According to the U.S. Department of Education, 698,000 women received bachelorís degrees in 2002, while 529,000 men did. Some other chilling numbers: women outnumber men by a four to three ratio on American campuses (that means there are almost two million more women in college than men). Only 43% of all college degrees go to men. Things are worse within minority populations: two black women earn bachelorís degrees for every black man; 60 percent of Hispanic college graduates are women.

I'm quoting from a disturbing and compelling piece by Glenn Sacks and Philip Cook entitled "Mysterious Decline--Where are the Men on Campus?". The article is well worth reading, not least for the widely divergent manner in which commentators and policy makers have chosen to interpret the numbers.

Some recognize a problem. Christina Hoff Sommers, for example, says ìThis is new. We have thrown the gender switch. ... What does it mean in the long run that we have females who are significantly more literate, significantly more educated than their male counterparts? It is likely to create a lot of social problems. This does not bode well for anyone." Sommers is known for her two incendiary books, Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming our Young Men; she's become something of a boy advocate in recent years, and has thus offended and enraged the feminist establishment she critiques.

Here is what two members of that establishment have to say about the idea that boys may be getting shortchanged in school, and that boys' increasing failure to graduate from college--or even to go to college--represents a very real and disturbing social problem:

Jacqueline Woods, executive director of the American Association of University Women, denies that men's declining enrollments is a crisis or even a gender issue. She notes that those concerned about boys' sagging educational performance are "playing a zero-sum game" and says "I refuse to play." Columnist Ellen Goodman dismisses boy-friendly educational reformers as being motivated by the fact that "educated women have always made some people nervous." She, Woods and writer Barbara Ehrenreich argue that the college gender gap is another example of the disadvantages faced by women! According to Ehrenreich, ìmenÖsuspect they can make a living just as well without a college education, since they still have such an advantage over women in the non-professional workforce.î

This is a problem that's been developing for some time now, but is only lately getting attention. The problem isn't so much tthe current picture, but the trend. If it continues at this pace, that's going to be trouble. No society can afford legions of ill-educated and idle men on its hands.

All of the responses in that article by feminists are predictably glib and self-serving, but the last one you excerpted is by far the most callous and infuriating. The whole idea that boys perform poorly because they have some kind of intuitive sense that they don't need to perform well is a laughably stupid response to the issue, and one she would never accept coming in the other direction. Suppose someone told her that girls' lower math scores indicate that they know a man will always be able to take care of their math needs? She'd say that person has no business teaching girls, ever. I shudder to think that women with that attitude are actually teaching our boys, and it's no wonder the problem isn't getting better.

Here's the problem with that explanation: Even if that's what boys think (and there's no reason to believe she didn't just pull that explanation out of the air because it fit her feminist preconceptions of the world), they're wrong in thinking it. It's factually incorrect that a boy's performace in school is irrelevant to their success in life. So their destructive complacency would still be a problem that we would have to combat. Apparently, she doesn't think that's even worth the time. They're just boys, so screw 'em.

Either that or she's stupid enough to believe that A) boys really think that, and B) they're right. There' no rational basis whatsoever for either belief, and again, even if "A" is the case, then it's a problem because "B" most definitely is not the case.

Even before I read the linked article, I was thinking "women's studies". Women may have degrees in greater numbers than do men, but are the degrees actually worth anything? Are the young men less educated in practical terms, or only in paper terms? If a 22-year-old woman has just received a BS in women's studies is she able to get a better job than she could have at 18 with a high school diploma, or has she just wasted four years of her life and a bunch of her/her parents'/the taxpayers' money?

A lot of those degrees are "soft" degrees like WS, that's certainly true. But a college educated woman has better prospects than a non-college educated man by large margins, I'd wager. Besides all of which, the gap between men and women in the "hard" studies is much smaller than the gap between men and women in the "soft" ones, so you're still left with a picture that bodes a lot worse for men.

There's rarely a day that goes by when I, a straight white male Southerner, don't pray for the terrible lifelong discrimation I've endured in every segment of my life--education, work, and politics--to end.

All around me, I see the evil effects of gynocracy and affirmative action. Most of our upper-management and political leaders are women and minorities. Ditto for highly paid entertainers (esp. athletes). Women get every benefit of the doubt in the workplace, getting years off for maternity leave, whereas men are expected to perform their reproductive duties on their own time.

Advertising shows us distorted images of male bodies that we must starve ourselves to try to emulate if we want to attract a high-earning and supportive woman.

And let's not even start with how women dominate the academia, most especially in the "hard" fields such as the sciences and engineering. There is now fewer than 3% enrollment of men in computer science-related areas across the country.

Women, with immense favors awarded them because of maternity leave, have the inside-track to tenure in our nation's universities; and they don't have to deal with sexual harassment because all of the upper-level administration positions are also held by women (or minorities, who have some type of power-bond).

I wish there were a place where white men could get together and think about how we can take back at least some of the power. Any suggestions?

IPO - I don't understand why so many of your "arguments" take the form of sarcasm. Certainly, humor is often a good way to make a point, but it's getting a little old. Moreover, it fails to grasp or address the finer points at issue and really only gives your characterization of another's post.

It appears that you think the problem brought up by Erin is not a problem because government, academic, and corporate power structures are still dominated by white men. Is that the case? I think so. However, that does not address the problems that many posters see with the trends in gender ratios. Perhaps you could offer an explanation (that isn't glib) as to why we shouldn't care that boys aren't going to college. Or can I imply that your comments boil down to an affirmative action position that is based upon punishing 18 year-old boys in favor of 18 year-old girls. And remember, despite your ramblings about race, the studies Erin cites are not about race. They are about the gender ration trends that exist for all races, more in some than others.

I think too much is made of this issue. There are economic requirements for a certain number of jobs that require manual labor (Construction, Mechanics, etc). These jobs are seen as more desirable (less undesirable?) by men.

I knew quite a few male high-schooler students that accepted that this was the track for them. In fact, many children of skilled laborers look down on white collar workers. Women at similar achievement levels still aimed for college, often hospitality, accounting, and education majors.

Ellen Goodman's explanation reinforces the extent of paranoia suffered by "women's rights" advocates. But we should resist their logic that all differences are the result of systemic injustices.

Most pertinently to Polo's reply, what sarcasm can you levy to make us feel better about the disparity between black women and black men--which is shockingly large? The latter are wallowing in the bottom of the educational heap because of the trend we're describing, and it's getting worse, not better.

Or is that perfectly fine with you?

MJ--agree with you 100% that lower-class women are best-suited for the hospitality industry and kindergarten teaching.

BS--at the risk of sounding "essentialist," without the equalizing effect of discrimination, young women tend to be better students than young men. As a group, they are more mature and are more socialized for obedience--a very important indicator of success in high school.

IPO - so it is the result of discrimination that has resulted in male high school success? So it is the very thing that we've been fighting against (discrimination against women) that has produced the (natural?) effect of more woman going to college than men? I only ask because I didn't quite understand what you meant.

Sexual discrimination, which is being gradually eliminated in public education, was partly responsible for the disproportionate success of men educationally, yes. As I wrote above, young women as a group have more of the qualities that tend to be rewarded in public. high schools (obedience, primarily). The fact that colleges no longer discriminate against them in admissions means that they are having more success, as one would expect.

This has nothing to do with the intellectual potential of the sexes, which is equal, but everything to do with gendered-roles and expectations.

So in order to keep women moving succesfully through high school, should we reinforce their need to be socially obedient? In other words, even if women are getting to the right place (college), are they a) getting there the right way, and b) succeeding when they get there?

Or, (in other words, again), should the feminists Erin quoted actually be disturbed at the current trends because they are produced by "gendered-roles and expectations?"

No, we should a) remove obedience as a criterion for success and b) work to alleviate the social expectations that create increased obedience in young women.

Polo, your solution to boys' low performace is to engage in more girl-power programs? A few more hours of Buffy every week will help boys excel in school? Interesting.

Typical.

I'm just interested to know exactly what you're talking about. What specific social expectations are you suggesting schools ought to "work to alleviate," and how specifically do you propose they do so? And since when is it the mission of the public schools to eliminate what a small cabal of ideologues percieve--in the absence of hard evidence--as a massive social conspiracy to make girls really obedient geniuses? Frankly, I can't get straight why a misogynistic society would deliberately create a social environment that favored female achievement and male failure, which is exactly what you're saying. And why would a feminist want to get rid of such a system?

I'm also fascinated by the notion that by creating an obedience-free environment we can help boys to read better, since discipline is one of the primary challenges facing teachers who deal with young boys (something you yourself concede, if only by implication). I'm even more fascinated that the ultimate goal of such a program would be to make the world a better place for everyone to hear girls roar.

One other thing: Girls are ahead in scholastics, and your solution is to eliminate the social roots of their success? Leftism is endlessly complex, I see.

Unthinking obedience to authority is what produces the phenomenon whereby a majority of the American population believes that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. We must have a citizenry resistant to propaganda in order to have anything like a meaningful democracy, and scholastic achievement cannot be measured by the willingness of students to do what their told, however inane.

Women have always been socialized to be more subservient and obedient, but only with the increased attention to prevalent sexism in education have the overt biases against women been lifted. The gendered expectations have not, leading to a condition where more women than men seek and achieve higher education.

As I said, eliminating thoughtless obedience as a criterion for success would go a long way towards solving both problems, but it would also lead to people asking tough questions about our economic system.

A personal example: U.S. History class in my public high school. Was required to write two papers analyzing American presidents. The first I wrote about Wilson and the notion of Southern identity. Was very interested in the topic, read a lot of the scholarship, and had a relatively novel thesis. Teacher was frightened and confused by the essay and gave it a D. Next paper (don't even remember who it was, actually) followed the outline of the EB, pointless regurgitation of sequential facts. A.

This is not an unusual story. Thinking is not encouraged in much of our educational system. Doing what you're told, with a minimum of fuss, is. Girls are more socialized to do the latter, and there is no longer the "we're not letting women in this school" factor. Thus, the enrollment differences.

This is a chilling article. The expectations for the future are dire, especially in the short run.

I was a political science major in college and as part of that was required to take a women's studies course. I was the only man in the class. The result was chaos. I disagreed with almost everything the professor said (the course was Political Theory and Feminism, a deconstruction of Hobbes, Locke, and other political writers through a "gendered" reading).

While the girls taking such classes were rabidly anti-male, almost every other girl on campus was unthinking about sexual discrimination such as that, were interested in finding dates, etc. In effect, they had no idea of the power structure keeping them up and keeping men down. As a conservative, I'm hesitant to label things "power structures," but it clearly does exist in this case. Affirmative Action, Take Back the Night, and Women's Studies Departments exist in colleges to prop up girls. Ritalin, enforced liberal ideology of teacher's unions, and zero-tolerance laws that disproportionally affect boys, work to supress the dreams of boys' academic achievements. Prudence is needed in both environments, but prudence has given way to politics.

In the short term, the best one can do is, as a parent, work to protect your young boys from overzealous teachers who view your sons' excitement as a discipline problem, and try to keep him off of drugs (while also working as best as possible to discipline him in a structured environment to build his grades). Long term solutions require a breaking of the affirmative action and women's studies departments, to make them neutral, and to promote men's sports and activities that men find engrossing.

The alternative is nation where the underclass consists of men, angry and rebellious because they know they're being cheated and put down. That is asking for disaster.

From the article:
"the next generation of Quebec women might face a difficult love life...in a few years the province will be filled with high-paid, ambitious, professional women. Across the dance floor will be a large group of losers -- uneducated men stuck in small, low-paying jobs."

I had to laugh when I saw this. I just paid my plumber $900 for a morning's work.

Bobbert--I agree with you totally about promoting boys' sports in education. I can't tell you how disappointed I was growing up (and through undergrad and graduate school) and how few opportunities there were for me as a male to participate in athletics; or, even more importantly, how little attention was paid to men's athletics as opposed to that lavished on the women.

Ditto with male activities in general. It's nearly impossible on a college campus today to find some guys to hang around, scratch your testicles besides, and drink beer with till immobilized while watching the WNBA and women's soccer on TV (since that's all they show, simpering network liberals).

I also blame Women's Studies Depts. for not being able to find a woman who knew her place while in college.

I haven't commented on the past few posts, and there's a central reason for it: newcomer I_p_o short-circuits any conversation that begins to form with his puerile, tangential sarcasm.

You've got us, I_p_o, you're just way too clever for us to stand up in the face of your pointed sarcasm. Now go on somewhere else that you'll find more challenging, someplace where you can develop your interpersonal skills — grade school, perhaps.

You almost had a point worth addressing in your previous post, but you subsequently proved the pointlessness of addressing it.

But, I_p_o, I'm procrastinating, so let's address that previous post:

a majority of the American population believes that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis
— Prove this assertion.

We must have a citizenry resistant to propaganda in order to have anything like a meaningful democracy
— And at what age are children capable of distinguishing reality and fiction, truth and propaganda? Who provides the underlying basis for judgment (foundation of belief), and what is it?

The gendered expectations have not, leading to a condition where more women than men seek and achieve higher education.
— Just to establish your central objection, let's remove the quality being rewarded for a moment: is your argument that our social system inherently rewards the qualities that women have been socialized to possess in greater abundance and, therefore, the success of women indicates the insidiously flawed nature of the system?

Women have always been socialized to be more subservient and obedient
— Prove that subservience and obedience are objectively bad.

it would also lead to people asking tough questions about our economic system
— Like what?

Teacher was frightened and confused by the essay and gave it a D. Next paper (don't even remember who it was, actually) followed the outline of the EB, pointless regurgitation of sequential facts. A.
— Have you considered the possibility that you proved incapable of writing a coherent paper without recourse to the outline and regurgitation? Just asking.

Backing up a bit:

the intellectual potential of the sexes... is equal
— Prove it. And while you're at it, explain how you divorce obedience and rote learning from the process of achieving "intellectual potential" (which will entail you defining that phrase). To phrase it as a question, Alex, at what point in the accumulation of knowledge is one capable of tackling the ideas of "the best and brightest"?

JK--I'll "prove" one thing. I have already mentioned the abject idiocy of the debating tactic which appends "prove it" after every inconvenient assertion. I hereby insert "prove that it needs to be proven" after all similar statements in perpetuity throughout the internet.

Piaget can answer some of your questions, though they aren't relevant. "Obedience" is not the necessary discipline required of young children in an elementary school; it is the habit of unwavering obeisance to authority instilled in mature students and the consequent lack of ability to evaluate information critically.

High school academic success primarily is achieved through obedience, which is a female-gendered quality in our culture, yes. This partially--not completely--explains why there is a discrepancy in enrollment. Men still earn more with less education and qualifications than women.

Are you aware of the most conspicuous use of the phrase "best and brightest?" It's not Matthew Arnold, but it does provide a wonderful comment on the consequences of intellectual obedience.

Peter Drucker once observed that our education system hasn't changed much in circulum (sp?) from the one designed to created a 10th century cleric. Certainly hypebole, but not without some truth.

Most people graduate from High School (which one is told prepares one for college, so one expects more of the same): without knowing how to write a resume, or interview for a job, prepare income taxes, invest your money/understand the power of compund interest, rent an apartment/buy a house, or run a household. Additionally it is clear that those not in vocational ed (who have already opted out of college for the most part) are not prepared to earn a living.

Please understand that the above are examples. The point is that school looks less and less relevant every year, as what we each do to make our way in the world diverges from what we are taught.

In addition, many teachers aren't all that insiring in their own subject (which all too few have majored in). Thus learning isn't all that interesting.

Males will tend to think: They must earn a living, and choose (no particular order here) Military service (still male dominated, and leads to advanced training in many trades/technician jobs), manual labor (construction in particular), trade school (plumbers electricians etc), college (either with a goal in mind, or the goal of defering the decision), or for all to many, they will abdicate the decision and fall into something.

I would note that most women now also will decide they must earn a living (though I would argue that ther is still some vestige of the idea of getting married and having children as "the plan"). While women are capable of making all of the above choices their trend will be towards college more and military and vocational options less.

(Really I have a point here, and I will get to it).
I believe that the apparent irrelavancy of school, and the perceived wider choice of options are leading males to consider non-college options.

To get corrected: k-12 must become more relevant and be better taught (thus opening both sexes to be more interested in the hard siences, engineering and math where there are plenty of opportunities).

This second problem may be corrected by an over supply of well educated women, more of whom may choose to be teachers (In the good old days, when women had few choices many of our teachers were brilliant women who had few other good career choices).

I'll "prove" one thing. I have already mentioned the abject idiocy of the debating tactic which appends "prove it" after every inconvenient assertion. I hereby insert "prove that it needs to be proven" after all similar statements in perpetuity throughout the internet.
— Ha! You didn't even prove your "one thing." You've simply expressed the validity of your unsubstantiated claims. If it makes you feel better, rephrase all of my "prove its" to read "substantiate that claim," "on what basis do you draw that conclusion," or "provide a single link to prove that your belief, which disagrees with my own, is valid." What wonders your rejection of obedience have wrought for your critical thinking skills! And the points must be "proven" ("substantiated," whatever) because you've introduced them as evidence into discussion. If your claims that Americans are susceptible to wild propaganda, obedience is bad, or men and women have identical intellectual potential are false, then your argument is substantially diminished.

"Obedience" is not the necessary discipline required of young children in an elementary school; it is the habit of unwavering obeisance to authority instilled in mature students and the consequent lack of ability to evaluate information critically.
— I hope Piaget expressed it better. What is the "it" in the second independent clause? Obedience? "The necessary discipline required of young children in an elementary school"? Prove that your sentence makes sense.

High school academic success primarily is achieved through obedience, which is a female-gendered quality in our culture, yes.
— This answers not a single of my points or questions directly. To do so, you must 1) explain why this is bad, 2) describe the point at which young people have the mental facility and intellectual foundation to move away from obedient, rote learning, and/or 3) explain how this ends up working in men's favor.

Justin, give up, man. Raving incoherently and waxing sarcastic, failing to answer logically a single objection, as well as throwing around completely anti-empirical and demonstrably loopy assertions, all while refusing to even back them up with anything like an argument from facts, are the marks of an ideologue, a true believer, not somebody interested in a point-by-point rational discussion. I'm very familiar with the type. Two words: lost cause.

Now that we are (hopefully) done with back and forth personal attacks, I would love to get your thoughts on the two following questions. I have been a college prof (economics/finance) for about 15 years now in Australia, Canada and now the US. I can personally attest to the reduced presence of men on campus and in my classes. Two questions I would like to ask ('cause I am not at all sure of the answers..).

1. Isn't it a bit dangerous to use group-level stats to document discrimination? I have discovered to my horror that "institutionalized discrimination", for example, amounts to nothing more than the observation that outcomes appear to differ by race or gender. Aren't we engaging in the same thing here?

2. I think you will find a similar trend in things like participation in faculty meetings and governance. At my school they tend to be dominated by humanities types and the discussion tend to be very low-level and left-biased. My response has been to stop attending meetings unless we are to vote on something important. I am not sure I am being disadvantaged by this (finance profs tend to have attractive alternative uses of their time...) but it can't be healthy for the institution.

JK--There was a link to a Salon article about a survey conducted by the Princeton Research Association for Knight Ridder in January; perhaps you missed it. Or perhaps you only can see statistics which support your preconceptions. I have no opinion on the matter.

"It" referred to "obedience," which has nothing to do with 'rote learning.' Birds have an amazing imitative faculty, but humans are capable of a bit more. Americans are, as the reaction to the latest Iraq war shows, clearly susceptible to propaganda.

Perhaps you believe that the government either a) tells the truth about the reasons for its actions or b) has to create "necessary fictions" in order to manufacture the population's consent. I think b) is fairly self-evident, but we may disagree about whether it is a good thing.

If I may use your favorite tactic, for what reason would you possibly think that men and women don't have equal intellectual potential? Because there are fewer women in the "hard" fields such as engineering, physics, and finance? Therefore, since there's obviously equal opportunity (or even unequal opportunity tilted towards women), the female population has a smaller--or at least differently wired--brain.

Must be a miracle that Prof. O'Connor, with her non-spatial woman's brain, managed to figure out this whole internet thing. Probably had a man's help, though.

Sage--could you explain to me how my comments were anti-empirical? Is that an epistemological or methodological claim?

Gerald--I'm glad to have a hard scientist's view on things here. As someone who makes testable, falsifiable predictions about observable phenomena and develops theories with high degrees of explanatory adequacy about them, I find your "cut-to-the-chase" attitude unsurprising and refreshing.

I would say, however, that humanities types are always "left-leaning" and hence "low-level," since they work in a completely ideological field. If I were in charge of even one university, I would appoint faculty to governance committees from only the economics, finance, management, and criminal justice departments because they are the only ones tough-minded enough to see the world as it is, not as some frog-philosophaster wishes it would be.

The article suggests that "modern K-12 education is not suited to boys' needs and learning styles. Success in school is tightly correlated with the ability to sit still, be quiet, and complete work that is presented in a dull, assembly line fashion. There is little outlet for natural boyish energy and exuberance in schools, and as a result many boys-even those as young as five or six-- end up being given Ritalin or other drugs so they can sit still. At every step of the way those whose natures are least accommodating to this type of education--boys--fall by the wayside."

But is there anything new about a school system that requires "the ability to sit still, be quiet and complete work" and etc? I think not. Indeed, conservative educational reformers frequently complain that this is no longer the case, that schools are too permissive and chaotic, in order to urge a return to earlier standards which required sitting still and being quiet and completing the work and so on. Have these conservative reformers considered whether this would help or hinder boys? Or perhaps they would argue for old-fashioned punishment along with the old-fashioned schooling? After all, one could argue that whereas in the past boys were _beaten_ they are now being _drugged_ into submission.

Does this lag exist across the board, at every socioeconomic level? I suspect the lag has to do with the success of girls from lower socioeconomic levels and from outside the mainstream relative to boys from the same backgrounds (i.e., it would surprise me to learn that there was any appreciable lag between boys and girls from the upper middle classes, for example).

Anyway, as a feminist progressive type, I am prepared to acknowledge this as a potentially serious problem that should be addressed. The fact that some people will use this to fan the anti-feminist flames doesn't make it any less of a real issue. It shouldn't be a zero-sum game (either you focus on the girls or you focus on the boys).

There was a link to a Salon article about a survey conducted by the Princeton Research Association for Knight Ridder in January; perhaps you missed it.
— "There was a link"? Where — just somewhere? And which aspect of the discussion did it address? I've found that links don't stand out very well in these comment boxes, but I've just scanned through all of the above and couldn't find it.

"It" referred to "obedience," which has nothing to do with 'rote learning.'
— So, obedience is "the consequent lack of ability to evaluate information critically"? By the way, your "personal example" described an instance of rote learning ("regurgitation").

Birds have an amazing imitative faculty, but humans are capable of a bit more.
— Memorizing their multiplication tables, for one thing. But at what point have they built the foundation to discard rules and precedent in their intellectual endeavors?

Americans are, as the reaction to the latest Iraq war shows, clearly susceptible to propaganda.
— Well, yes, certainly, but there really weren't as many anti-war protestors as the media made it seem...

for what reason would you possibly think that men and women don't have equal intellectual potential?
— I didn't express an opinion either way. Suppose, for a moment, that one could show that 1) women had an inherent (not socialized) ability for obedience and 2) it turned out that academic endeavors require a high degree of obedience to reach a level of thought at which creative leaps can be made. In that case, defining "intellectual potential" as more or less equivalent to "academic potential," women would have a higher potential. Since you were the one who asserted that the potential is equal, it is incumbent upon you to offer the boundaries of and substantiation for your claim. Otherwise, you run the risk of taking a blanket equality in capacity on faith and seeking to manipulate our social system until you get results that you expect for no other reason than that you wanted them to be the case.

Must be a miracle that Prof. O'Connor, with her non-spatial woman's brain, managed to figure out this whole internet thing.
— Well, you're the one who says, "economics, finance, management, and criminal justice [professors] are the only ones tough-minded enough to see the world as it is."

I have already mentioned the abject idiocy of the debating tactic which appends "prove it" after every inconvenient assertion. I hereby insert "prove that it needs to be proven" after all similar statements in perpetuity throughout the internet.

Heh. And your high school teacher gave you a D because he was "frightened and confused" of such an intellect.

You appear to have as much familiarity with the concept of "denial" as you do of the concept of "burden of proof".

Jeff--thanks. I'm also familiar with regression.

JK--the anchored word is "thing." It is blue. You can, I suspect, figure out how to make your browser underline links if you're still having trouble.

Of course there were far more anti-war protestors than corporate media reported, but this is merely an instance.

I am not going to repeat myself again regarding the "obedience" question. Feel free to internalize whatever pop-EP reinforces your beliefs. Remember that women, like the Europeans, are from Venus. I'd also recommend Eric Raymond's dating tips for more impressive insight into the mysterious female character.

Do you ever get that "Howard Roark looking down at the abyss while naked on a dark-and-stormy night" feeling? I sure do. And it's in moments such as those that I realize, I know, that no radical feminist will ever manipulate my social system.

IPO,

Apologies for not having noticed the link. (It's just Erin's comment boxes that give me trouble.) Turning to the survey, this is why it's important to offer evidence: now I can refute your assertion specifically on the facts that you used as evidence. You said:

a majority of the American population believes that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.

The findings of the poll were as follows:
17% said no Iraqis (correct)
33% offered no answer
6% said one Iraqi
44% said "most or some" (gee, that's not a tweaked answer category!)
The hijackers were: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 2 UAEs.

It seems to me that you and Salon are the ones engaging in propaganda (in Salon's case, the extent of spin is quite shocking).

Yes, of the 67% who answered, a majority believed that Iraqis were involved, which is contrary to fact but consistent with propaganda.

How did you refute this again? "Tweaked answer category?" That's right up there with the "Do you believe that Governor Dukakis should stop releasing murderers and rapists from jail?" poll question, alright.

You said "a majority of the American population believes that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis," not that "Iraqis were involved."

Mr. Garvey,

Sorry for the delayed response, but I had to give your comment above some thought. I think the danger with citation of "institutionalized discrimination" arises when it becomes, as you point out, seen as actionable based purely on the outcomes. In this case, there are specific policies that yield the outcomes (e.g., Title IX).

Your point is well taken, however: addressing problems on a group level devolves easily into outcome adjustment.

On the subject of differences in men's and women's intelligence, see this intriguing piece in the Guardian.

I too noticed a decline in the number of males. I taught at an open admissions art/communications school. Obedience, grades, etc. , was not the defining criterion for entrance. I taught photography for the last 4 semesters. In the past-or in my day- there were always more men then women in these classes. Photography used to be positioned somewhere in the sciences - now it is fully entrenched in the arts. Is that the reason? Where did the men go? Off to engineering, computer science, etc.? There are still more men than women in those fields.

It is also a question of society. I consider that I may have been one of the first generation of women that was EXPECTED to go on to college. [the 70's] I certainly relect the articles assertion that male attendance declined in the late 70s. My mother, ostensibly, of the early 60's generation, was offered no such rigid expectations. Beauty school, secretarial, education, maybe college, but not necessarily. Motherhood was more the norm and certainly propagated by her parents generation.

These multitudes of women have far different expectations laid upon them than two generations past. Have the number of males entering college dropped or is it the ratio of male to female that has?
According to the US Census report on populations in an International Context comparing male/female within age groups, the overall numbers indicate a lower ratio of men to women in more developed countries.

" In 2000, there were about 101
men for every 100 women
worldwide. The ratio of men to
women was lower in the world's
more developed regions (96 for
the United States and 94 for
other MDCs) than in LDCs (103)."

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:3kqJxFC6vHkC:www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-11.pdf+2000+census+%22ratio+of+men+to+women%22+site:gov&hl=en&start=3&ie=UTF-8

One interesting note: The ratio of male to female is highest below age 5. At ages 15-64, the numbers drop and continue. At retirement age, there are significantly more women than men.

The article can argue percentage declines and lay blame on pedagogy and male behavior, but I didn't see that they actually took serious consideration toward societal trends regarding women or population stats that might explain some of it. My own observation is that, yes, there are less males in the classroom. But why?

It seems that something is missing from the analysis.
If, hypothetically, the same percentage of men go on to the trades and other non-university professions as in the past, yet women have delayed entry into homemaking, having steered away from beauty school, secretary work, etc., and have entered the university in unprecedented numbers, then perhaps the numbers actually reflect our societal changes rather than what the article alludes to; that is, that education has included females at the expense of males.

I wonder.

Cesek,

You've made more of your statistics than is reasonable. Looking more specifically (and only at the U.S. numbers), you'll see that, under age 15, males outnumber females by about 5%. Over 65, females outnumber males by 43%. The category between this is the absurdly inclusive "working-age population" of 15-64, in which women outnumber men by 0.64%. Considering the dramatic shift between ages 15 and 65, I'd hazard the guess that men in the college-age bracket, closer to 15 than to 65, still outnumber women, if only slightly.

As for the second part of your comment, the suggestion that society is encouraging women to higher education at an increasing rate while merely maintaining the rate among men hardly counts against the thesis that the trend is detrimental to men — particularly considering that college is increasing as a general expectation, not staying the same. It also yields the same results: an educational disparity between men and women.

Thanks for alerting me to the statistical resource, though.

I used to believe that the gender gap in education was overblown. I think you have to know people in education and see what they think before you can be sure. I attended the University of Kansas (yes, referenced often recently by Erin, that one). I was a dual business/chemistry major, and I was attending at a time that at least 60% of the students in my business classes were women, and at least 80% of the students in my math and science classes were men. Because of this, I assumed that there were no issues with men not attending college.

Fast forward 5 years to now, when my brother is a teacher at the high school level. He teaches math, which most people traditionally associate with men. Last year, he taught a class of Pre-Algebra students. He had three boys in his class who, on a beginning of the year pre-test, earned a B. He referred the cases to the principal with the recommendation that the students be placed in Algebra I instead of Pre-Algebra. The reply: No, these students do not have the "maturity" to be in Algebra I. My brother talked to the parents of the students, told them that their children were facing a year of boredom and repetition, and they went to the principal. Same response. Scary.

This is not the only instance either, just one that I could explain in a "short" comments box. The saddest part: this is a PRIVATE school. The students were PAYING TUITION! And they still could not get educated. I believe all three boys will not be attending the high school in the system, shocker there. If they had been my sons, they would have been out the next day, even if I had to put them in public school.

Catherine

"There's rarely a day that goes by when I, a straight white male Southerner, don't pray for the terrible lifelong discrimation I've endured in every segment of my life--education, work, and politics--to end."

Question for Infect: Do you really give a damn about anything you write about or do you just think that the arch tone you employ is so beautiful and brilliant that you cannot bear for others not to hear?

It is, in fact, true that individual white men of the sort you clearly despise have spent a lifetime under the heel of racial and sexual quotas. You may be in favor of that, but to argue against it is impossible. Perhaps you think that some larger societal issue justifies this. So, you think that redistributive justice KOs individual rights. That's great. You're entitled. I am the first member of my extended family to earn a four year college degree... in 1971. Racial and sexual quotas were in full force by the time I finished college. Women and blacks have been given preference over me from the moment I entered the job market, and those preferences remain in force.

In singling out the white, southern male as your Other, you've revealed a lot about yourself. You've made it clear that you regard one branch of the human family as sort of... subhuman. I appreciate it when people clearly define me as the enemy. That means that I will fight them as the enemy, without conscience for what happens to them... precisely as you seem to literally enjoy the defeats and disgrace of white, southern men. Over two decades ago, it became clear to me that there was no purpose in humoring people like you. I don't anymore. Understanding that has led me to take a posture of counter-attack that has been very successful. For instance, in my current job it was widely assumed when I started that there was some sort of rule against being an old fashioned macho man. My co-workers have discovered that this is not true. Those who wanted to fight it out with me have been defeated and more than a few have departed in disgrace.

See, what I'm telling you is that the sort of comments you're making can only be answered with a declaration of war. And I have done precisely that. I would encourage men who are reading this to respond in precisely the same way.

As I've noted in another post, your writing seems always to assume that Americans are brutes and louts. This seems to give you great pleasure. The question is, why? Well, I think that this post makes it clear. Stuck forever in the 60s. White southern men were the enemy of the civil rights era, and thus they must remain the enemy forever.

http://www.dailywav.com/0100/failure1.wav

Click on the above link (it may be printed in blue above - I'm not good at this and should also appear as a url address) for my summary of the day. Feels about right to me.

A door prize to the first person to identify the movie and the actor make the comment.

Cheers.

I now submit a comment that may qualify me for the hopelessly naive commenter award.

Why is the education of our children, boys and girls, treated as a zero-sum game? It seems that this is how the issue is being treated, not necessarily by the posters on this blog, but by the educational bureaucracy.

As to obedience, it might make slaves of men but it sure hasn't enslaved my daughter. (Yes, I know, a sample set of 1 is no sample.) Seems to me there is some confusion here between being attentive in class (a good thing, right?) and being a mechanized automaton.

The "question authority" philosophy makes for a nice platitude, a passable bumber sticker for many a Saturn or Dodge Neon, and has a great deal of merit in its way. Not quite as compelling as "visualize whirrled peas" - but right up there in the Top 10.

Last, but not least, I fall back onto my old standby - to wit - the absence of economic class analysis from the discussion of gender (or racial) issues renders any analysis incomplete. At the same time, the failure to take into account the strides (unfinished though they may be) made by women in academia and the work force (you know - the real world!) over the last 40 years or so.

There is a whole generation of parents generally, and mothers specifically, who have grown up without the gender limitations imposed on their parents. Ours is a generation of women attorneys, doctors, architects, bankers, etc. who are parenting their girls. I tend to doubt that these children are being inculcated with meek passivity by their mother or their father.

As with affirmative action - any analysis of gender issues is incomplete without an overlaying of the economic lines that divide us. I don't think it is a question of 'obedience' - a red herring that somehow got this thread onto Iraq (much firmer ground for all us ideologues out there) I think it is a question of changed expectation.

Okay, time to pack up the computer and go of to yet one more committee meeting. Good night and don't forget to visualize those whirlled peas tonight. I know I won't while I'm stirring (not shaking) my vodka drink.

Justin Katz,

I have only asked questions but assert nothing. I have noticed the difference in male attendance and wondered why myself. On the other hand, my graduate years [90's] were spent at an institute of technology where the majority are male and a significant portion are foreign, [not the foreign born but specifically here for education only.]

That said, I wonder why the article does not seem to consider those circumstances that increased female enrollment in the university, outside of the feminist bent as the article implies.
I do believe it is a reasonable question as in - How did and do those numbers affect the declining ratio of male to female students in college?

Looking up the census provides a cursory glance but does not lay out an answer. I too thought 15-64 was a rather large parameter. I could also hazard the guess that the male to female numbers in a college age group are perhaps 50-50. Since we don't know the numbers, guessing is all we can do, neither guess being accurate. We know the ratio, per the article.

A comparison to male attendance at university in 1870 and the university today is misleading. The numbers may be accurate but what do they essentially tell us?
Who actually went to college in 1870? Who could afford to?

My specific question might be - What percentage of the total population of males over the years 1870-2003 have chosen college against those who have entered the trades? Even that research would be fraught with issues such as economics and technology that affect enrollment ability.
The timing of the decline in male enrollment seems to coinicide with the increase in female enrollment, changes in pedagogy, and the 'war on drugs'. Have all behaviors been factored in or have they only applied the numbers to the change in attitude towards boy behavior in K-12?

"...the suggestion that society is encouraging women to higher education at an increasing rate while merely maintaining the rate among men hardly counts against the thesis that the trend is detrimental to men ó particularly considering that college is increasing as a general expectation, not staying the same. "

I did not intend to negate the article's premise. I accept that many of the conditions outlined in the article are valid. The interpretation of the numbers is not fully explained. Hypothetically: If 50% of all men entered college in 1970 and 50% of all men entered in 2000 - then nothing has changed for men. At the same time, if 20% of women entered college in 1970, 51% in 1978 and 75% entered in 2000, then you will have your increasing disparity. And yes, it seems that it would be detrimental no matter which way you cut it.

The fact that a disparity exists and is increasing is alarming. I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise.

So where are the men? Where did they vanish to?
The article is only a small part of some answers.
Cheers

Justin Katz has posted some extended meditations on the question of boys in education over at Timshel Arts. And Kim Swygert has more discussion of the article over at No. 2 Pencil. The comments are worth reading as well.

From the young people I know of university age (quite a few), the women seem to see college as a way to get a leg up, and the young men more and more see it as a place to go to get put down (mandatory women's studies classes, etc.)

And many men in their 20's I know are more drawn to 'electric blue collar' type jobs, such as tech support and other non-degreed IT jobs, from which you can crawl your way up to white collar without a degree (less than during the dot com boom, but still there as a relatively new career path).

I myself have been put off about returning to school during the downturn by the amount of drivel I'd have to tolerate (I'm 32) were I to attend university again.

And affirmative action has indeed hurt the careers of degreed men I've known in the last 10 years, especially in foreign languages and other humanities.

The young men I know don't see college as relevant unless they want to go into a field where a degree is required (medicine, law, engineering, or Phd track science). It's (a bachelors) widely viewed in the coffeehouse scene as a hoop-jumping certificate, "I jumped through the BS to get my BS, so I'll kiss the corporate ass like a good worker".

Again, this is widely viewed by the men I know as an impediment, and by the women as a leg up.

Just my 2 cents.

Like most Leftist plans to restructure society - the Law of Unintended Consequences will come into play.

What are the demographic problems with educated women with a dwindling pool of potential mates?

Fertility declines as women get older - at 32, it starts to decline drastically. How will this affect the country when our college-educated women have a negative birth rate?

I somehow think a nation of overeducated, bitter and barren women raising children alone from eggs frozen years before will bring about the utopia of gender equality.

My partner (an English prof) and I were talking yesterday about the idea of "double consciousness." This concept comes up when she's teaching W. E. B. DuBois in her American lit class. Lit isn't my discipline, but what I understood from her is that double consciousness refers to seeing yourself through two different perspectives, simultaneously: your own native perspective, and some external or social perspective.

I commented that it seemed like a lot of young men in college have developed this double consciousness. In academe, the PC pressures them to pay lip service to the idea that, as males, they are the inheritors of patriarchal privilege. The actual experiences of their lives often tell a much different story: maybe they were abused as kids, or grew up poor (as a lot of my students did), or maybe the women in their families were dominant, or maybe the women they work with are dominant, or maybe the feminist profs they've been forced to take have picked on them.

I've noticed the tendency of gender feminists to justify things which disadvantage males--on the basis of their sex alone--as some sort of payback. That doesn't wash, for me.

Stol...

Since no one answered... I thought I would mention that it's Strother Martin in "Cool Hand Luke"

So why exactly do you all bother responding to IPO?

Tex, you are correct! I always loved that movie - and that line in particular.

So why exactly do you all bother responding to IPO?

Curtis, can't speak for anyone else. For me, . . .because it was fun.