North American universities have been taken over by women. Men are decreasingly university students, professors, and administrators. “Gender equality,” a feminist war chant, apparently does not apply when females dominate.
In the United States, women outnumber men in colleges and universities — by 2026, the Department of Education estimates, 57 percent of college students will be women. In Canada, according to the “2001 Census, universities had clearly become the domain of women, as they made up 58% of all graduates. And according to the 2006 Census, women accounted for 60% of university graduates between the ages of 25 and 29.” Women also dominate in British universities. The same imbalance is seen in universities around the world.
On average, across all disciplines, there are substantially more females than males. But the imbalance is even more impressive in particular fields of study. In education, psychology, social work, and health, the predominance of females is between 75% and 80%. In English, foreign languages, communications, journalism, and art, and also in biology, females comprise between 60% and 75% of the students. Males predominate only in math, physical sciences, engineering, and computer science. Some 60% of Ph.Ds in sociology, anthropology, and linguistics were awarded to females.
[Why Are So Many Campus Feminists Anti-Male?]
However, the predominance of women in the social sciences is much greater in undergraduate students than among Ph.Ds. In the anthropology classes I taught during the last decade, there was usually a sprinkling of males among the large majority of females. But by 2017 my senior seminar on immigration and culture was populated by 18 female students and zero males.
Behind the Numbers
According to Statistics Canada (StatsCan) researchers, many of the differences in school performance between boys and girls can be attributed to fundamental differences between girls and boys: “From birth, it would seem that boys generally face more challenges than girls. For example, …boys are also more likely to be categorized as having activity limitations (15%) than girls (11%).
“Boys also lag behind girls on the developmental side of things in the early years. For example, from birth to three years, only 12% of boys are categorized as having advanced motor and social development, compared with 21% of girls. On average, five-year-old boys score 97.2 on a test of copying and symbol use compared with 104.3 for girls. Some 78 % of five-year-old boys often display independence in dressing compared with 87% of girls.
“Finally, boys have more behavioral problems than girls in the early years. For example, five-year-old boys display less attention (a score of 8.5) than girls (a score of 9.3). Some 16 % of 4 to 11-year-old boys display aggressive behavior compared with only 9% of girls and 14% of 4 to 11-year-old boys display hyperactivity compared with only 6% of girls.”
According to Statistics Canada, the differences in gender show up markedly in differences in school participation:
“By age 15, boys and girls have very different characteristics. On the academic stage, boys trail behind girls on several fronts. For example, boys have weaker performances on standardized reading tests. While 20.4% of boys score in the top 25% of the reading distribution, 30.1% of girls do so. In contrast, 30.3% of boys score in the bottom 25%, compared to 19.5% of girls. There is an equally large gender divide in terms of overall school marks.”
[Report: 74% of All Colleges Don’t Uphold Due Process for Accused Students]
Finally, the StatsCan researchers conclude that differences in motivation between girls and boys lead to differences in school achievement: “a very large proportion of the gender gap in university participation relates to non-cognitive abilities displayed at school, an important element of which relates to motivation to work hard in school and to seek to achieve high overall marks.”
“You’ve Already Lost Them”
According to Jon Marcus in the Atlantic, “The problem has its origins as early as primary school, only to be fueled later on by economic forces that discourage men from believing a degree is worth the time and money.” The head of a middle school claims the recruitment efforts of colleges and universities are futile: “by the time [male] students reach college age, Maloney said, “It’s way too late. You’ve already lost them.” “Or even earlier than that. The “anti-school, anti-education sentiment” in boys has roots in kindergarten when they’re slower to learn to read than girls, said Jim Shelley, the manager of the Men’s Resource Center at Lakeland Community College in Ohio. … That disparity continues until, “by eighth or ninth grade, boys have lost interest,” Shelley said.”
Jerlando Jackson, the director and chief research scientist at Wisconsin’s Equity and Inclusion Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, “thinks there’s a surprising racial component. There’s not much work being done to encourage boys to go to college, he said, because not all of those boys are from racial and ethnic minorities society regards as disadvantaged. A lot of them are white. “It’s a tough discussion to have and a hard pill to swallow when you have to start the conversation with, ‘White males are not doing as well as one might historically think. We’re uncomfortable as a nation having a discussion that includes white males as a part of a group that is having limited success.’”
Jim Shelley, the manager of the Men’s Resource Center at Lakeland Community College in Ohio, has run one of the few campus support centers exclusively for men. “Not only are there not programs like ours [at most colleges and universities] that are supportive of male students but at most college campuses the attitude is that men are the problem. … I’ve had male students tell me that their first week in college they were made to feel like potential rapists.”
Female dominance in higher education is in fact quite new. For centuries, males were the majority, and many institutions were exclusively male. According to The Atlantic, “Where men once went to college in proportions far higher than women—58 percent to 42 percent as recently as the 1970s—the ratio has now almost exactly reversed.” Presumably, it is not the nature of girls and boys that has changed. Rather, it is the social context that has changed. Where once we said that girls were not as capable as boys, we now say that boys are not as capable as girls. As feminists insist: gender is socially constructed.
[Bow Down to Diversity or Risk Your Academic Career]
Males Are in Crisis
According to the middle school head Maloney, “There’s a lot of attention on empowering girls. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but males are the ones in crisis in education.” In fact, I think we should say that empowering girls is an extremely constructive effort. Clearly, in the past 50 years, by empowering girls, we have freed the intelligence and creativity of half of our population. This is a net benefit for all individuals and for society at large.
Unfortunately, at the same time, we have vilified boys (and men) and increasingly blocked their development. Feminists have championed females, and seen males as negative, when not evil. How have feminist faculties of education formed their teachers? Do feminist teachings favor girls over boys? Are school programs designed in the interests of both boys and girls, or in the interests of girls? It is probably not an exaggeration to say that girls are more docile and obedient than boys, who are more raucous and active. Is the standard of a good student in schools designed to favor girls? Is the only “good male student” the one who acts like a girl?
We know that feminists oppose addressing problems of boys in schools. “Britain’s education system is failing to tackle the “astonishing” underperformance of boys as feminists have made the topic ‘taboo,’ the former head of the university admissions service has warned. Mary Curnock Cook, who was chief executive of Ucas [The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service] until last year, said the fact that boys are falling behind in education is a national scandal – yet it is such an ‘unfashionable’ topic to discuss that it has become ‘normalized.’”
On campuses, feminists oppose men’s groups and men’s services. For example, “Fourth-year politics and governance student Kevin Arriola launched a new Ryerson Men’s Issues Awareness Society on Reddit last month and tried to get it certified by the Ryerson Students’ Union. The Ryerson Feminist Collective was quick to condemn the group, saying it ‘unequivocally denounces any organization that makes students feel unsafe.’” [emphasis added]
“The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) rejected a men’s issues group for official status because it was afraid the group would become a campus haven for misogyny and radical anti-feminism. … Arriola’s group did not have enough guarantees in its constitution to prevent it from turning into a violent men’s rights activism (MRA) group, according to a document handed out at the meeting.” [emphasis added]
Feminists Work to Disadvantage Males
Men are equally left out in Britain. James Knight was the only candidate to [send] his name forward to be men’s officer at the University of the West of England, and said he wanted to highlight male mental health issues. However, the National Union of Students officers began a campaign against the role, and he pulled out after claiming he [was] harassed. The university said the post was suspended pending review.”
The shift from male to female dominance in education, which correlates with the modern feminist movement, is not only demographic but also ideological. Feminists have not only advocated benefitting females but have also actively worked to disadvantage males, as the examples above illustrate. Men are deemed unruly, dangerous, and “toxic” by feminists,
who feel “unsafe” around males. The loss of interest in education by males in the West is at least in part due to being discouraged and demeaned by feminist teachers and administrators. Designing education to engage both boys and girls is not seen by feminists as desirable. Thus, given the feminist disregard of the rights and interests of the “other” male half of the population, it is clear that it is feminism that is “toxic.”
Even when I was in grade school, and we’re talking late ’50s/early ’60s, the top students were almost all girls. It carried into high school, although less strikingly so; in part because the “girls’ courses” counted less toward one’s grade point average. (I got an “A” in typing, and it lowered my GPA; “Home Economics” -housewifery 101- got the same treatment.) So this “blame the feminists” crap is just that: crap.
The problem with the “Women are different” argument is that it comes with “Men are different” built right in. And -especially among children and adolescents- there’s nothing in that difference that argues for equal academic performance. It’s no surprise that girls are better-prepared for college upon graduation from high school: they’ve been paying more attention all along. What we’re seeing today is the result of their being encouraged to attend, rather than being shunted off to marriage or, at best, secretarial jobs.
This Jim guy is what is usually called a white knight. A guy who bashes his own gender in an attempt to garner praise from women.
When boys were ahead of girls in education in the 90s by a 58/42 margin, the American Association of University Women called it a national emergency and lobbied congress until they allocated 3 billion dollars to an attempt to improve things for girls.
Now that girls are head of boys in education at a 58/42 margin, that very same American Association of University Women issued a statement that it was due to boys being lazy, inattentive in class, and unwilling to study and are actively opposing any research or funding being allocated to improving education outcomes for boys.
And this Jim guy will be at the head of the line to support that, so desperate for female approval that he doesn’t care if he throws a generation of children under the bus to get it.
Oh my gosh exactly. I was about to comment that myself. This Jim fella is what modern people call a simp. And it’s very sad that he would do that here of all places.
Interesting. This same theory applies to the labor force.
In the 1960’s 2nd wave feminism began to push women into the workplace. This was brought about from the MASSIVE decrease in the global male population due to WW2.
Automation had now gotten to a point where women could to the job of a man in the factories and so forth.
After WW2 the men returned and the women back to the homes. (At least those blessed enough to have a husband return 😔)
The government saw this as an opportunity to collect taxes on the other 50% of the population.
Corporations saw this as an opportunity to lower labor wages. If you flood the market with more workers than jobs available, you can “sell” to the lowest bidder, while also creating tension.
Enter feminism.
This generation of female dominant social science research will not care that males are failing, unless somewhere in the equation it ends up helping women or girls. This will lead to further failing of males in society, until there is a crisis point. To be honest, I feel like we have already reached this point. It is like the climate crisis that nobody wanted to believe was upon us. Now, even with our best efforts, all we can really do is deal with the consequences.
While feminist ideologies writing for national newspapers will tell you that men should just “suck it up” and take their collective failure on the chin, never in the history of humanity have men been dispossessed while women were enjoying command. Historically, “excess males” have led to war. There has never been the concept of “excess females.” And so we are in completely new territory, one that those in command of social sciences (the women) are ideologically programmed to ignore. This is why their leadership will fail.
Actually he female groups are displaying plenty of “excess” in their determination to ruin boys and no one seems to want to stand up to them for what is the right thing to do! Effective ing change for the purpose of equality bipartisan ruining boys lives without any help, (we know feminist are controlling the narrative) should be stood up to if it’s ruining the boys! So much for wanting equality they were after and getting dominance and like when the boys were filing badly a few yrs back, no one cared! Thetats a great message to send to boys you, you get what you meant to get so it should not be a surprise they are ruining boys! R.I.P. boys! Moms don’t seem to care having been silent while all this is going on! Thanks mom!
no winston
We must begin taking gender out of the equation of learning and simply seeing the very real variables/tools “all students need to continually change and improve their lives. Our false genetics models are leaving everyone completely blind to the wonderful variables/tools we can use to make education and treatment of students much more “professional and helpful for teachers and students”. By doing this we will remove the little very petty things the feminists and others are so concerned about and open everyone’s eyes to the real variables/tools we should be giving all students and adults.
1. We need to redefine our average stress as many maintained layers of mental work from many past and present areas of their lives along with many weights and values (very different for each person) which have developed from an early age and which may act as magnets for others accumulating, maintained layers of mental work which take up real mental energy, leaving less mental energy to think, learn, reflect, and have motivation to learn or mental reward received for mental work expended. Try to visualize an upright rectangle representing our full mental energy. Then begin at the bottom, drawing in many narrowly spaced, horizontal lines (innumerable) to represent many maintained layers of mental work, “very different for all of us”. The space we have left shows our leftover mental energy for new mental work and also the length shows our length of reflection time. We need to also show how any newer situations of newer mental work goes on top of and shortens more our thinking, learning, motivation, and shortens our reflection time. This shows us just how our individual environments (not genetics) greatly affects thinking, learning, motivation, and mental health. Tools for more permanently lowering will go to all on request.
2. We must understand also pace and intensity in approaching mental work is also a tremendous variable/tool which greatly affects thinking, learning, motivation to learn. We must begin using proper dynamics of approaching newer mental work or slowing down long enough to allow our mental frames or knowledge/experience in an area to increase naturally and more correctly increasing pace with equal or more enjoyment/intrinsic reward. Also sadly, persons with higher layers will invariably have those higher layers feed improperly into improper pace and intensity and so students need to be taught the skill of slowing down for newer mental work, even to the point of simply reflecting on the material at first.
3. We must understand how all of us need much kind, caring, “verbal interaction” from parents, teachers, peers, others. From this interaction there are a host of social vocabulary; social skills; and other real life skills which greatly affect communication, trust, and even the very knowledge/skills necessary to perform well in academics.
4. We must also show how any passed on anger, fear, hate, and values of strength and power will remain in a child/student’s mind from a young age creating more dependence upon those values and thus raise more so, their average, maintained layers of mental work leaving less mental energy for newer mental work.
5. We must learn to see the belief boys/men should be strong is allowing much more harm in this area for boys and men in academics and in the information age over time. So let us not see the problem as a male or female problem but as it truthfully is, as a very logical need for “correct treatment for all students and adults to keep changing and improving in the information age. Hopefully then the very real differential treatment creating wonderful achievement for girls and much failure for boys will be erased not from favoring one side but more truthfully seeing and acting in a more professional way by parents, teachers, and others in ways which will provide a much better playing field for boys and girls. Also, but using such tools in a more professional way, we will be able discern more and more subtle nuances of reflection time, attention span, frustration tolerances, and yes, time for students/adults to regroup and recover from many past inadequacies and deficiencies which may have held them back in the past. Then we can also provide hope for students and help reduce many of the harmful and fatal escapes such as drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, (and now much mass violence) our schools are creating by teaching genetic permanence in ability and the false teachings of sheer effort. Much more on this to all
Sir your problem and The West’s Problem is not Education ,it is the need for a Twelve Step Program to unlearn the debilitating effects of Cultural Marxism which have infiltrated and metastasized within The American Educational System ever since proponents of Critical Theory were encouraged to come to Columbia University ( and other Ivy League Colleges ) from The Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1930s!
While America’s boys and girls fought overseas against Nazism, Communism, Fascism and Imperial Japan proponents of Cultural Marxism were planting seeds of discontent back home in American Higher Education.
They seek to undo 2000 years of Judeo Christian Theology and its influences over Western Culture! Before imposing their Ideology they seek to undo what The West has learned and lived by for over two Millenia!
They have turned Western understanding of what was once ” Common Sense ” upside down and totally confused a huge percentage of Western Civilization as to what to believe or not! This is done by design and has become the platform of the Former Democrat Party of America! They do not call themselves Cultural Marxists but that is now their Ideology! Research?
After reading this insightful piece, I came to the stirring realization that I have chosen the wrong occupation. If someone as incoherent and incompetent as this author can land tenure at a university for anthropology of all things, then really anyone else could as well! I applaud the author’s bravery at revealing his staggering combination of stupidity and woman-hatred in one single blog post.
I do not see any reference here to women – only to feminism, which oddly are not at all the same thing. Further, it is that in the US many Universities do have retention programs for women only, even while they are pushing 50% more women than men. So explain to me, how this is misogynist. It would appear to me, that you are expressing the belief that to worry about boys is hatred for women. It is that we already have excellent data on most of what he is discussing – and yes he should have perhaps cited the research in question – but it is an opinion piece.
Is it women hatred to reveal that in a very rapid period of time there has been a complete reversal of the education gap in genders? Should the goal not be a balanced showing of men and women on college campuses? That would certainly provide evidence that both men and women are being given equal academic opportunities. As the mother of a boy, I noticed the gender bias not just in education but in pediatric development scales when my son was a baby. Babies do not learn speech and motor skills at the same time. They tend to focus more on one and then the other. Male babies tend to focus more on motor skills and then pick up speech later. Female babies tend to focus on speech more than motor skills. Yet there is a range for motor skills development of something like 9 months to 18 months to walk and yet speech is x words by year 1, xy words by year 2. A good 20% of male babies fail to make the speech milestones (my son included) and most female babies reach both speech and motor milestones. My son, by the way, in now in advanced language and math classes who first sold a video game he developed to a gaming company at the age of 12. He’s a straight A student. When my son was deemed behind as a baby, he entered preschool where I experienced a curriculum had the kids outside for playtime and then they came in for a sugary drink and then with all the testerone built up in the boys, they were expected to sit on a rug together for story time. That meant sitting still and keeping your hands to yourself at age 2. The female teachers on a daily basis admonished the moms of all boys entering the classroom in front of all the kids. All the moms of boys heard the bad reports daily, and all the boys heard them too. I regularly witnessed boys crying and refusing to go to school each morning. I rarely witnessed this with the girls. I also had the same problem with my son not wanting to go to school. What changed for my son was that when he was in 1st grade and still having these problems, I went to the principal and advocated to ensure he was given a male teacher for 2nd grade. That teacher treated boys and girls both way, and BOTH genders did well in his class. The boys in his class, my son included, gained confidence in school and my son has been fine since. He has always preferred as a general rule male teachers, but his current math teacher is female and he says she’s the best math teacher he’s ever had. He’s not anti-female at all, but he has been acutely aware of the bias female teachers show in favor of female students. He’s noticed the topics in science are distinctly feminine (they studied butterflies in grade school for biology topics for example) and the book topics were also distinctly feminine. There was a massive emphasis on reading in elementary school and much smaller emphasis on math with much less science in grade school than when I was a student at that age. It is noticeable that the curriculum really has changed dramatically to be pro-female as opposed to pro-educational development. And yes, there are many more women graduating from college than men and men still making up larger amounts of executive level positions, but those positions don’t tend to come until your late 30’s and older and the time period for the big educational shift hasn’t seen those waves of younger graduates fully cycle through yet. Couple that with women taking time off to raise children that is conveniently left out of those gaps as well. Solutions should be supporting equal pay for equal work and experience levels, mandated corporations to provide both maternity and paternity leaves, focussing education on both boys and girls needs, etc. The idea is to give opportunity to all, not just some.
At university level, it’s far too late to look for remedies. Our society consider education as a women’s job, along with care and paper work.
But is it normal, a fatality ?
No. In 1816, Robert Owen created « Infants schools » in England to care for young children. The first teacher was a male James Buchanan.In 1830, a German, Frederic Fröbel, invented « Kindergardens »
As early as 1839, there were 1000 infants schools in England and around 300 in France. It was Mrs Pape-Carpenter, a proto-feminist, French head of « Ecole Normale » who forbade male teachers for the youngest pupils en 1855.
Now, in France as in every country, female teachers are 85 % at primary schools, 60 % at secondary level …
From birth up to College, boys can’t imagine to be teachers !
On top of that, quite a lot of them are feminist who consider their first duty to « empower girls ». All are not man bashing, but official propaganda, almost everyday, reminds us that men are evil.
On Campus, men are seen as potential rapists !
No wonder if boys avoid the field or suicide temselves in schools mass killings. Remember Colombine, Parkland, Fort Hood… 291 schools killings from 2013 !
Sure ? We can’t do anything to change that ?
University Gender Studies is the 21st century version of what University Eugenics programs were in the 1930’s, population control. The social engineers who oversaw the roll out of Gender Studies(Woman’s Studies) understood that because of hypergamy, woman prefer to marry men with higher educational and economic standing that themselves. By creating a situation where women with degrees outnumber men with degrees, women are left with progressively fewer opportunities to start families and have children. The whole process was bench tested in Jamaica decades ago, and it works. Women think that because they’ve been getting good grades and praise from teachers all their lives that they’re the clever ones, they are Marks in a con game played by NGO’s.
In Canada, there is an immigrant preference as well, because visible minorities or immigrant men are part of the “equity favourites” and benefit from the quotas — which is another way of saying that Canadian born white males are way less than these numbers indicate. It’s getting to be critical because boys see little future for themselves.
I agree with most of this article, but here’s another aspect to consider. I would bet that most readers of this website are not generally not too happy with racial and sex preferences. But I am quite sure that at the very progressive public university where I toil, supposedly the best in the state, males are getting what amount to affirmative action preferences in undergraduate admissions. How do I know? Because I am sure that the university is trying very hard to maintain close to a 50-50 gender ratio — this is simply impossible at the “lower level” campuses in the state, especially the rural regionals. And to do this, the university is admitting males with much lower grades than the females. (The males probably have a slight lead in SAT scores, interestingly.)
NOBODY ever talks about this, but I am sure it is going on. And it is occurring while there are still many other kinds of preferences for females, as well as the ever-present anti-male culture once the students actually get to campus.
The admissions people are waging what is likely to be a gradually losing effort, because as the article notes, the guys increasingly are tuning out of higher education. Increasingly, they just don’t give a damn, and it starts years before matriculation, so by then it is way too late to do anything.
Before reaching this conclusion (which well may be right), you’d have to look at both your yield rates and your shrink rates. Yield is the percentage of the admitted students who accept the offer (i.e. pay the deposit), and shrink is the percentage of those who (for a variety of reasons) never show up in the fall.
It’s entirely possible to both admit more female students and have a lower percentage of those who are admitted actually show up in the fall.
Then, if there is a disconnect between the men’s grades and their SAT scores, perhaps the criteria upon which the grades are based is biased?
Face it – schools are constructed to give high grades to compliant students who will always do their homework. High test scores are considered less important than doing busywork.
Women are NOT smarter. They just do better at gaming the system in their behalf.
In high school, my sister — two grades behind me — retyped a few of my old papers, submitted them as her own work, and got better grades on them than I had. On at least one occasion, from the same teacher….
There is a lot of evidence including an OECD paper that female teachers systematically discriminate against boys and for girls giving girks higher marks and boys lower marks. In teh UK a comaprison of SAT test results and teacher assesments show a systematic and large bias against boys in teachers assesments.
A clever study of boys in the UK asking students to place bets on teh marks they would achieve showe dthat boys recognised and understood that they would be systematically marked down by female teachers compared to male teachers.
On a personal level I used to do maths homework for a numebr of girls as well as my own, bizarrely for a subject like maths the girls woudl generally get full marks and I very rarely would do so.
Falling behind girls
Jonathan « guys are tuning out of education »…from primary school up to university. Of course, at university level it’s far too late. Why ?
In our society, Education is a female world. Hence, a young boy has no men model at school. On top of that, Female teachers find it easier to cope with girls than to respect male alterity. Particularly in a feminist society devoted to Girl Empowerment.
Now, is it inate, natural, impossible to avoid ?
Not at all ! Do you know Robert Owen ? He invented « infants schools » in 1816, the teacher was James Buchanan. In 1839, M. Edom, a French school Inspector at Lisieux counted 1000 infants schools in England, 24 in Paris and 261 in French country. And what about Frederic Fröebel, the father of « Kinder Gardens » in 1830… All those who invented schools for the youngest were fathers.
Then, in 1846, a French teacher , Mrs Pape-Carpentier, wrote a book about these experiments. Her book was a big success and she became Head of Ecole Normale for the youngests. She decided to call them « Ecoles Maternelles » In 1855, men were forbidden as teachers.
Time passing, all countries followed.
Was-it the best solution ?
Is-it just ? Is-it beneficial for our society ? To answer those questions think to all mass murders young students, usually bright, commit in High Schools.
“And to do this, the university is admitting males with much lower grades than the females. (The males probably have a slight lead in SAT scores, interestingly.)”
I read about the reasons for this. Girls and boys score nearly identically on standardized tests. The disparity in educational outcomes for girls and boys is due to feminist teachers favoring girls. This was proven in a research study where teachers were given papers to grade and identical papers were graded lower if a boy’s name was attached and higher if a girl’s name was attached, then confirmed by having them grade papers with no name on them and finding they graded boys higher when they didn’t know they were boys and graded girls lower when they didn’t know they were girls.
The US Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress data is quite interesting.
First, in English, this is called the NAEP or, more often, “the nation’s report card” and involves a variety of annual assessments at various K-12 grade levels. This is where the MSIT “girl gap” comes from and it is real — the scores of boys are higher than the scores of girls (although this gap has closed considerably over the past 30 years). There are also racial differences in the scores, and one annoyingly frustrating thing about the NAEP data is that there is no breakdown on both race and sex.
But what’s not mentioned is the LARGER “boy gap” in language skills (i.e. reading, writing, and literature), and this gap has largely remained consistent. While the NAEP data is not broken down on Black Males, the NCAA requires colleges to provide the number of Black Male and Black Female students, and college registrars don’t lie to the NCAA so this data, along with the college-reported numbers of total Male & Female students, allows one to determine the percentages of Black Male and Black Female students on campus, as well as the Male/Female breakdown of the Black students (and not the combined figure).
When I did this over a decade ago, what I found was a Female/Male ration of at least 2:1. In other words, for every Black Male student on the campus, there were at least two Black female students. This is why the “Black” cultural events are so often problematic — the young ladies not only invite all the young men they know, but tell them to bring all their male friends. And their friends… And it’s the friend of the friend of the friend who causes the problem.
The other issue with the data when you look at males — either by race or in general — is that there is no breakdown on family structure, i.e father being married to mother and both living with child under the same roof. Walter Williams addressed that issue in an article I highly recommend reading: https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/true-black-tragedy-illegitimacy-rate-nearly-75
Yes, the Black illegitimacy rate is nearly 75%, three times what it was when Daniel Patrick Moynihan expressed concerns about it in 1965, the Non-Hispanic White illegitimacy rate now exceeds 29%, and non of this includes all of the subsequent divorces…
So you have a lot of boys (of all races) being brought up by single mothers, in what is largely an all-female environment. Most elementary school teachers are female, as are the principals and school bus drivers as well. As, increasingly is the child’s pediatrician and all of the social service folk (e.g. social workers) are female, as is the “policeman” as well. The only male role model the boy has is the local drug dealer and mother’s live-in boyfriend de jour, who is often the same person.
One study found that the mean average tenure of a live-in boyfriend was only 17 months — I have no doubt that the median and mode would be far less, probably less than 2 months — and this is harming the boys in ways unimaginable.
So in addition to all of the very real things that Dr. Salzman articulates, we increasingly have boys starting from a disadvantage, lots of disadvantaged White males and that is lost in statistics that don’t exist.
But the NAEP data does exist — as is the biological fact that girls mature earlier than boys. Girls go through puberty earlier and they are more mature than boys their own age — which historically was why men tended to date & marry younger women, and why education was largely single-sex, even in the one-room schoolhouse. (Ever notice how they always had two doors — one was for the boys and the other for the girls.)
But all of this the feminists and social justice activists oppose….
2 months? Talk about riding the carousel.
From everything I learned from women, unless in extraneous situations, 2 months and under means no intention for long term.
Either it’s all poor and counter productive mate selection skill or I don’t see why they are calling them boyfriends.
The belief boys should be strong allows aggressive treatment from infancy to create anger and fear so they will be tough. There is less kind verbal interaction and less mental/emotional support for fear of coddling. This treatment creates high layers of average stress for boys. These layers remain in the mind taking away real mental energy from academics so they will have to work harder to receive the same mental reward. This harsh treatment creates emotional distance/distrust of others. It creates lags in communication girls are given daily. The high average stress creates activity for stress relief not genetics. The high average stress creates higher muscle tension which hurts handwriting more pressure tighter grip hurting motivation. The total effect with our false genetic models in place including less care creates more failure and feelings of hopelessness. To make it tougher for boys is granting love honor feelings of self-worth only on condition of achievement. This was designed to keep Male esteem low and be willing to give their lives in war for tidbits of love honor from society. Males not achieving are given ridicule and discipline to make them try harder. Support is not given for fear of coddling. Many boys falling behind in school turn their attention to sports and video games for small measures of love honor not received in school. The belief boys should be strong and false belief in genetics create denial of the harsh treatment which is creating the low academics low esteem and other problems boys are facing. This is not about more feelings or openness from boys; it is about society allowing aggressive treatment from infancy through adulthood so boys feel much wariness toward parents teachers others who freely use aggressive treatment for any sign of weakness. This is condoned by society. This problem is affecting all male children and adults but the lower the socioeconomic bracket and more time in lower areas the more amplified the treatment given male children by parents teachers peers.
As girls we are given much more mental emotional social physical support and care by parents teachers and peers. We enjoy a kind of reverse catharsis of much continuous care while the boys receive the opposite more hurtful treatment to make them strong. This is now killing off boys in the information age while providing girls with all of the good things. As girls we are treated much better and so enjoy more hope and support from society. Since we as girls are given by differential treatment much more continual positive – mental social/emotional support verbal interaction and care from an early age onward this creates the opposite outcome for girls when compared with boys. We receive love and honor simply for being girls. This creates all of the good things. We have lower average stress for ease of learning. We enjoy much more freedom of expression from much protection by society that makes us look more unstable at times but we can also use that same freedom of expression to give verbal silent abuse and hollow kindness/patronization to our Male peers with impunity knowing we are protected. We enjoy much lower muscle tension for ease in handwriting and motivation to write. We enjoy much more positive trust/communication from parents teachers peers and support for perceived weaknesses. We are reaping a bonanza in the information age. Now with girls and women taking over many areas of society we enjoy even more lavishing of love and honor from society while boys and men are now failing more so and are now given more ridicule and abuse by society. Mind you this is now coming from many girls and women using our still protected freedoms of expression and more so with now false feelings of superiority.
As for men earning more we need to understand boys are given love honor only on condition of achievement whereas girls are given love honor for being girls. The very few boys who are achieving highly come from more stable supported environments. They will achieve in school but they must keep “achieving highly” to keep receiving love honor from society. Those men must keep achieving and earning income over time to keep receiving love honor. As girls we are able to reach wonderful planes of innersecurity without the drug of success those very few boys must keep up in order to keep receiving love honor from society. This is creating the differences in wages whereas as a collective body women are taking over many areas of society while men are collectively failing in society and many unable compete in the information age due to “improper treatment” from infancy onward.
The high average stress creates higher muscle tension which hurts handwriting more pressure tighter grip hurting motivation
All human hands have the same number of bones, ligaments, muscles and the rest — and girl’s are smaller than boys. Hence, as a group, girls inherently are going to have neater handwriting because smaller fingers enable them to have more precise control over the pencil or pen. It’s the same thing as it being easier to parallel park a Toyota Corolla than a large truck, even though it’s done the same way.
I hope we can see there is another variable at work which is quite large and has many large applications. We need to see how our average stress, more correctly defined, is made up of many maintained layers of mental work from much experiences, fears, anxieties, for boys preparation for defense along with many weights and values which are maintained in the mind and take up real mental energy. The belief boys should be strong and its much more allowed aggressive treatment by parents, teachers, peers, others was designed to create more fears, anxieties, and preparation for defense to make boys tough. This creates more activity for stress relief and also higher muscle tension which creates a tighter grip on the pencil/pen and more pressure. This hurts both writing and motivation. Also the belief boys should be strong, for fear of coddling, reduces greatly the much kind, stable, *verbal interaction and support we as girls receive continually from parents, teachers, others. The combination of both the more aggressive treatment which creates much more fear/social emotional distance from others and the much less kind, caring, verbal interaction creates much less social vocabulary; freeness of expression; and much less real skills in communication and syntax. This also greatly hurts reading as it requires low average layers for more energy to decode, visualize, reflect on, and enjoy the process. They are also hurt by the much less acquired social vocabulary and knowledge of communication/syntax which enables more understanding of sentences and the ability to learn new words in print using their, in this case, much lower social vocabulary skills. The higher average stress also feeds into improper pace and intensity and sadly for boys the not so good, try hard admonition also hurts by creating bad pace which hurts learning newer mental work. The more we understand the relative differences in treatment of boys and girls in both lower and higher socioeconomic environments, the more we can not only understand the many social causes for problems with boys learning, but also provide better treatment and care to help alleviate those problems, even for those boys and adults who are doing poorly today. We help help everyone change. new learning theory to all.
You have just put forth the true definition of “toxic masculinity”, how society is toxic to our boys, not the other way around.
…and you are my hero for having the guts to do so.
I have read statistics that parents abort boys more often than girls, express hope that their child will be a girl more often than a boy, take girls to the doctor more often than boys, provide affection more often to girls than to boys, and spend more money on girls than boys.
Feminism, is not about equality of the genders, it’s goal is power and domination, over male’s in every aspect of society,