Ah, back at college for a new year ... Wait, where are the male students?

Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2018-09-08 04:10

Article here. Excerpt:

'The steady slide of males enrolling in college, as well as the predictions of the low proportion of males on college campuses in the future, has gone mostly unnoticed in society. The college recruitment books of "three (students) under a tree" will soon have the male as a mere shadow.

When discussed, the quick visceral reaction by female progressives, among others, is something such as "Tough. These privileged males are getting their comeuppance; it is our turn."

Additionally, it is understandable not to expect concern over a male's station in life with the steady beats of "this is the year of the women;" "Let's break the glass ceiling;" "pay disparity;" and "there are not enough women working in (fill-in-the-blank occupation).

Such a response in the long run does not bode well for any of us. For what these males don't have, they cannot give back — to women, to families, to the economy, or to public discourse. Even worse, disaffected men in any community portends a range of social problems.
...
A less-than-endearing environment is developing on college campuses for young men. They arrive marked as a risk that needs to be managed, and consequently they have to participate in orientations, classroom discussions, and co-curricular activities that tell them they are the wolf in sheep's clothing.

It seems that men with high-risk profiles are greeted with overt skepticism about their prospects; while many women with high-risk profiles (e.g., single mothers) enjoy support programs designed to improve their chances of doing well in college.

Given these trends, there should be little worries over the Big Man on Campus, as he is becoming a mere shadow.'

Like1 Dislike0

Comments

A question asked often in the 18th and 19th centuries by kings all over Europe as they tried to find ways to stop the tide of populism and republicanism sweeping through their castles. Treatises, books, etc., written by the hundreds by scholars who attempted to analyze the reasons. Often these men were commissioned by potentates to come up with an explanation in an effort to stave off the inevitable. Many works were penned with an eye to placating their benefactor and so led to a lot of bullshit being written. And men rebelled anyway.

Human nature and the nature of men has not changed since the 18th century nor since 20,000 BC either. In fact I doubt human nature has really changed that much from when we suddenly became self-aware beings from being not-so-self-aware beings. Some things are as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Why men are moved to insurrection and rebellion is one of them.

There are two things a general must do to keep his troops in good order and able to fight. He must kit them appropriately and make sure they stay healthy. By this I mean they must be geared and armed in accordance with the circumstances and must be well-fed and not sick, generally speaking. They are able then to fight and obey orders as required. If either of these things are compromised, the army is in trouble. Mutinies, desertions, etc., are all likely to increase dramatically. Mutinies however occur for other reasons. Bad leadership can move good troops to mutiny. Once a commander becomes intolerable enough, he is overthrown. A wise general relieves such a man of his command before the stress gets bad enough.

Armies are nothing if not large groups of men. What leads men to disobedience and mutiny as well as desertion in the army is what will lead them to similar acts in civilian life. Men do not stop being men simply because they are trained to be soldiers and wear uniforms.

Relieve a man of opportunities for betterment or perhaps in some cases to support himself. Give him little to do. Place him in a condition wherein he sees little hope for a better life. Further, add insult to injury by vilifying him. Violate his natural liberties to the point of restricting his speech, his movement, his livelihood, so that he has no way to express himself or his thoughts. In a word: oppress him.

Military conditions including privation and illness or abusive/bad leadership are examples of this same kind of thing only in military terms. If these conditions arise in civilian life, the result is similar: mutiny, ie, rebellion, and if it is successful, as it was in America in the late 18th century, revolution.

IMO if things keep proceeding as they are, these conditions for men will emerge. There will be little that men as a class can do in such a society but rebel, violently if necessary. By the time the idea of rebellion gets openly discussed, the anger is built up enough, usually, to take on violent expression. In short, by the time men start talking about change, they are already ready to do what it takes to make it happen. Once that idea gets into their heads, there is no way to stop it. The monarchs of Europe tried. They failed. History has repeated itself in various places over and over since then.

Question is, what does it look like on a pan-national scale? What does it look like, really, when one billion or more men decide roughly at the same time to start killing people and breaking things in the name of securing a better opportunity in life for themselves? And given how obsessively concerned with female well-being so many are, just how safe and otherwise contented will women as a class be when one billion men are murderously rageful and not doing nothing about it?

Alas one day we shall see. I'll be planted by the time that day comes. But it's as inevitable as... the sun rising in the east.

Like2 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2018-09-08 04:44