NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what everyone thought of the gap between the number of males and females in college. If you don't know, theres considerably fewer men than women currently enrolled in college (in the USA). This difference is supposed to increase for the foreseeable future. Why do you think this is happening, and is it a problem?

In my view some of the causes may be:
-lack of emphasis on education among males, while women are always encouraged that "you can do anything".
-It's simply not cool to do good in school.
-Males and females starting school at the same age even though boys are generally behind when it comes to maturity or self-control.
-The method that schools are taught in which the student is very inactive and this make sit a difficult and unhappy environment for boys who usually prefer to be more interactive.
-Men simply lack the drive to achieve that women have.

Problems are:
-Women tend not to be interested in the "hard sciences", these careers are very important (such as engineering disciplines), and always in demand. And are important in keeping the economy going, if too few people start taking these career paths there may be serious economic consequences.
-Its always bad when less people are trying to get educated, and as such we should encourage boys especially to try hard in school and go to college.
-Weakening opportunities for people to be in a healthy relationship (it seems it'd be best if both partners have similar education levels, clear speculation on my part of course.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really think all these are causes, but its just some things that I've heard to explain the recent and growing rift in education. I'm pretty sure girls do better overall in lower levels of education as well. Also, i realize I used alot of gender generalizations you may not agree with, but in general people do view this as the consensus of some differences between males and females, I don't necessarily think they're biological differences, but it seems to be there, and denying it with a few random cases doesn't prove anything (not that I have). In other words I know that my generalizations don't include a large portion of people, male and female alike.

In my view some of the causes may be:
-lack of emphasis on education among males, while women are always encouraged that "you can do anything".

Half right. Men in my society are currently not encouraged to be quiet, studious, and intellectual as much as women are.

However, women most certainly are not taught that they can do anything. The message is far more complex, and all too often includes the idea that a woman can't have both a career and a family (even though a man can).


-It's simply not cool to do good in school.

This would apply to both men and women, so wouldn't explain the divide you are talking about. Unless you are claiming that females aren't interested in being cool...?


-Males and females starting school at the same age even though boys are generally behind when it comes to maturity or self-control.

Bunk. This is a common myth, but one that is really just the standard "boys will be boys" excuse repackaged.

Keep in mind that the modern system of education was designed back when girls weren't even allowed to go to school. It was designed by males for males.


-The method that schools are taught in which the student is very inactive and this make sit a difficult and unhappy environment for boys who usually prefer to be more interactive.

Again, only half right.

Educational systems that emphasize passivity on the part of the student were, again, the hallmark of traditional schools in the West, dating back to before females were allowed to attend at all. Indeed, back in the day they used to insist that it was girls who didn't have the patience and the attention span to sit quietly with the boys, and that's why girls couldn't get a good education.

The reality is that children, male or female, tend to do better in interactive environments.

In our society, female children are more likely to be encourage to be quiet and submissive to authority, so female children tend to behave better in situations that require sitting quietly and listening to teacher. But this has nothing to do with any inherent learning abilities or styles, and everything to do with how children are socialized.


-Men simply lack the drive to achieve that women have.

For some reason I tend to doubt this...


Problems are:
-Women tend not to be interested in the "hard sciences", these careers are very important (such as engineering disciplines), and always in demand. And are important in keeping the economy going, if too few people start taking these career paths there may be serious economic consequences.

As a woman in the "hard sciences," in a class primarily composed of female graduate students, I find this statement adorable.


-Its always bad when less people are trying to get educated, and as such we should encourage boys especially to try hard in school and go to college.

We shouldn't encourage anybody to pursue any particular career path simply because they are male or because they are female. That's as stupid as saying that we need to encourage blond people to go to college because we need more blondes in college.


-Weakening opportunities for people to be in a healthy relationship (it seems it'd be best if both partners have similar education levels, clear speculation on my part of course.)

I'm not sure what you're talking about with this one.


Also, i realize I used alot of gender generalizations you may not agree with, but in general people do view this as the consensus of some differences between males and females, I don't necessarily think they're biological differences, but it seems to be there, and denying it with a few random cases doesn't prove anything (not that I have). In other words I know that my generalizations don't include a large portion of people, male and female alike.
Just because there's a popular consensus about something doesn't mean it's right. :D

Not that I'm an expert... but wouldn't you think that traditional teaching models (making the students sit and memorise) were a lot more focused on passive students than today's models, where you actually have students getting "in touch" with the subjects: language labs, chemical experiments, discussion groups, etc?

It's my understanding that, although more women enroll in college and get bachelor's degrees, more men are still getting advanced degrees (Ph.D., M.D., and J.D. by about a 5-4 margin. MBAs are pretty even.) My information is about five years out of date (I took a college class on economics that explained this as well as the gender pay gap) but probably not far off.

Not that I'm an expert... but wouldn't you think that traditional teaching models (making the students sit and memorise) were a lot more focused on passive students than today's models, where you actually have students getting "in touch" with the subjects: language labs, chemical experiments, discussion groups, etc?

Memorization is such a horrifying teaching method, leads to a world full of sheep who believe whatever they're told. No critical thinking at all.

Not that I'm an expert... but wouldn't you think that traditional teaching models (making the students sit and memorise) were a lot more focused on passive students than today's models, where you actually have students getting "in touch" with the subjects: language labs, chemical experiments, discussion groups, etc?
Exactly. What's funny is that the more active and interactive teaching styles were originally put down as being touchy-feelie and feminine.

I am a man and I do what I want.

My wife has to listen, she has no choice.

And if I want to do the dishes, I do the dishes.

Memorization is such a horrifying teaching method, leads to a world full of sheep who believe whatever they're told. No critical thinking at all.

Necessary for languages I find

-It's simply not cool to do good in school.


That made me laugh. :p

Half right. Men in my society are currently not encouraged to be quiet, studious, and intellectual as much as women are.

However, women most certainly are not taught that they can do anything. The message is far more complex, and all too often includes the idea that a woman can't have both a career and a family (even though a man can).


This would apply to both men and women, so wouldn't explain the divide you are talking about. Unless you are claiming that females aren't interested in being cool...?

No, simply that there is more social pressure on males by their peers than on females by their peers.

Bunk. This is a common myth, but one that is really just the standard "boys will be boys" excuse repackaged.

Keep in mind that the modern system of education was designed back when girls weren't even allowed to go to school. It was designed by males for males.

Well, maybe they designed it wrong. I'm sure you can agree that our ancestors weren't always the best at analyzing things, or designing the optimal system.

Again, only half right.

Educational systems that emphasize passivity on the part of the student were, again, the hallmark of traditional schools in the West, dating back to before females were allowed to attend at all. Indeed, back in the day they used to insist that it was girls who didn't have the patience and the attention span to sit quietly with the boys, and that's why girls couldn't get a good education.

The reality is that children, male or female, tend to do better in interactive environments.

Of course, but is there a difference in how much better they do?

In our society, female children are more likely to be encourage to be quiet and submissive to authority, so female children tend to behave better in situations that require sitting quietly and listening to teacher. But this has nothing to do with any inherent learning abilities or styles, and everything to do with how children are socialized.

Yes, lucky bastards. I never claimed it was inherent, only that things may be this way, which obviously has to account for socialization. We may have evrything backwards and women are actually the active rambunctious ones, while the men are the calm ones. (my nieces are probably proof of that...)

For some reason I tend to doubt this...

Why? Really, in my experience guys just want to have fun. Whereas women are much more serious and driven to achieve.

As a woman in the "hard sciences," in a class primarily composed of female graduate students, I find this statement adorable.

Yes and no. One case doesn't prove much. And graduate studies are done predominately by women. Another one of those more driven things... I'm sure you'll find that men are more likely to go into engineering, and mathematics. At the graduate level that might change, but for undergrad its a fact. Biology and Chem might have more women but I don't really know.

We shouldn't encourage anybody to pursue any particular career path simply because they are male or because they are female. That's as stupid as saying that we need to encourage blond people to go to college because we need more blondes in college.

I'm not saying that we should encourage them disproportionately, simply to use tactics on both sides, currently to me as a man I feel, women are encouraged more often during school to do well. My point here is not to encourage men to go to school because we need more men, but because it will be better for them(and ultimately society) to go to school. The point of this thread is to examine why men aren't going to college and apply what we learn to try to get more men attending, since they're falling behind I think we need to look at social/environmental/gender factors that may be deterring them from going to college.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with this one.


Just because there's a popular consensus about something doesn't mean it's right. :D

Of course not. More often then not most people are wrong. That last part was written just for you. Besides, we were agreeing too much in that marriage thread so I had to come up with I topic I knew you'd disagree with me on.

I was wondering what everyone thought of the gap between the number of males and females in college. If you don't know, theres considerably fewer men than women currently enrolled in college (in the USA). This difference is supposed to increase for the foreseeable future. Why do you think this is happening, and is it a problem?

It would be a problem, considering that that would mean a significant portion of our population would lack post-secondary education.

-lack of emphasis on education among males, while women are always encouraged that "you can do anything".

Well...I dunno...I'm a guy and I got plenty of encouragement going through high-school.

-It's simply not cool to do good in school.

Yeah, because it's so "cool" to work at a drive-thru for the rest of your life...I call schenanigans. Most guys I think want to be successful.

-Males and females starting school at the same age even though boys are generally behind when it comes to maturity or self-control.

I care not what the psudo-psychology says, this is bull.

-Men simply lack the drive to achieve that women have.

Ugh...you know what, I'm gonna stop here...

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_3/3_3/q4-5.asp

Heres a website for some statistics on higher learning in males and females.

from link:
"After 4 years, 29 percent of bachelor's degree recipients had enrolled in a graduate degree program. While women and men were equally likely to enroll, women were more likely to enroll in master's degree programs and men were more likely to enroll in first-professional and doctoral programs (figure C)."

I was only considering masters programs and hadn't considered professional and doctoral.

It would be a problem, considering that that would mean a significant portion of our population would lack post-secondary education.



Well...I dunno...I'm a guy and I got plenty of encouragement going through high-school.



Yeah, because it's so "cool" to work at a drive-thru for the rest of your life...I call schenanigans. Most guys I think want to be successful.



I care not what the psudo-psychology says, this is bull.



Ugh...you know what, I'm gonna stop here...

I'm sure most men want to be successful. The question is do they care enough to work at it. I didn't say the reasons given were correct, but if you have an idea why please let me know.

What's the point of wasting away your youthful years doing something you hate, in order to get a job you'll hate?

No, simply that there is more social pressure on males by their peers than on females by their peers.

No, there really isn't.


Well, maybe they designed it wrong. I'm sure you can agree that our ancestors weren't always the best at analyzing things, or designing the optimal system.

Absolutely.


Of course, but is there a difference in how much better they do?

Statistically speaking, there's a bigger difference between how well low-income boys and high-income boys perform. The "gender gap" actually is far, far less significant than the income gap.

Among the elite, there's really no gap at all. More boys than girls attend Ivy League colleges. Among whites, college attendance is pretty much even between boys and girls.

It's only when you look at low-income and non-white populations that you really start seeing more differences.

Yet, for some reason, the gender war gets all the attention, and for some reason all the attention boils down to "We need to give boys more perks."


Yes, lucky bastards. I never claimed it was inherent, only that things may be this way, which obviously has to account for socialization. We may have evrything backwards and women are actually the active rambunctious ones, while the men are the calm ones. (my nieces are probably proof of that...)

Then it's really not about a "gender gap," it's just a socialization gap. Imagine that: children who are encouraged to be quiet and obedient will do better in environments that require quiet obedience!


Why? Really, in my experience guys just want to have fun. Whereas women are much more serious and driven to achieve.

I haven't seen any particular division along gender lines.


Yes and no. One case doesn't prove much. And graduate studies are done predominately by women. Another one of those more driven things... I'm sure you'll find that men are more likely to go into engineering, and mathematics. At the graduate level that might change, but for undergrad its a fact. Biology and Chem might have more women but I don't really know.

This is true, though of course it is changing with time.


I'm not saying that we should encourage them disproportionately, simply to use tactics on both sides, currently to me as a man I feel, women are encouraged more often during school to do well.

I don't see that, myself. Instead, I see that encouragement for young women drops off very sharply as soon as they hit the years that are considered ripe for child-bearing. Women are still given the message that they cannot be a mother AND a scientist, even though men are pretty much expected to have a wife and kids in addition to their career.

Women also are a lot less likely to be able to find a partner who will be willing to shoulder domestic responsibilities and relocate as his wife's career demands. Since many women, like many men, do want to have a partner and a family, many women make the (accurate) evaluation that they will have to choose between pursuing their education/career and having a family.


My point here is not to encourage men to go to school because we need more men, but because it will be better for them(and ultimately society) to go to school. The point of this thread is to examine why men aren't going to college and apply what we learn to try to get more men attending, since they're falling behind I think we need to look at social/environmental/gender factors that may be deterring them from going to college.

Here's some gender gap issues to address, then:

In the USA, a woman with a college degree can expect to make about as much as a man who has a high school degree. In 1995, a white male with a high school diploma would earn more money, on average, than a woman college graduate of any racial, ethnic, socio-economic, or ability group.

Unskilled labor in jobs that are traditionally regarded as "men's jobs" will usually pay more than unskilled "women's jobs."

Higher education is more likely to lift women out of poverty than men. Women are also more likely to live in poverty than men. This could be a pretty powerful motivation for women to seek education.

No, there really isn't.


Absolutely.


Statistically speaking, there's a bigger difference between how well low-income boys and high-income boys perform. The "gender gap" actually is far, far less significant than the income gap.

Among the elite, there's really no gap at all. More boys than girls attend Ivy League colleges. Among whites, college attendance is pretty much even between boys and girls.

It's only when you look at low-income and non-white populations that you really start seeing more differences.

Yet, for some reason, the gender war gets all the attention, and for some reason all the attention boils down to "We need to give boys more perks."


Then it's really not about a "gender gap," it's just a socialization gap. Imagine that: children who are encouraged to be quiet and obedient will do better in environments that require quiet obedience!


I haven't seen any particular division along gender lines.


This is true, though of course it is changing with time.


I don't see that, myself. Instead, I see that encouragement for young women drops off very sharply as soon as they hit the years that are considered ripe for child-bearing. Women are still given the message that they cannot be a mother AND a scientist, even though men are pretty much expected to have a wife and kids in addition to their career.

Women also are a lot less likely to be able to find a partner who will be willing to shoulder domestic responsibilities and relocate as his wife's career demands. Since many women, like many men, do want to have a partner and a family, many women make the (accurate) evaluation that they will have to choose between pursuing their education/career and having a family.


Here's some gender gap issues to address, then:

In the USA, a woman with a college degree can expect to make about as much as a man who has a high school degree. In 1995, a white male with a high school diploma would earn more money, on average, than a woman college graduate of any racial, ethnic, socio-economic, or ability group.

Unskilled labor in jobs that are traditionally regarded as "men's jobs" will usually pay more than unskilled "women's jobs."

Higher education is more likely to lift women out of poverty than men. Women are also more likely to live in poverty than men. This could be a pretty powerful motivation for women to seek education.

Yes, you can check wikipedia about the gender gap in pay, its mostly due to hours worked (approximately 8 hours more/week for a man than a woman). I don't doubt that some jobs are considered predominately male because they are, if women see this as a disincentive to try for them, thats their own fault.
I find it interesting that you cite fear of poverty as the main reason more women are going to college. This could be the case and it isn't something I had previously considered.

Unfortunately some people think you can't have a career and children if you're a woman, this is something that needs to change, and will be helped along if daycare services would become more acceptable solution (this involves both improving the quality and perception thereof).

Also, I was aware that the difference is most marked when one considers people coming form a low economic background, especially blacks and hispanics. The question still remains as to why this is. Is it purely that women are motivated by a fear of poverty, whereas men don't see a need to pursue higher education because they think they can get a high paying job through skilled or unskilled labor?

Make learning fun. In fact, all learning should be similar to the kindergarten level. I enjoyed my Chinese Language classes up till about Primary 3, when the emphasis was almost entirely upon memorising words(weekly "spelling" lessons), rather than looking at the roots of words(which was what made it easier to remember those words back in Primary 1). I hated Maths once it became pretty much about memorising formulae(and of course, teachers insisting that you show how you got the answers. In my case, I did them all in my head, but those bastards kept tearing down my self-belief, and piling on the insecurities, till I could barely balance a dinner checque.):headbang: Ditto for Chemistry and moles. MY GODS HOW I FUCKING HATE MOLES!:upyours:

Make learning fun. In fact, all learning should be similar to the kindergarten level. I enjoyed my Chinese Language classes up till about Primary 3, when the emphasis was almost entirely upon memorising words(weekly "spelling" lessons), rather than looking at the roots of words(which was what made it easier to remember those words back in Primary 1). I hated Maths once it became pretty much about memorising formulae(and of course, teachers insisting that you show how you got the answers. In my case, I did them all in my head, but those bastards kept tearing down my self-belief, and piling on the insecurities, till I could barely balance a dinner checque.):headbang: Ditto for Chemistry and moles. MY GODS HOW I FUCKING HATE MOLES!:upyours:

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/460Insectivora/Images/Mole.jpg
VOTE MOBRA!

*snip

Very strange. I think men have but five points more I.Q. then women on average. Apparently I.Q. really doesn't have to with intelligence. :D

But anyway, who cares? We men need break anyhoo. Look at all the hundreds of years we monopolized learning. Women have to make-up for lost time.

Why? Really, in my experience guys just want to have fun. Whereas women are much more serious and driven to achieve.


Utter hogwash. Haven't you ever heard "girls just wanna have fun"? No, no, my good man.

What's the point of wasting away your youthful years doing something you hate, in order to get a job you'll hate?

One word: money. You'll end-up doing something you hate anyway, but you'll beg paid considerably less and always be scrimping, and saving.

I am a man and I do what I want.

My wife has to listen, she has no choice.

And if I want to do the dishes, I do the dishes.

Hopefully you can find a woman who won't speak out because you know what? That kind of attitude will destine any marriage or long-term relationship you have towards inevitable failure because you fail to understand that communication is key and that both parties must be able to listen.

By limiting choice, you will make someone's life very difficult and result in misery for the two of you because when you clip your partner's wings, they become miserable even if is not apparent at first. It will boil over and result in somethign far more destructive than you're prepared for.

No one has to listen to anyone, but we choose to because listening is part of effective communication and it is a two-way street for all concerned parties.

It would take a naive or a woman of low self-esteem to settle for someone like you who puts so little on what she would have to say and expect her to listen to your every whim. That is not how a relationship works.

Same as with education. Yes pupils can simply listen but they cannot effectively learn if they have questions that go unanswered while they are listening to the teacher explain something. Even in the student-teacher relationship, the teacher needs to be able to listen too.

As for the gender gap? It's outdated attitudes (like Edwinasia's) that still seem to have wind in the sails that allow for certain myths and stereotype to exist. It makes people look at just the surface instead of delving in to find out more. It assumes that because a person is born with certain genatilia that they must fall into a certain framework and embrace a certain pre-set standard.

I am a man and I do what I want.

My wife has to listen, she has no choice.

And if I want to do the dishes, I do the dishes.
Am I the only one who just hears a petulant 5 year old saying these words?

"I can do what I want! You can't make me! Nuh uh! I'm a man and I don't wanna do those icky old dishes!"

With an attitude like that, the only kind of woman you'll attract is the type who feels like being Mommy to a grown man.

Am I the only one who just hears a petulant 5 year old saying these words?

"I can do what I want! You can't make me! Nuh uh! I'm a man and I don't wanna do those icky old dishes!"

With an attitude like that, the only kind of woman you'll attract is the type who feels like being Mommy to a grown man.

Or the naive type who doesn't believe she deserves better due to attitudes around her that drive this kind of negative thinking.

Am I the only one who just hears a petulant 5 year old saying these words?

"I can do what I want! You can't make me! Nuh uh! I'm a man and I don't wanna do those icky old dishes!"

With an attitude like that, the only kind of woman you'll attract is the type who feels like being Mommy to a grown man.

whateva, I do what I want! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkV38X_4p_Q)

I was wondering what everyone thought of the gap between the number of males and females in college. If you don't know, theres considerably fewer men than women currently enrolled in college (in the USA). This difference is supposed to increase for the foreseeable future. Why do you think this is happening, and is it a problem?


I don't know why it is happening, but statistically, it makes my life easier.
So I'm all for it.

Yes, you can check wikipedia about the gender gap in pay, its mostly due to hours worked (approximately 8 hours more/week for a man than a woman).

1) Wiki is not a reliable source.
2) No, it's not mostly due to hours worked.
3) The gap in "hours worked" between men and women is, itself, directly related to gender discrimination. You see, women are disproportionately required to take on unpaid domestic work. This is still work, it still has to get done, and women do most of it.


I don't doubt that some jobs are considered predominately male because they are, if women see this as a disincentive to try for them, thats their own fault.

You make it sound so nice and simple. Those silly women just SEE it as a disadvantage. If only they'd just TRY.

The ignorance is breathtaking.


I find it interesting that you cite fear of poverty as the main reason more women are going to college.

I find it interesting that you make things up.


Unfortunately some people think you can't have a career and children if you're a woman, this is something that needs to change, and will be helped along if daycare services would become more acceptable solution (this involves both improving the quality and perception thereof).

It's not about "some people think," my dear. It's about "most women in the USA don't have a choice." See, the majority of women in the USA aren't total morons. They are capable of looking at their options, realistically, and they see what you apparently do not:

-They are probably going to be stuck with the majority of domestic work, including childcare. This is a "second shift" for which they will receive no pay, but which can take up as much time as a second full-time job.
-They will make less money than they would if they had a penis.
-Daycare is simply not available for a great many women. It's extremely expensive and often daycare options are very limited.
-If a family can't afford daycare, SOMEBODY has to take care of the child(ren). Since a huge percentage of American families don't include a father in the first place, women (rightfully) note that they will probably be the ones who have to deal with this.

I could keep going all day, but what would be the point? You are functioning under the assumption that "women" means "middle-to-upper-class heterosexual white women who have the luxury of CHOOSING whether or not they work, attend school, etc." This is not the majority of women.


Also, I was aware that the difference is most marked when one considers people coming form a low economic background, especially blacks and hispanics. The question still remains as to why this is. Is it purely that women are motivated by a fear of poverty, whereas men don't see a need to pursue higher education because they think they can get a high paying job through skilled or unskilled labor?
Random suggestion: Why don't you read up on this?

Blogs like Pandagon, Echidne of the Snakes, Angry Black Bitch, Alas (A Blog), and Feministe can all provide you with a crash-course, as well as helpful links.

Please, don't just be another patronizing male voice trying to tell women that if they'd just see there's no discrimination then everything would be fine. You don't know what you're talking about.

I was wondering what everyone thought of the gap between the number of males and females in college. If you don't know, theres considerably fewer men than women currently enrolled in college (in the USA). This difference is supposed to increase for the foreseeable future. Why do you think this is happening, and is it a problem?

In my view some of the causes may be:
-lack of emphasis on education among males, while women are always encouraged that "you can do anything".
-It's simply not cool to do good in school.
-Males and females starting school at the same age even though boys are generally behind when it comes to maturity or self-control.
-The method that schools are taught in which the student is very inactive and this make sit a difficult and unhappy environment for boys who usually prefer to be more interactive.
-Men simply lack the drive to achieve that women have.

Problems are:
-Women tend not to be interested in the "hard sciences", these careers are very important (such as engineering disciplines), and always in demand. And are important in keeping the economy going, if too few people start taking these career paths there may be serious economic consequences.
-Its always bad when less people are trying to get educated, and as such we should encourage boys especially to try hard in school and go to college.
-Weakening opportunities for people to be in a healthy relationship (it seems it'd be best if both partners have similar education levels, clear speculation on my part of course.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really think all these are causes, but its just some things that I've heard to explain the recent and growing rift in education. I'm pretty sure girls do better overall in lower levels of education as well. Also, i realize I used alot of gender generalizations you may not agree with, but in general people do view this as the consensus of some differences between males and females, I don't necessarily think they're biological differences, but it seems to be there, and denying it with a few random cases doesn't prove anything (not that I have). In other words I know that my generalizations don't include a large portion of people, male and female alike.

Well, if there's less men than I guess that means better parties...

But more seriously, I do think that this is a rising problem. Too many guys don't take education seriously, and what upsets me more is how people say they hate school. I love learning things, so I'm perfectly fine with school, whether I'm going to end up using the things I learn or not. The problem is that sports are glorified (which in itself is not bad), and learning is looked down upon. And if people don't have a drive to learn, they will only do so if necessary. It is not necessary to go to college, so they won't go. Basically, learning needs to be highly encouraged for all genders, and the arts need more emphasis as well.

You do mention that women are also less likely to go for the "hard sciences", which unfortunately is true. In our society, it's just not the image for women, it's just not looked upon as a women's career (which is of course untrue, and really irritating). This really is good for the country, but I don't think it will have economic consequences as you say, because there's always importable talent.

And I think I generally agree with the rest of the things you said.

For some reason I tend to doubt this...

No, there is definitely truth to that statement. Link here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/60minutes/main527678.shtml). It's not the greatest article, but not without basis.

Wiki is not a reliable source.
I apologise in advance for my hijack, especially as the gender gap is still very much here with us; the state of female-male wage difference, amongst many other things, is deplorable.

But, this is one of my stupid pet peeves:

Its name is Wikipedia. It happens to be a wiki, but it is not the wiki. There are plenty out there.


Annoying, pedantic rant over.

I apologise in advance for my hijack, especially as the gender gap is still very much here with us; the state of female-male wage difference, amongst many other things, is deplorable.

But, this is one of my stupid pet peeves:

Its name is Wikipedia. It happens to be a wiki, but it is not the wiki. There are plenty out there.


Annoying, pedantic rant over.
"Wiki" is what all the groovy hep-cats call it. Clearly, you're not one of them.

“Wiki” is what all the groovy hep-cats call it. Clearly, you’re not one of them.
No, I’m not.

And those groovy hep-cats should be caught and punished. “WikiP” or “WP” is much more suited.

Anyhoo. Back to how half of our species gets fucked over on a regular basis.

No, I’m not.

And those groovy hep-cats should be caught and punished. “WikiP” or “WP” is much more suited.

Anyhoo. Back to how half of our species gets fucked over on a regular basis.


You knew what she was talking about. It is the main "wiki" and it is common knowledge that Wiki referes to wikipedia so there is no problem with using it.

Whether or not there are increasingly more women in universities, they tend to be focused away from certain areas. That is, I see a large male majority in computer science, physics, and engineering, and those are the sorts of people I spend time with at university. Apparently all the women are in chemistry, life sciences, and the arts.

On a similar note, I also noticed a racial gap. If you walk into a room and its filled with white people, it's probably an arts class. I suspect that requires a university in a fairly diverse city, and may just be a University of Toronto anomaly.

No, I’m not.

And those groovy hep-cats should be caught and punished. “WikiP” or “WP” is much more suited.


I was kidding. I'm sure you're just as groovy as the next hep-cat.

1) Wiki is not a reliable source.

Random suggestion: Why don't you read up on this?

Blogs like Pandagon, Echidne of the Snakes, Angry Black Bitch, Alas (A Blog), and Feministe can all provide you with a crash-course, as well as helpful links.

Uh... Ok. If Wikipedia isn't reliable, why direct to a blog?

1) Wiki is not a reliable source.
2) No, it's not mostly due to hours worked.
3) The gap in "hours worked" between men and women is, itself, directly related to gender discrimination. You see, women are disproportionately required to take on unpaid domestic work. This is still work, it still has to get done, and women do most of it.

Required... don't make me laugh everyone has a choice. If you see social norms as such a binding constraint then you necessarily deny the existence of any sort of free will for your fellow women-folk.

You make it sound so nice and simple. Those silly women just SEE it as a disadvantage. If only they'd just TRY.

The ignorance is breathtaking.

then provide proof on how such professions are harder for women to get into. how about unemployment stats for women with engineering degrees, their income/hour worked, comparing rates of sexual harassment in "male-dominated" fields against other fields.

I find it interesting that you make things up.

like what? the only reason you gave for an observed phenomena, more women attending college, was that they had to in order to avoid poverty. Unless you're holding back, that sounds like your one and only reason why more women than men are attending college.


It's not about "some people think," my dear. It's about "most women in the USA don't have a choice." See, the majority of women in the USA aren't total morons. They are capable of looking at their options, realistically, and they see what you apparently do not:

-They are probably going to be stuck with the majority of domestic work, including childcare. This is a "second shift" for which they will receive no pay, but which can take up as much time as a second full-time job.
-They will make less money than they would if they had a penis.
-Daycare is simply not available for a great many women. It's extremely expensive and often daycare options are very limited.
-If a family can't afford daycare, SOMEBODY has to take care of the child(ren). Since a huge percentage of American families don't include a father in the first place, women (rightfully) note that they will probably be the ones who have to deal with this.

yes, yes, the poor little women have to do all the housework and take care of the kids! Don't be silly, every woman knew what she was getting into in a marriage, if she didn't that was her own fault. Its not like someone forced her to marry some guy who wasn't going to help around the house. Its also not like abortions are available either, its practically impossible to find somewhere to get one done right? I guess I stuck with having kids no matter what, because abstinence and any number of other options are clearly unavailable to me.:rolleyes:

I could keep going all day, but what would be the point? You are functioning under the assumption that "women" means "middle-to-upper-class heterosexual white women who have the luxury of CHOOSING whether or not they work, attend school, etc." This is not the majority of women.

NO, actually I'm not. If anyone is its you, assuming they HAVE to get married etc. And I do believe everyone has the ability and possibility to choose whether or not to go to school. Theres plenty of cheap schools available, admitedly it may be harder for some people than others but the data clearly shows that that group is not women, and if it is, they're working alot harder than their male counterparts.

Random suggestion: Why don't you read up on this?

Blogs like Pandagon, Echidne of the Snakes, Angry Black Bitch, Alas (A Blog), and Feministe can all provide you with a crash-course, as well as helpful links.

Please, don't just be another patronizing male voice trying to tell women that if they'd just see there's no discrimination then everything would be fine. You don't know what you're talking about.

Please don't be the crazy feminazi voice telling men that we don't have any Idea what we're talking about. from Minnow's article:

“All the rhetoric in the gender equity movement is about how schools shortchange girls. There was almost nothing about how we could reach out to boys,” says Christina Hoff Sommers, a former college professor, now at the American Enterprise Institute. She blames the lack of attention to boys' problems on feminists.

“In order to advance girls, they exaggerated how vulnerable girls were, and they understated the needs of boys. They depicted boys as ... the privileged beneficiaries of a patriarchal society that oppresses women, demeans them and trains young men to be sexist, misogynists,”

Whether or not there are increasingly more women in universities, they tend to be focused away from certain areas. That is, I see a large male majority in computer science, physics, and engineering, and those are the sorts of people I spend time with at university. Apparently all the women are in chemistry, life sciences, and the arts.

While that tendency does still exist, it is being done away with. More women enter majors and jobs that were traditionally "male things" every year. The road has now largely been paved, and more and more women are choosing to take it.

More women in college, what a surprise.

I have two guesses:

1. Gender bias in schools: Girls get better grades for similar effort. Perhaps it's because of better handwriting, general quietness, majority of teachers being women, earlier mental maturity or simply better suitability to modern educational methods (something akin to freedom vs discipline). Logically better grades tend to encourage a person to study longer.

2. Men are more capable of doing physical labor and some of us do prefer manual labor over life in academia or actually building something rather than shifting papers around.


As a 'fix' I'd encourage more men to become teachers and women to think twice about becoming welders instead of chemists :cool:

Uh... Ok. If Wikipedia isn't reliable, why direct to a blog?
Because the ones I cited are more reliable sources than Wiki, and they themselves cite even more reliable sources. Wiki, alone, is simply not something I'd base an entire argument on.

I mentioned blogs, too, because very few people will ever be bothered to read a real book on this subject. I hope that by giving them a point-and-click option maybe I'll be able to get them to at least lift their clicker finger long enough to learn something. :D

Required... don't make me laugh everyone has a choice. If you see social norms as such a binding constraint then you necessarily deny the existence of any sort of free will for your fellow women-folk.

That statement is false, and quite obviously so.

Recognizing the real-world pressures and expectations on individuals does not equate to a denial of free will.


then provide proof on how such professions are harder for women to get into. how about unemployment stats for women with engineering degrees, their income/hour worked, comparing rates of sexual harassment in "male-dominated" fields against other fields.

Or, um, how about you look into all that? I already know the answers, thanks, since I've long since done my homework. If you'd like to become an informed member of society then that would be great, but please don't expect me to spoon-feed it to you.


like what? the only reason you gave for an observed phenomena, more women attending college, was that they had to in order to avoid poverty. Unless you're holding back, that sounds like your one and only reason why more women than men are attending college.

Please don't lie. It's impolite, and it really doesn't help the discussion at all.


yes, yes, the poor little women have to do all the housework and take care of the kids! Don't be silly, every woman knew what she was getting into in a marriage, if she didn't that was her own fault. Its not like someone forced her to marry some guy who wasn't going to help around the house. Its also not like abortions are available either, its practically impossible to find somewhere to get one done right? I guess I stuck with having kids no matter what, because abstinence and any number of other options are clearly unavailable to me.:rolleyes:

I was going to say something snarky, but then I realized that this paragraph just makes me sad.

Please, I'm serious here, please volunteer to work at an inner-city free clinic, or a shelter, or anywhere that might bring you out of the insular environment of the privileged suburbs. Please at least try to understand what you're talking about before you make such ignorant, rude comments about your fellow human beings. Walk a mile in their shoes, and all that jazz.


NO, actually I'm not. If anyone is its you, assuming they HAVE to get married etc. And I do believe everyone has the ability and possibility to choose whether or not to go to school. Theres plenty of cheap schools available, admitedly it may be harder for some people than others but the data clearly shows that that group is not women, and if it is, they're working alot harder than their male counterparts.

Ahh, are we already up to the "poor people are poor because they are lazy" stage?

I really wish they'd stop assigning Ayn Rand during the first semester of Freshman English.


Please don't be the crazy feminazi voice telling men that we don't have any Idea what we're talking about. from Minnow's article:

Aaaaaand with that, I think we're done. If the "feminazi" tantrum is beginning, I can safely walk away and leave an inflatable woman-doll in my place so the boys can rant at her.

Logically better grades tend to encourage a person to study longer.
It would be nice, it doesn't work, but it would be nice. I could hand out all the good grades I want, but that doesn't encourage studying among my kids. Now stickers... Well, then we're talking. :)

2. Men are more capable of doing physical labor and some of us do prefer manual labor over life in academia or actually building something rather than shifting papers around.
If memory serves, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a paper complied by registrars of various universities a few years ago (We're talking about 5 or more) when this issue first really came up. Surveys given out were finding that a lot of men were heading into the service industry (In many cases areas such as plumbing and repair) that was white hot at the time and offered a very high starting salary (Or much higher than what a college student could get). The researchers felt that male status items, a cool car or example, were influencing young men to choose to go into these industries as they offered more immediate and tangible perks now as opposed to the much greater ones a college degree offered up later on; even though it could be shown that the jobs they had taken would cap out whereas the degree would quickly pass in income in about 5 to 10 years.

If anything, I'd say we have done well in educating women that they have much more available to them than just life as Mrs. Someone, but we have failed to really instruct boys for the same.

As an educator then, the question for me becomes whether or not I have enough 'resources' to each both groups. As a society, perhaps we really need to look at what messages we're sending to boys where worth is measured in terms of cars.

That statement is false, and quite obviously so.

Recognizing the real-world pressures and expectations on individuals does not equate to a denial of free will.

then you admit that women are in no way required to do anything you mentioned that they would have to do (Bulk share of laundry etc.)

Or, um, how about you look into all that? I already know the answers, thanks, since I've long since done my homework. If you'd like to become an informed member of society then that would be great, but please don't expect me to spoon-feed it to you.

well if you can't prove it then I guess it must not be the case. I checked out those blogs, all I could tell is that they were women ranting about the state of gender relations, perceptions of things etc etc. I didn't see any citations to anything tangible.

Please don't lie. It's impolite, and it really doesn't help the discussion at all.

then show where else you said anything different.

I was going to say something snarky, but then I realized that this paragraph just makes me sad.

Please, I'm serious here, please volunteer to work at an inner-city free clinic, or a shelter, or anywhere that might bring you out of the insular environment of the privileged suburbs. Please at least try to understand what you're talking about before you make such ignorant, rude comments about your fellow human beings. Walk a mile in their shoes, and all that jazz.

I've never ever lived in a suburb, thanks. I DO however live in the second poorest city in the country. I've gone to public school my entire life, both of my parents work and not at some great job either. Good job on assuming the exact opposite background I have. I spend most of my time around "poor people" and I've learned to hate them from it. They ARE lazy. By and far most of them could have gone to college if they had worked hard enough in school, unless they're all too stupid (which undoubtedly there are some). If you want to find some stuck up suburbanite, look somewhere else, those people sicken me too. Mostly because of people like you who I can't help but assume live in the suburbs and don't know anything themselves (despite having gone to see the worst of what society has to offer and not realizing that these people had chances that they didn't take.).

Ahh, are we already up to the "poor people are poor because they are lazy" stage?

I really wish they'd stop assigning Ayn Rand during the first semester of Freshman English.

I'm so hurt by your assumption that I'm a freshman at college :(. Oh wait no I'm not. I've never even read Ayn Rand, though it sounds like we'd agree on a lot of things.

Aaaaaand with that, I think we're done. If the "feminazi" tantrum is beginning, I can safely walk away and leave an inflatable woman-doll in my place so the boys can rant at her.

I was just being silly, like you, but if you want to turn tail, feel free since you're clearly out of arguments besides..? Right all you've had to say is that I'm a suburbanite, and a man and therefore clearly wrong. Don't let me get in the way of your assumptions on who thinks what though.

then you admit that women are in no way required to do anything you mentioned that they would have to do (Bulk share of laundry etc.)Being pressured into something doesn't mean that you're required to do it.

It would be nice, it doesn't work, but it would be nice. I could hand out all the good grades I want, but that doesn't encourage studying among my kids. Now stickers... Well, then we're talking. :)


If memory serves, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a paper complied by registrars of various universities a few years ago (We're talking about 5 or more) when this issue first really came up. Surveys given out were finding that a lot of men were heading into the service industry (In many cases areas such as plumbing and repair) that was white hot at the time and offered a very high starting salary (Or much higher than what a college student could get). The researchers felt that male status items, a cool car or example, were influencing young men to choose to go into these industries as they offered more immediate and tangible perks now as opposed to the much greater ones a college degree offered up later on; even though it could be shown that the jobs they had taken would cap out whereas the degree would quickly pass in income in about 5 to 10 years.

If anything, I'd say we have done well in educating women that they have much more available to them than just life as Mrs. Someone, but we have failed to really instruct boys for the same.

As an educator then, the question for me becomes whether or not I have enough 'resources' to each both groups. As a society, perhaps we really need to look at what messages we're sending to boys where worth is measured in terms of cars.

Yes, we should probably look at how the corrupting influence of women on society force men to take lower paying jobs to impress them with cars and buy them dinner and a movie. A society that expects this is forcing men into a substandard life. Those guys had no choice but to pay for their date's food. Stop the oppression!

I was just trying to be a feminist ;). Seriously I think it is something we should look into. Shifting the goals of young men, especially minorities (because this is where the biggest gap exists) from impressing people to actually having a good life, not defined by the quickest return on investment but the soundest investments possible.

As far as scores go, the idea is not to give out free A's I think. But to start them doing well, and it will motivate them to work harder because they can see that its possible for them to succeed. Many people I went to school with didn't try because they perceived their efforts being in vain. I wouldn't even know how to go about something like this, lowering the standard is idiotic and theres no way to force someone to do well. One thing may be to focus less on grades and more on the learning, grades will follow.

Being pressured into something doesn't mean that you're required to do it.


exactly my point. If thats the reason women are making less money, then they are the only ones forcing themselves to do such.

It would be nice, it doesn't work, but it would be nice. I could hand out all the good grades I want, but that doesn't encourage studying among my kids. Now stickers... Well, then we're talking. :)

It's still a fact that girls survive schools (grade and success wise) better than boys and, therefore, that schools are gender inequal places - For reasons that might be biological reasons (primarily sex but also apparent maturity) or due to underlying social bias for girls (eg. teacher gender bias, role of boys vs girls, excessive and abused liberty/strict and abused discipline) or both.

As an educator then, the question for me becomes whether or not I have enough 'resources' to each both groups. As a society, perhaps we really need to look at what messages we're sending to boys where worth is measured in terms of cars.

Well, there is also the "skanky ho" role mode available for girls. :p

But...I also object to the underlying message in your post that physical labor is somehow inferior to academic success, while agreeing in principle that gender equality should be promoted across the field: That there is absolutely no shame in choosing a girly/brute profession or career regardless of your gender.

We shouldn't encourage only academic success but the freedom of choice for BOTH genders.

edit:
For example, as long as there aren't a significant number of female plumbers/male teachers around there is a call for male plumbers/female teachers.

It's still a fact that girls survive schools (grade and success wise) better than boys and, therefore, that schools are gender inequal places - For reasons that might be biological reasons (primarily sex but also apparent maturity) or due to underlying social bias for girls (eg. teacher gender bias, role of boys vs girls, excessive and abused liberty/discipline) or both.
Where do you see girls surviving schools better than boys?

But...I also object to the underlying message in your post that physical labor is somehow inferior to academic success, while agreeing in principle that gender equality should be promoted across the field: That there is absolutely no shame in choosing a girly/brute profession or career regardless of your gender.
In terms of earning power, by and large, yes. Having a degree from a university will earn you far more than not having one (The average is $1 million over a lifetime between someone with a BA/BS and someone with a high school/tech school degree). That's not to say that going to college will always earn you more, or even that it's the better choice for a particular person, but on average.

In any case, the point being made in the article was more that these young men chose not due to a love to fixing refrigerators, but for the money; which makes little sense when it could shown that they would earn more later with a college degree.

We shouldn't encourage only academic success but the freedom of choice for BOTH genders.
Agree with you there!

What's the point of wasting away your youthful years doing something you hate, in order to get a job you'll hate?

I'm looking at going into teaching, especially at the college level. That is a job I would truly love.

Where do you see girls surviving schools better than boys?

Girls get better grades than boys. This is an undisputable fact. Especially in lower grades there *has* to be a bias or a biological reason or both to explain this away.

A quick google:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/60minutes/main527678.shtml

“Girls outperform boys in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college, and graduate school,” says Dr. Michael Thompson, a school psychologist who writes about the academic problems of boys in his book, "Raising Cain." He says that after decades of special attention, girls are soaring, while boys are stagnating.

I could also tell you personal anecdotal evidence but that's worth nothing here.

In terms of earning power, by and large, yes. Having a degree from a university will earn you far more than not having one

Earning less does not mean an inferior job or life quality.

Equating money and acquired goods with success is also reason for the bias and combatting it with claims higher income later is short sighted when you can earn seemingly enough dough right now - from the viewpoint of young adult - by doing physical labor.

In any case, the point being made in the article was more that these young men chose not due to a love to fixing refrigerators, but for the money; which makes little sense when it could shown that they would earn more later with a college degree.

It is not senseless when you have bills - and a girl (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542775) - to pay for right now. It is the rational thing to do especially when you consider 'the grades you've been getting are not good enough' and that 'your physical condition affords physical labor' Besides job that pays relatively well now is better than uncertain job that might pay more later. :p

N

Yes and no. One case doesn't prove much. And graduate studies are done predominately by women. Another one of those more driven things... I'm sure you'll find that men are more likely to go into engineering, and mathematics. At the graduate level that might change, but for undergrad its a fact. Biology and Chem might have more women but I don't really know.

I'm not saying that we should encourage them disproportionately, simply to use tactics on both sides, currently to me as a man I feel, women are encouraged more often during school to do well. My point here is not to encourage men to go to school because we need more men, but because it will be better for them(and ultimately society) to go to school. The point of this thread is to examine why men aren't going to college and apply what we learn to try to get more men attending, since they're falling behind I think we need to look at social/environmental/gender factors that may be deterring them from going to college.


I go to a women's college. It's small, only about 1200 full-time students. SIX HUNDRED of those full-time students are science majors, including physics and genetic engineering. Another hundred are computer science/mathematics co-majors (you can't major in either alone). We're the most analytical bunch of students I've ever met. And we're geeks - there's a D&D club, a huge Star Trek fan base (and a class in it that caps at 35 students every semester), and a group that meets to watch Mythbusters every Wed.

Gender has less to do with interests than people think.

(I'm not including myself as an example, because being TS I think like a guy, and it would be a bad example.)

But I think there's a lot wrong with the education system as a whole, for both boys and girls. Asking small children to sit for hours on end and listen to information, and then expect them to get anything out of it, is just silly. Heck, it's just silly with college-age students! I get so much more out of my computer science courses than I often do out of my bio/chem lectures, because the comp sci course is hands-on. I'm lucky (and I know it) because I have an excellent memory for memorization and can regurgitate information back for exams easily. Does that mean I understand what I'm spitting back? NO. It just means I fit the system well.

Girls are socialized to be quiet and calm. So yes, they manage to sit quietly in a classroom, which earns them better grades. But it doesn't mean they're actually learning anything.

I go to a women's college. It's small, only about 1200 full-time students. SIX HUNDRED of those full-time students are science majors, including physics and genetic engineering. Another hundred are computer science/mathematics co-majors (you can't major in either alone). We're the most analytical bunch of students I've ever met. And we're geeks - there's a D&D club, a huge Star Trek fan base (and a class in it that caps at 35 students every semester), and a group that meets to watch Mythbusters every Wed.

Gender has less to do with interests than people think.

(I'm not including myself as an example, because being TS I think like a guy, and it would be a bad example.)

thats great and all, but the numbers still stand. Just because you go to an all girls school that specializes in the sciences doesn't mean that 50% of women in college go into those areas. I know plenty of girls who love engineering etc., its all they do, but most women don't go into such fields.



But I think there's a lot wrong with the education system as a whole, for both boys and girls. Asking small children to sit for hours on end and listen to information, and then expect them to get anything out of it, is just silly. Heck, it's just silly with college-age students! I get so much more out of my computer science courses than I often do out of my bio/chem lectures, because the comp sci course is hands-on. I'm lucky (and I know it) because I have an excellent memory for memorization and can regurgitate information back for exams easily. Does that mean I understand what I'm spitting back? NO. It just means I fit the system well.

Girls are socialized to be quiet and calm. So yes, they manage to sit quietly in a classroom, which earns them better grades. But it doesn't mean they're actually learning anything.

Couldn't agree with you more, though girls probably do learn something more. Professors can lecture all day long, but for certain things it makes alot more sense just to go and try to do it. (for example I'm taking a surveying course that in lecture I have no idea whats going on, get me outside with a theodolite, and I get everything just fine)

Less men, more women on campus= more women for guys like me..also, more of a chance that overly horny college girls getting it on with each other, with guys like me.

Less men, more women on campus= more women for guys like me..also, more of a chance that overly horny college girls getting it on with each other, with guys like me.
You sad, sad little puppy, Zilam. :p

You sad, sad little puppy, Zilam. :p

I blame the Christian apts i am living in. They have almost made me pure, and i'm backlashing against it now :p

It would be nice, it doesn't work, but it would be nice. I could hand out all the good grades I want, but that doesn't encourage studying among my kids. Now stickers... Well, then we're talking. :)

My husband once got a gold star sticker in a college class. To hear him talk about it, you'd think it was the best college experience he ever had.

My husband once got a gold star sticker in a college class. To hear him talk about it, you'd think it was the best college experience he ever had.

My roommate and I are in agreement that we would answer more questions in class if we received stickers from our professor. :p

My husband once got a gold star sticker in a college class. To hear him talk about it, you'd think it was the best college experience he ever had.

I had a teacher when I took OAC (grade 13) English who gave out candy to the students who did the best on the daily word exercise. That was incentive. :)

What's the point of wasting away your youthful years doing something you hate, in order to get a job you'll hate?

You gotta survive. [/not gonna argue anymore]

Gender inequality... maddening.

I see some of my fellow males, and wonder why they are so stupid... then again, I see some females and wonder why they are so stupid.

Yes, there is gender inequality. No, It Should Not Exist.

Going about it with a radical feminist males-are-all-stupid ideal, however, does not help the matter. One, since not all males view women as simply objects to have, and they had Better Behave. In fact, in my experience, the only way to actually have a relationship with a woman is Mutual respect- that is, Men respecting Women, and Women respecting Men. Assigning stereotypes and assumptions does nothing to help the matter. If anything it just makes it worse, since it snuffs out the feeble flame of hope for the few respectful males out there. Two... combating intolerance with intolerance... in general that has never worked. Equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal responsibilities. No more... NO less.

Unfortunately, there actually are physiological differences (mental differences, if they exist at all, are dictated by genetic and hormonal differences; the effects are negligible regarding any form of intelligence, and instead regard personality.) between men and women. Men are in general larger than women, and stronger; thus, they can more easily adapt to harsh physical labor. The larger size of males led to psychological and cultural stratification as to gender roles; this is the natural process of the human brain to seek out patterns, whether they exist or not, whether they are accurate or fair. This does not indicate the actual view of anyone, however, except as a collective, without individual confirmation. There should be no barrier regarding occupation other than simple competence and fitness for the job; if you can't do the job, then why on earth do you want it?

Why do you think this is happening, and is it a problem?

My opinion is mainly formed from looking at pre-tertiary education, and I'm now going to go read some stuff instead of debating something I don't really understand. My opinion is this:

With the expectation that "girls can do anything" becoming mainstream (throughout the 20th C, and ongoing now though not complete) ...

And with the increasing specialization of good jobs (requiring training) ...

Women benefit more in terms of career opportunity from formal education. It is a leveller, it puts women on a more equal footing with men in terms of career opportunity.

And that's not because women are dumb and need education to be competetive with men, it's because women are still discriminated against in employment.

Put simply, a woman needs a better qualification than a man to get the same job.

----------------------------

Is it a problem? No, it is a slow solution to a problem which could only be instantly fixed one way: by killing all men. When the young professionals of today are nearing retirement age, and have moved up into the positions of greatest power, then boys will have the same incentive as girls to get qualifications.

That education is seen so much in terms of career advancement -- not personal growth -- IS a problem, but it is off-topic.

----------------------------

That is my opinion. I put it out there for anyone who wants to argue for or against it, because I don't want to debate it, because I am rubbish at debating. This is my first and only post to this thread.

Girls get better grades than boys. This is an undisputable fact. Especially in lower grades there *has* to be a bias or a biological reason or both to explain this away.

A quick google:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/31/60minutes/main527678.shtml

“Girls outperform boys in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college, and graduate school,” says Dr. Michael Thompson, a school psychologist who writes about the academic problems of boys in his book, "Raising Cain." He says that after decades of special attention, girls are soaring, while boys are stagnating.

I could also tell you personal anecdotal evidence but that's worth nothing here.
Better grades does not always equate to surviving school better and there is far more to school than just grades.

Earning less does not mean an inferior job or life quality.
Not always, no.

Equating money and acquired goods with success is also reason for the bias and combatting it with claims higher income later is short sighted when you can earn seemingly enough dough right now - from the viewpoint of young adult - by doing physical labor.
And here we have the problem. For kids coming out of high school, the jobs provide a LOT of money, far more than they have seen. What they don't see is that the good money right now which buys them everything they want won't get them nearly as far in that 10 years hence when they have a wife and children. That's the issue is that the young men are not thinking that far down the line.

It is not senseless when you have bills - and a girl (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542775) - to pay for right now. It is the rational thing to do especially when you consider 'the grades you've been getting are not good enough' and that 'your physical condition affords physical labor' Besides job that pays relatively well now is better than uncertain job that might pay more later. :p
Again though, what will happen in 10 years time when your bills multiply (as bills always do) and that girl is your wife and you have 2 or so kids? The money isn't nearly as good then and your friend with the BA, while he didn't get a killer car is now earning more than you do and keeps going? Finally, what happens when your body breaks down (Which is will do before retirement) and you can't do those jobs anymore?

I'm not saying that physical work is always bad or worse than non, but that the concern is that for many young men, they aren't thinking about what happens later on when suddenly having a BA and being able to get a job that isn't as a greeter at Wal*Mart is important.

Better grades does not always equate to surviving school better and there is far more to school than just grades.

However, grades do determine who gets in to which next grade school and how (scholarship, tuition, donation, etc..).

They are also a factor in determining whether studying is worth it: If your best effort will always score less than the similar effort of an opposite gender it DOES impact learning morale negatively.

Also, if the educational output in schools is directed more for girls rather than boys there is an issue with how interesting a subject is depending on the gender.

Not always, no.It should be never.

And here we have the problem. For kids coming out of high school, the jobs provide a LOT of money, far more than they have seen. What they don't see is that the good money right now which buys them everything they want won't get them nearly as far in that 10 years hence when they have a wife and children. That's the issue is that the young men are not thinking that far down the line.

When you solely promote better and more goods (= possibly more money, better job through tedious education) later then taking seemingly enough goods (= more certain money, goods and gals) now is an extremely enticing option.

Your line of reasoning also completely fails in areas where higher education is necessary but the monetary or financial reward isn't as high, like say teachers vocation or a scientist.

I see it as a question of mentality rather than any potential reward: If schools were more interesting and rewarding to average boys then they would be more likely to continue to study longer and at a higher level.

Again though, what will happen in 10 years time when your bills multiply (as bills always do) and that girl is your wife and you have 2 or so kids? The money isn't nearly as good then and your friend with the BA, while he didn't get a killer car is now earning more than you do and keeps going?

The worker might have few children, a loving wife/hubby and a comfy little home for the family. Maybe in day to day life they could use few extra bucks but overall they might have a fixed schedule and guaranteed time off in the evenings and weekends for a regular good life.

While the well educated fool might be nearing a burn out because of having to cope with a tight and variable schedule without any hope of having time off to enjoy his "fortune".

See, it isn't that simple :p

Finally, what happens when your body breaks down (Which is will do before retirement) and you can't do those jobs anymore?
What if it doesn't?

Or what if you don't live in the USA but say in Europe or even Scandinavia? ;)

I'm not saying that physical work is always bad or worse than non, but that the concern is that for many young men, they aren't thinking about what happens later on when suddenly having a BA and being able to get a job that isn't as a greeter at Wal*Mart is important.

The schools and society should encourage learning for both genders equally - More importantly it should never be through "Quit now, earn less, be a loser" rethoric.

I agree that educating the pupils about the benefits and drawbacks of longer academic/work career is important but overall the society (= compulsory education) should create interested and skillful pupils not mindless mass of only-economic-gain-matters-who-depend-on-cheap/illegal-immigrants/lowerclass-for-basic-functions graduates. :D