hours than men, on the one hand, and men choosing not to go to college, on the other hand. Women are welcomed into the workplace. Affirmative action, in many cases, makes their advances easier. Men, however, are not welcomed into the academy. On the contrary, they are treated like inferior life forms there. In addition, even though there are far fewer men than women developing their minds in the nation's colleges and universities, there are far more academic scholarships for women than men.
In the one case, women are welcomed into the workforce. In the other case, men are driven out of the educational system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to say here that one of the slickest and most effective moves that feminism has pulled off has been turning us men against each other and ourselves. White, heterosexual men have been singled out as the greatest source of all evil because white, heterosexual men were the only ones who had enough power, three decades ago, to stand up to the feminists. It should be obvious, though, that feminism (radical/gender at least) is hatred of all males.
We need to draw together if we are to succeed in combatting the hate. While we all bear some responsibility for our situation, I think we need to recognize that black men are not suffering more than white men because they are biologically inferior or genetically pre-disposed to self-destruction. Government imposed programs may not be the solution to this problem, but we must start making deeply sincere efforts to work on it. The fact is: We now need each other.
Also, if one is disgusted by bi-sexuality or homosexuality, so be it. Those "lifestyles" may offend you for religious reasons. Then your God/Goddess should be quite capable of dealing with the situation. Again, we now need to work together.
Those who turn us against ourselves (as opposed to each other) by teaching boys to loathe themselves, should be dealt with accordingly -- their actions are child abuse and they should be brought to justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question arises, "WHY do men choose to go to college far less than women, even in time of recession?" If it is a response to a systemic anti-male hatred in the nation's educational system, then this problem should be addressed. Systemic anti-male hatred in government sponsored institutions must be ended. Boys should not be taught to despise themselves and to hate school and, if they are taught these things (and they are), those responsible should be dealt with accordingly.
Indeed, I am as much an advocate of people making their own decisions about their own lives as the next guy, but I *also* believe that there is strong anti-male atmosphere on college campuses these days, and it drives away many men who would otherwise like to better their education.
Let's use as an example the intimidation of black voters after emancipation in the Southern U.S. It is well-known that black people who leaned toward voting for Republican candidates at that time (as a result of their affiliation with Abraham Lincoln) were intimidated and harassed by white supremacists, and were threatened if they did not vote for the other party.
So, when non-Republican candidates won seats in government just after emancipation, one could argue that the black voters were using their newly found freedom and "chose" those candidates when, in fact, they were intimidated into doing so.
Now, college campuses are filled with hatred for men. Even back when I was in college (1990-1994), signs were plastered everywhere targeting men as rapists, oppressors, and domestic abusers. Professors in ALL types of classes routinely lectured students on how bad women have it out in the "real world" and how it was the fault of a "patriarchal" society.
Likewise, many women on my college campus walked around with this bulgy-eyed fear on their faces, as a direct result of the hate propaganda and criminalization of men. I didn't feel sorry for them. I felt infuriated BY them. My essay on one such incident and the unique way I handled it is available here.
If I had the choice to go back to those college days and re-live the campus culture, I wouldn't do it. I am amazed I made it through school without killing myself with as much male-loathing that was thrust upon me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist:
I remember reading that essay and I loved it then as much as I do now. I, too, don't think that I would attend the vile evil of college today (other than short excursions for carefully chosen continuing education courses). It is insane there. And that comes from someone who loves education enough to have gotten a BA in philosophy and BS, MS and Ph.D. degrees in physics.
The nation's academy is a bastion of anti-male evil. It MUST be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As for the plight of black men, it's due either to societal influences or their biology. I don't believe that black men kill each other and choose not to get educations because they are so-prone by their genes. This is a result of racist sexism."
What do you mean by this? Specifically how is sexism involved young black men killing each other?
Also by the way your wrote this is could be infered that you are debating a point I made. You did not, you brought up a new point.
My point was MATHEMATICAL not social. If the life expectancy for one group is lower than another, and you find that a many of them die at very young ages (13-25), then simple math tells you that their AVERAGE (averaging being a mathematical construct) life expectancy is going to be much lower than a group who has a higher death rate in their 50's and 60's (like white men or in reality all men who make it to that age). If you compare white men and black men after age 25 they have similar life expectancy today.
The same is true with the life expectancy rate between men and women often cited as an example of sexism. Male babies (humans and most other mammals) have a higher infant mortality rate (always have we don't know why). This is countered in nature by a slightly higher birth rate of males to females 105:100 for humans. So when you factor in only age in life expectancy calculations males will have a lower life expectancy right out of the gate. Women traditionally had a higher death rate in their teens and 20's due to the dangers/rigors of childbirth. Even so, averaging in their later death age with males many of whom die in infancy, women will still have a longer life expectancy than men MATHEMATICALLY but may actually die at the same age of the men who survived childhood.
See, math is fun :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What do you mean by this? Specifically how is sexism involved young black men killing each other?"
To what do you attribute the high rate of violence by black men? To what do you attribute their "choice" not to go to college?
As for your "Math"... Whatever. You're talkin' to a pro and it just bored me. Besides, remember that there are countries in which men live longer than women, Iraq for example. But that's due to
sexism
of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread interests me greatly. I am employed as a commercial pilot for a large international carrier. I was sponsored through my training and the vast majority of my fellow students were also male - a simple function of a large number of males applying and therefore a large number of males being accepted. (see Claire4Liberty's point about the large number of female applicants to Animal Sciences).
I’ve now noticed that our Criteria for Selection document, which is made available to all flight-crew applicants, (and portions of which appear on our web-site) has "interviews" with recently qualified pilots about the job and their training experiences. Of the three pilots chosen to represent us, two are female. (We have over 3000 pilots, just over 100 of which are female). About half the questions are directed specifically at the females and include:
"What advice would you.....offer to women considering a career as a
pilot?" and "How are female pilots perceived within...[the airline].....".
I think the intent is fairly clear. This is coupled to a stated intent (and funding)to provide more sponsorship for females and minorities. The problem with this is that it is not additional funding - it is existing money and "ratios" will be applied to meet the "targets". Put simply, to increase the number of females, males will be excluded. While there are a whole host of reasons why there are relatively few female pilots, actively refusing to accept them for training is not one of them.
I guess my point is this - in those disciplines and educational areas where there is relatively little male representation (teaching, social work, psychology) or poor male performance, where are the "programmes" to encourage more men or better male performance? As is pointed out by others, when women appear to be under-represented in a field (but always excluding the dangerous or dirty ones) or are not scoring as highly as the males, there often appears to be an implication that there is a more sinister motive. Where are the literacy initiatives for the boys?
With respect to Thomas's point about "anti-male hate" in US colleges, I can only confirm that from personal experience. After having been born, brought up and attending a UK university for 4 years, I spent 1 year in a "respected" mid-west US University as part of my pilot journey. It was an eye-opening experience. UK universities have always had their radical element (normally political), but the anti-male sentiment was made clear to me on my first day in the US when our welcome meeting coordinator (female) told us that there was a large meeting/rally/take back the night/anti rape type thing taking place the following night in one of the University’s public common areas. She lowered her voice conspiratorially and told us that while we were welcome to turn up and show support quietly, many women would feel uncomfortable with our presence and it might be better if we kept out of the various areas that they were marching through. This was in the early 90’s, right after the infamous random postings on various US campuses of male student names under the heading “Potential Rapists”. A few of us still use the made-up words and phrases we had to invent during our time in the States when we wanted to avoid offending someone – often over trivial things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides, remember that there are countries in which men live longer than women, Iraq for example. But that's due to
Likewise, the lower life expectancy of men to women hasn't always been so skewed. In the 1920s, men lived only slightly shorter lifespans than women (almost within that 3 percent margin of error we discussed earlier).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just one little example of this (there are, of course, countless examples)...
I recently took a continuing education course at the University of Colorado. One evening the teacher, a woman, commented with amazement and glee in her voice, "My women friends always tell me, 'You married a good man!'"
Another woman in the class called out, "I got the other one."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You implied there was some link between sexism and young black male violence.
I asked you to explain what you meant by your claim, as in provide further information to substantiate it or what leads you to that opinion.
I completely understand if you don't want to explain your claim any further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is more violence in poor communities (more often black than white) than in white communities. This is the race connection.
There is far, far more physical child abuse of males (mostly by females) than physical child abuse of females. This is the sexist connection.
These are clear indicators of violence by individuals when they are adults.
Now, as I asked you...
To what do you attribute the high rate of violence by black men? To what do you attribute their "choice" not to go to college?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hit the "submit" button rather than the "preview" button.
The "than in white communities" above should read "than in wealthy communities (more often white than black or mixed race)"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's Wednesday evening -- time for the one workout I can count on each week. I'm afraid that you, Lorraine and Claire, will have to spew your racist, sexist white-feminist tirades without me for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There is far, far more physical child abuse of males (mostly by females) than physical child abuse of females. This is the sexist connection."
I haven't seen any research which supports this. But then, this is the first time I've seen that claim made. I'll look into it. On the surface it doesn't click. Why would women abuse males more than females? Also, if they did, why wouldn't males lash out at females when older, instead of being violent against other males?
"To what do you attribute the high rate of violence by black men? "
Social disinfranchisement, poverty, violent male role models (ie. cycle of same), fatherlessness, perception of limited opportunity,
"To what do you attribute their "choice" not to go to college?"
It is not really a "choice". They are not prepared to go to college so that choice isn't available to many of them. The problem starts much earlier in their lives. See above.
Perhaps the better question is why don't more black males stay in school and become eligible for college? Then, if they opt out of college we can ask why they choose not to go to college, similar to the question that is being asked about white males.
I really don't buy the excuse of colleges being hostile to males. If college degrees = more money, males will go or find another way to make the same or more amount of money. Males as a group have never just decided to suceed. If they have decided that now, that is a true cultural shift. Perhaps they now have an expectation of combining their salary with a female and have less pressure to make the big bucks?
Also, colleges weren't exactly "friendly" to women of yore and yet they steadily persisted in attending, more and more over time. I had an extremely hostile "academic advisor" in 1986 who told me flat out that I'd never make it in architecture, the requirements were too tough for me. It didn't stop me :o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne mentioned in her post, "And when you state that men are not attending college you should make it clear that they CHOOSE not to attend college, they are not being excluded." She should realize that women receive much more encouragement to go to college than men do. As a college student, this issue is of particular interest to me.
Throughout the years of searching for financial aid, I couldn't help but notice the huge amount of money in scholarships and grants available only to women, yet there are absolutely NO scholarships that I have seen that were available only to men! I wonder if as many women would CHOOSE to go to college if they received the same amount of encouragement as men.
Also, if women learn 33% less in college than men, why are they more likely to graduate? Hmm... Sounds like unfair grading to me.
If anybody reading this is in a position to give to such a charity, I would suggest starting a scholarship fund for men to level the playing field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's Wednesday evening -- time for the one workout I can count on each week. I'm afraid that you, Lorraine and Claire, will have to spew your racist, sexist white-feminist tirades without me for a while.
Let's not get personal, Thomas. The discussion has been heated, but civil so far. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say that women are paid less than men. I said that men, as a group, outearn women. And they do. That's not a distortion, it's a statement of fact. I could launch into a lengthy defense of it, as you suggested, but why take 300 words to say something that can be said in one sentence?
>Your insinuation that black men, other than exceptions, are doing well is racist sexism
>to an extreme.
That's what many of the people who call Larry Elder say, too. Though neither I nor he say that black men are doing "well," just a lot better than the victicrats claim they are. There are a plethora of problems within the black community, many of them stemming from the lack of fathers in the home (a topic Larry expounds upon quite often, devoting an hour to it just last night), which itself stems from the welfare state and the War on Truth (aka the War on Drugs). End the War on Truth and the % of black men in prison will plummet.
Oddly, I have him on right now and this hour's topic is the "underrepresentation" of women in computer sciences. Should be a good hour.
You told me to read a couple of books, I'll suggest you read "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America." Although you'll probably disagree with Larry's views on Black America and race relations in general, you'll probably like the chapter "The Glass Ceiling: Full of Holes."
>I attend classes at the local university and the anti-male sexism is pervasive, constant
>and fanatic.
I attend college too. I haven't seen this. My experience has been starkly different than yours. I think it depends on which school you go to, in which area of the country, and which classes you take.
>We are quickly approaching the situation in which the student body of the nation's colleges
>and universities will be almost exclusively white female.
Again, this depends A LOT on which area of the country you are in. I'm in California, and at least half of the student body at my school is Latino. In every class there are students who were not born in this country, and whose first language is not English. Minority enrollment is not going down, it is going up, reflecting the demographics of this state. This state will be majority Latino very soon, so of course the majority of college students will be Latino. Intermarriage between whites and Latinos is also pushing whites further and further into the minority. If the colleges in this state became majority white female, all but about 10 small schools would close down due to lack of student body.
Ironically, the victicrats still claim that minorities are underrepresented on the college level here, especially since the voters abolished affirmative action a couple of years ago. I guess they haven't visited a California campus lately. I know they haven't come to my school.
Anyway, what DO you think about men who choose not to attend college, and their social and economic situation as a group? I'm not entirely understanding you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't buy the excuse of colleges being hostile to males. If college degrees = more money, males will go or find another way to make the same or more amount of money. Males as a group have never just decided to suceed.
Oh, really?. We've never decided to succeed. Hmmm. Well, I guess I simply imagined going to college and working my ass off to get where I am today. I supposed all my hard work was actually just reward handed to me on a silver platter because I have a penis, huh? I guess I imagined seeing all those hate-filled anti-male fliers and posters on campus when I was in college. Perhaps I simply imagined that whole incident I wrote about in my essay, where a young woman accused me of being a criminal simply because I was walking behind and am male.
Perhaps Thomas was right about you after all, Lorianne. Your total lack of objectivity about the possibility that men can be discrminiated against on a university level (and are being discriminated against on a university level) appears to be an attempt to willfully blind yourself to the problem because you don't want to admit that a matriarchy in education can be just as oppressive as men have always been reputed.
Perhaps they now have an expectation of combining their salary with a female and have less pressure to make the big bucks?
Definitely disagree there. More men are considering NOT getting married/partnered with women nowadays than the opposite. It's been proven in the 2000 census. Fewer people getting married, therefore fewer divorces, leads fewer destructions of men's lives. Marriage is very often a raw deal for men these days, and it's rightfully frightened many of us away from it, including me (I was engaged once, but broke it off when she started making too many demands that I become someone else.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it's due to a higher mortality rate during childbirth, due to less advanced medical care, due to oppressive gov't.
I attribute the high rate of violence by black men to the welfare state and the War on Drugs, both of which have reduced the % of fathers in the home.
BTW, as far as me being racist, my partner has evidence to indicate that he is 1/4 black. One of the reasons why I'm glad my father is not in my life is because he thinks that blacks are a sub-species to humans and that the Bible proves this. He not only wouldn't approve of my partnership, he'd go beserk over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, as far as me being racist, my partner has evidence to indicate that he is 1/4 black. One of the reasons why I'm glad my father is not in my life is because he thinks that blacks are a sub-species to humans and that the Bible proves this. He not only wouldn't approve of my partnership, he'd go beserk over it.
Yeowch. I've known people like that. I have hard time not tripping them when they walk past me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just flippin' through before takin' off for my Wednesday night fix.
You're right, Nightmist.
I think that there are times when we need to get in the faces of the racist, sexist white-feminists (yes, I'm doing the same here, but to make a certain point). Nevertheless, this site tends to be unflaming (weird word), and I want to respect that.
Thanks for calling me on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh... and one...more...thing... as long as I'm feeling like having emotional outbursts right now:
Males as a group have never just decided to suceed.
It is *very* ill-advised for anyone to make generic statements like the above about any group of people around me. I detest biotry more than anything else in this world, and assigning me a belief system, set of attitudes or work ethics based on my sex is bigotry, even if you didn't intend it that way.
I am an individual. I have my own opinions, attitudes, work ethics, and my own life. My brothers do not dictate to me what I think or how I react, nor do I dictate to them. Do not sit there and tell me that because I have a penis I "never decided to succeed."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My experiences in college have been markedly different than yours, perhaps because of my major and the area of the country in which I live. The only "Take Back The Night" rallies I've ever heard about are held not on campus but in gang-infested neighborhoods, where the law-abiding citizens come out in defiance of the gangbangers.
The only fliers I've been handed all scream, "WORK AT HOME AND MAKE $4000/WEEK! NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED!" Oh, and there's a bunch of ads up around campus for, uh, "Internet Chat Models." Must be at least 18 years of age.
It is fully possible to have a different experience depending on what school you go to, what you major in, and where you are located.
There are also many women who are choosing not to get married, and reasons for not marrying are as varied as the people choosing this lifestyle. Fear of divorce is part of it, but there are women who fear divorce, too. Money isn't the only thing that can be lost when a marriage collapses.
There are also many people living together. Still, the majority of the population insists on marrying and having kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>we need to get in the faces of the racist, sexist white-feminists (yes, I'm doing the same
>here, but to make a certain point
Well Thomas, if you've already decided that I am racist and sexist, there's really no point in further discourse. It is a shame that we can't just disagree. It's like I said in another post, the concept of disagreeing is no longer accepted in this country. Instead of, "You disagree with me," it's, "If you don't agree with everything I say, that means you're racist/sexist/hate men/hate women/hate children/are a Nazi/are a facist/are a Communist."
And so the discourse stops. There's no point in it after that.
In another post, you talk about bonding men together. I wonder what will happen to men who disagree with you as I did? Will you tell them they are self-hating? I guess so, because the chance of you agreeing on every single point with every man you meet is about as likely as you being struck by lightning a dozen times in your lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certain amount of intelligence here and a certain amount of "blah, blah!" Maybe we'll discuss it later. I gotta go pump some iron.
And to the men here... We've got to encourage each other to take better care of ourselves. It's up to us and no one else.
Catch ya later!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money isn't the only thing that can be lost when a marriage collapses.
And exactly why did you assume that when I said marriages often result in the destruction of men that I was talking about money? In fact, some studies have shown that men who get divorced (and don't have children, therefore no child support) end up financially better-off than when they were married.
Although it may be painful, losing money isn't often destruction. It's more often setback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My experiences in college have been markedly different than yours, perhaps because of my major and the area of the country in which I live.
Or, perhaps it's because you would be less likely to notice anti-male sentiment on your campus because it doesn't directly affect you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Usually when discussion turns to divorced men, money is brought up, and rightfully so since men are the ones most likely to be saddled with child support and alimony. I assumed then that this is what you were getting at, and obviously I was wrong.
This is a very imperfect method of communication, the Internet.
>losing money isn't often destruction. It's more often setback
I agree, especially since most marriages that do dissolve, do so within the first three to five years. Many of these couples never owned property or had children together. The majority of divorces do not involve minor children, therefore no child support.
The emotional impact is most severe. It is devastating to lose the person you pledged a lifetime to. You also end up losing many of the friends you had as a couple, including in-laws you may have been very close to. Many people who choose not to marry are adult children of divorce. They do not wish to repeat their parents' mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my post above I meant to say:
Males as a group have never decided NOT to suceed.
I left out the word NOT which completely screwed up my meaning. What I meant is that I don't believe men are skipping college in order to be bums or make less money. At least, they've never large scale done such a thing in the past.
If they are skipping college I believe they will compensate for the pay advantage a degree would have brought in other ways. One strategy I suggested is that they may be relying on the wage earning ability of their (future) mates to live the same lifestyle one larger income would have provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I wondered about that. That sentence seemed completely out of sync with the rest of your post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my post above I meant to say:
Males as a group have never decided NOT to suceed.
Gotcha... I still don't like the phrase "males as a group," though. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry nightmist___ if my mistake gave you the wrong impression. If you go back and read my post you'll see the context of my post does not agree with the screwed up sentence.
I definitely do NOT believe that men are not ambitious and hard workers. Indeed they are and historically always have been. That is why Thomas' question as to why they would volutarily skip college when all indications you can succeed better with a college degree is such a compelling question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am really interested in knowing what happens to men who don't go to college, and not just black men. Do most of these men succeed or fail economically and socially? What are their reasons for not pursuing higher education?
A couple of years ago, I worked at a place where the VP of IT had no college degree. He told me that he didn't need one in his field. He was an older man, in his 50s, and he said that throughout his working life he'd always earned as much or more as his degreed counterparts. He cannot possibly be the only one in this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry nightmist___ if my mistake gave you the wrong impression. If you go back and read my post you'll see the context of my post does not agree with the screwed up sentence.
Thanks. If you folks are still reading this thread, I'm in the chatroom now with a few others. Come join us! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks nightmist.
Claire___ I wonder this also. This is why the "hostile environment" in college thing doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think many men would reason that college is a hostile environment therefore they'd rather skip it and take a pay cut. (Pure speculation on my part granted by I can't see it stopping most men I know).
I don’t have the answer as to why, but I’m inclined to agree with Claire’s hypothesis that men who skip college are creating new opportunities for themselves in the high tech industry and in other realms through non-academic vocational training, which has been steadily gaining ground.
Universities traditionally provided a "universal" broad based education which was grounded in the Humanities. Increasingly higher education has moved away from this model into specialization. Perhaps we've gotten to a point where college specialization is less and less distinct from specialized vocational education. If so it is not worth it to invest in 4 years of college and then have to "apprentice" to learn a the specific job skill that will make you employable.
Another explanation is that college educations aren't worth what they used to be worth in terms of earning power. Therefore it makes less sense to invest money and time to get a degree which will not "pay off" more than 4 years of work experience and seniority would get you anyway. Why not just jump in at a lower pay level and invest that 4-5 years climbing up the ladder of experience and pay?
This is something that is talked about continously in professional journals of my profession (architecture) where apprenticeship after college is still a lengthy process. As an example, a master's degree in my field is less valuable $$$$ wise than work experience. I've also seen as little as 2 years greater work experience trump a degree from a more prestigious university when it comes to promotion/pay raise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well this will be my first post on this or any masculinity board so be kind.
Lorianne it is nice that you mention choice because that is one of the areas that should be looked at during any discussion. When you say that "men are not attending college you should make it clear that they CHOOSE not to attend college" I will have to disagree with you strongly on this point. While some people men and women, black or white CHOOSE to not attend college I will wager that the majority never make it to the point where they have the option to choose.
The hidden problems with men are very similar to the problems that occurred with women prior to the feminist movement, it is a silent delemmia. The idea of choice is one that we as Americans cling strongly too and believe in deeply but the fact is many people do not have the choice. Because boys do not perform as well in school, drop out sooner, held back more often, suspended more, etc. males often fail to meet the requirements to gain access to higher education.
Choice is one of those words we all should be careful with. Women have difficulty CHOOSING to work and sacrificing their families but at least they have that choice. Due to the narrowly defined expectations afforded men work is often the only opportuninty allowed for them.
now about crime: first to erase some common myths the vast majority of from is ,...(drum roll please) gender on gender and race on race. (waits for the stunned silence)
also while men are incarcerated more this does not mean that women do not commit less crime it just means that they are not arrested or incarcerated. it has been shown that crime is equally prevelant across races and S.E.S. but often wealth and gender bias of the courts allows for differences in records. While not the diffences in male and female crime can be accounted for by these diffences its shocking how much can be. (think about if a woman slapping a man for a perceived offense was treated like a man hitting a woman for a perceived offense or if gossip was treated as slander?)
Finally one of the most frustrating points for me is feminist THEORY (note not the feminist movement)because in short it blames men for all male problems and men for all female problems. While it is an excellent len to examine society through to highlight female issues it is an extremely poor one for examining male issues. (if you want to discuss this more I am perfectly willing to on another thread) The problem with colleges is that this is the ONLY gender theory used. I have taken and asked about dozens of gender classes and ALL use feminist theory to the point of exclusion or at least the minimization of all other theories that could be applied. Supposed gender classes in higher education deal with female issues or male ones connected to the minimization of women in society.
Also while we hear a great deal of how hedgemonic masculinity effects women and men alike why do we hear almost nothing about hedgemonic feminity and how it affects men and women?
Since I feel that we all our bias and our life experiances help to form our point of view this is a bit about myself: I come from a racially mixed family, a senior college student in psychology and sociology (trying to find a masculinty minor!!), married for 5 years, a beautiful (bias of course but everyone tells me so) 5 month old baby girl who I am the major caretaker for.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope that people will remember to seperate the feminist movement from feminist theory.
the feminist movement which I feel is prefectly justified in fighting for female rights and what they feel is the "truth" of thier position in society. The problem is that feminist theory lacks the ability to examine male issues because of the inherent bias in the theoretical lens used to examine gender issues that highlight female issues doesn't neccesarily apply. Much like our political system the "truth" is often in somewhere in the middle. The men's movement is not always right either (although I always think it is but thats bias too) but is needed to offer the "truth" of the male position in society.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never thought about it that way before, Tony, but it makes sense. Women's groups and men's groups, as well as gay groups, black groups and any other groups with a specific focus are naturally going to see the issues in their own, special light. It's like the old saying goes, there are three versions to every story, yours, mine and the truth. If everyone could be more accepting of opposing viewpoints and willing to examine all sides, this would be a better world, and I'm not just talking about relations between men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would be interested in finding out as well what happens to the men that drop out of the educational system. While I do know that some jobs do not require a great deal of offical schooling they do require a great deal of unoffical education. SInce the majority of those who are are talking about are drop outs due to arrests, drugs, pregnacy of a girl, or failure to make the grade I have a strong suspicion that they are just lost males working in at a blue collar job with no real hope of reaching past middle management.
Remember because one person makes it big without a formal education does NOT mean that things are balanced. (bill gates for example)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
