College gender gap increases HIV?

Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2014-03-20 04:38

Article here. Excerpt:

'Franklin notes that the gender imbalance affects the social climate on college campuses. “The men can do whatever they want,” she says. “So, many women don’t date anybody on campus because you don’t know if he’s talking to Jill, Bill or Phil.”

Research supports her concern. A study of gender imbalance at HBCUs in the journal AIDS Care, in 2006, found that “primary consequences of this gender ratio imbalance were men having multiple female sexual partners during the same time period and women complying with men’s condom use preferences.” The study urged HIV preventive intervention programs at HBCUs to reduce women’s risk of infection.
...
Taylor commends the efforts to increase male enrollment and retention, but he says more is needed at the national level. The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans joined the Morehouse Research Institute in February to sponsor the Black Male Summit, which focused on education reform. Taylor is calling for national sponsorship of a program such as Five-Fifths to specifically address Black male retention and graduation. Studies are showing a male-female disparity in Hispanic college enrollment, so Hispanic-serving institutions are also taking steps to counter the imbalance. The latest Census Bureau information states that Hispanics make up 19 percent of all college students ages 18-24, up from 12 percent in 2008. Still, in 2009, Latinas earned 61 percent of all bachelor’s degrees earned by Hispanics.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... the article has to find a way to spin the under-representation of male students in colleges as a bad thing for female college students in the sense that it places male students in a position to insist that their sex partners have sex w/out condom use.

Ridiculous. First, the girls gave options, such as indeed, saying 'no'. Second, as the article mentions, there's plenty more guys available off-campus. Suggesting a "recently-legal" woman has restricted opportunities for forming sexual relationships with men generally under any but pretty unusual conditions beyond their control is ludicrous.

It's good there seems to be some effort to get the number of males going to college increased so that it comes closer to parity; but the importance of this has nothing to do with whether or not the girls in college have convenient proximity to a large enough pool of boys so that they can feel like they can have their pick of them any time, to which the article alludes and to which I've already said: "Yeah, right!". It has everything to do with getting men educated so they will have a far better chance at success in the work world (well, assuming they major in the right things but more importantly, work hard and work smart after they graduate) and also importantly, avoiding the hastening of the collapse of our civilization -- another very worthy goal! The demonization of the men now going to college speaks for itself as a typically nymphotropic spin on anything involving a conflict of interests between the sexes.

Only thing I'd say about the efforts described in the article is they are limited by ethnicity: any boys but caucasian ones seem eligible for even the very limited assistance offered as compared to what the gov't dishes up for females. Young men of all ethnic groups need relief from the aggressive anti-male agenda being pursued throughout grade school, high school, and through all levels of collegiate education. Such assistance wouldn't be necessary if from kindergarden, little boys weren't getting taken away in police cruisers in handcuffs for making imaginary pistols out of their hands or told they're a "bad influence" and then drugged into zombie-hood simply because it happens to be utterly unnatural to force them to sit still for hours on end. And yes, I know the name of the publication in which the article appears; but it doesn't matter. What's right is right; skin color or region of ancestral origin is irrelevant. The costs associated with having a lot of un- and under-educated men are the same regardless their various heritages.

As for the whole sitting still for hours thing, the kids'll have that opportunity (and a far better ability to do so) in just a few years; why the hurry to turn them (or the girls for that matter) into human plants whose butts have grown roots into those hard, very uncomfortable wooden or plastic seats? I'm all for book education, but letting kids do some running around to blow off steam and fight against the multi-national pandemic of accumulating copious amounts of mid-section blubber prior to and during adolescence wouldn't hurt them.

Or their parents. Or older siblings. Or neighbors. Holy cow, you have only to park near one of any big pasta-specializing chain restaurants and witness the sheer size of some going in or out to know "Houston, we have a problem!" If anything, we ought to be running our kids through Camp Lejeune-style obstacle courses for half the day at school to keep them from becoming sumo-sized by age 12. Seriously.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2014-03-21 02:36