Search News


Browse Archives

News

Lost Men on Campus

May 22, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

PHILADELPHIA -- The 2nd Conference on College Men brought about 100 professors, student affairs professionals and counselors to the University of Pennsylvania this week. Frank Harris’ list of citations offers some insights into why they came: Research showing lower rates of enrollment, persistence and graduation among college men in comparison to college women; the underrepresentation of men in campus leadership positions, in study abroad, career services and civic engagement programs; and their overrepresentation among campus judicial offenders.

“When we think about acts of violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment on college campuses, overwhelmingly the perpetrators of those acts on our campuses are men. When we talk about how to convince our colleagues that we need to be engaged in these discussions, these are some of the ideas we need to share with them, particularly this last one,” said Harris, an assistant professor of postsecondary education at San Diego State University.

Harris and Keith Edwards, director of campus life at Macalester College, presented Thursday on the results and implications of two separate qualitative studies about the gendered experiences and identities of men in college. Edwards, who conducted three interviews each with 10 men, said his primary research question was, “How do you understand what it means to be a man, as a man?” Harris’ study involved 68 men and nine focus groups, divided by subcategory (African American athletes, Asian American men, first-year men, etc.) Edwards' study involved a large public East Coast university, and Harris' a large private institution on the West Coast.

“The men in both studies really described external pressures to perform hegemonic masculinity,” said Harris. In other words, they felt external pressure to be unemotional, calm, cool under pressure, to be competitive, aggressive, self-assured; to not be gay, feminine or vulnerable.

Furthermore, “It was not manly to put a lot of time and effort into academics," said Edwards. It’s not cool to study, to read the book: “Sometimes it’s not cool to even buy the book. But you’ve got to ace the test. You’ve got to make the grade,” continued Edwards, who described male students studying on the sly, telling their buddies they were spending the evening with their girlfriends and then hitting the books instead. “The script to be a manly man means you’re good at everything and you don’t have to work at it," he explained.

Edwards and Harris also reported finding that the students had limited relationships with other men, particularly their friends and fathers, and experienced a loss of self. “It’s sort of for me the most poignant part of all this,” said Edwards. “I lose my authenticity when I pretend I’m someone I’m not.”

“And there’s a loss of humanity when you deny who you really are.”

In terms of strategies and recommendations, Edwards and Harris suggested first giving college men permission to stop performing and to be themselves. “It’s really about creating some kind of balance to the external pressure,” said Harris. “We talk about challenge and support, challenging the negative behavior.”

Edwards and Harris also recommended providing opportunities for critical self-reflection about what it means to be a man – “to disrupt the functioning of hegemonic masculinity” – including through facilitated student affairs programming and academic courses (a course in women’s studies, for instance). They recommended a need to build "cultural competence" for faculty and staff in issues of gender. While many in the audience lauded the transformative impact of small group discussions among men, one common point was the need for a facilitator who really understands gender dynamics.

The biennial conference, which continues through today, was co-sponsored by NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education and the American College Personnel Association. Shaun R. Harper, an assistant professor of higher education management at Penn and a keynote speaker, planned to close the conference today by stressing the need for coordinated, strategic action to promote male students’ success. “It’s not uncommon to find a particular group or activity or perhaps a dialogue series, but none of that is coordinated usually,” said Harper. “Doing what we’re currently doing in a fragmented fashion will very likely have us spinning our wheels for years.”

One obstacle to such strategic action has been a pervading sense that men -- who, after all, out-earn women in the workforce -- don't need extra attention. “What I’ve seen in my work with institutions and with college administrators and faculty is what I would consider the model gender majority myth,” Harper explained. “It works very much like the model minority myth with Asian American students” – in other words, there's an assumption that all males are doing well. But subsets are underperforming academically – most notably African American men, who lag behind African American women in college enrollment by 27.2 percentage points. Overall, when not disaggregated by race, 57.2 percent of students enrolled in higher education in fall 2007 were women, and 42.8 percent were men.

Gender is a sensitive subject, however. “We should continue to be concerned about the status of women,” Harper stressed. “In higher education, unfortunately, we are notorious for falling into the either-or trap.”

Kathleen Holgerson, director of the Women’s Center at the University of Connecticut, echoed a similar sentiment during an afternoon panel featuring women’s center directors. “Now more than ever we need not to be playing the zero-sum game."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Lost Men on Campus

  • Lost Men on Campus
  • Posted by Joel on May 22, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • And all this time we thought it was women who needed to be liberated. Too sad.

  • Guilty until proven Impotent
  • Posted by James , Faculty at State Fair CC on May 22, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Today's colleges consider men guilty until proven impotent. Upon arrival the male is subjected to a barage of emasculating events. Compulsory sexual harrasment training implies he is considered a barely tolerated predator. Mandatory Women's Studies courses, without balance of a "Mens Study" course, convey's that his sex is both less intelligent and less important.

    The normal role of the male, to protect and provide has been obseleted. The real protection is done by other males thousands of miles away on the battlefield and around the corner by the police. Parents, universities and the government provide all the additional resources that are required.

    Even in society's long standing pacified version of war, the sporting event, has been torn from the grasp of the local collegiate male. Instead most sports programs are little more than professional sports franchises who recruit athletes in a seperate system as the university recruits academics. It renders the non-athlete male impotent. The athlete males fair no better. They are forced to spend so much time on their sport, without which the university would simply discard them, that they have no real time for studies or even a job to help support themselves.

    College age men are war aged men. They are genetically expendable by nature's design, and treated as such by university administrators and faculty, some with transparent sexist attitudes. The real losers are not the men, its the women who ultimately lose out. By the time the students graduate and pass through a few years of work, there are barely half as many available men as women, leaving many of those bright sucessful women the college has worked so hard to deploy in a world devoid of the partners they want and need.

  • Up to our eyeballs in political correctness
  • Posted by Kate , Student at Los Angeles City College on May 22, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • There are times when I feel as if my mind is going to snap at this college. Almost everyone seems to be brain-washed. If we complain about the (often incessant) noise in the classrooms, we are all but accused of racism. We have not one quiet place to work in peace here. They talk in the library and in the computer labs too. They make no connection between the disruption they cause and the time they waste, on the one hand, and, on the other, the financial health of either themselves or this country. Almost everyone identifies with their race or nationality. Isn't that racism? If we derive our sense of self through a primary identification with our race or nationality, is that not racism? People are racist to themselves, or sexist to themselves. Then their "I'm offended" radar goes up permanently. They look for offense everywhere they go and, unsurprisingly, they find it (where it does not exist). Are there any normal Americans left anywhere? Please let me know. I cannot survive much longer in the chaos that is Los Angeles.

     

     

  • There is NO problem
  • Posted by Mitzy on May 22, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • The gender gap favoring females in K-16 education is not the result of "something being wrong with contemporary males." It is the result of a leveling of the playing field that has been going on for the last half century; to wit, when females are not discriminated against, they prove to be the superior students and intellects. Perhaps this realization was what compelled men to suppress them as long as they did. That is not to say that male intellect isn't strong; it is just that in an fair academic meritocracy, slight advantages will produce large results. Simple as that.

  • Wow
  • Posted by DoveArrow on May 22, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • I consider myself a male feminist, and I have to say, I really enjoyed this article. In Women's Studies, they often talk about how patriarchal culture adversely affects both men and women. I think this is absolutely true. I think that society expects men to be strong, unemotional, aggressive juggernauts, and I think that these messages do have an adverse effect on our gender identities. I also think that this expectation causes men to look down on, and even feel violent towards, individuals or communities who do not fall into this paradigm.

    I think if colleges encouraged men to be more self reflective about the cultural messages they receive about their gender identity, it could help us understand that feeling emotional, or weak, or vulnerable is not a threat to our gender identity. It also could go a long way to preventing violence towards women, and members of the LGBTQI community, who are often seen as a threat to the traditional image of patriarchal culture.

  • Posted by student on May 22, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • OMG, student affairs airheads teaching classes on masculinity. If that isn't a vision of Hell I don't know what is.

  • No Roles Available
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on May 22, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Mr. Mom was a funny movie, funny in that anyone believed a woman would marry a male nanny.

    Just as American Indian males have disappeared (largely into alcohol and drugs) the lack of a clear role is making many of our other males disappear. Women can choose traditional roles or a career outside the home and generally find reinforcement from her partner. Young males, especially males from minority groups, find that if they can't provide for the intended family, they aren't wanted. Few vacancies for Mr. Moms in developed countries.

    Want more information on this theory, buy Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" and "Why Men Are The Way They Are" - excellent reading for anyone with an open mind. Not good for politically correct types.

  • identity loss indeed
  • Posted by southwest phd , Assistant Professor/English at southwest cc on May 23, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • This is an interesting piece and some of the responses are fascinating, and troubling, as well. To "Guilty": what institution has mandatory women's studies courses? And, to Kate: who is the "they" and who is the "we"? Initially, I read your response along gendered lines; that is, the "they" are male students while the "we" are female students. However, I, then, saw several references to race and nationality; is the "they" students of color, or those students with non-European heritage?

    In interacting with my male students, I definitely note a sense of loss. The lower-income white men with whom I come into contact are angry--not at any one group; rather, they astutely recognize the changing economic order, and many of them note that with this decline, so goes their guaranteed affluence. The majority of these men do not see other groups being privileged over them; instead, they perceive that living the so-called American Dream--a fantasy that was closer to reality for white men above all others--is not automatic. I live in a part of the country with a low cost of living; thus, many of my lower-income students come from economically stable backgrounds. These young men see that their parents did not have to go to college in order to live a life with lots of stuff; as such, they are frustrated that now, if they want stuff, they must go to college. Many of them do not see the cause-effect relationship of intellectual strength and prosperity; rather, higher education and stuff are intangibly related to material wealth. (This lack of recognition seems to be inherent in the majority of 18-year olds, no?) Many of my young male students also suffer loss because they realize that their prior successes in HS, which were, most often, athletic in nature, mean nothing in the world of higher education. They go from being celebrated and recognized in the small world of their high schools, to being just another body in a classroom whom no one knows.

    What I find particularly sad is that the majority of these young men do not realize that they can regain their power and autonomy by investing in themselves intellectually. (However, as any CC prof can affirm, the majority of our 18 and 19 year old students do not understand this.) To see "political correctness" (read: inclusiveness) as the cause of this identity loss in male is nonsense; rather, the changing economy, dependant as it is on the highly technical knowledge that requires at least a four-year degree, is a primary cause for identity loss among many young men, as it is the cause of distress for many Americans in general.

  • On Warren Farrell and A Modest Proposal for "Lost Men on Campus"
  • Posted by Jed Leland on May 23, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Dr. F Gump: I've read Farrell with an open mind, so much so that I embraced his every word--for a while. Maybe my mind closed then, for he seemed, upon rereading him a few years later, to argue that feminism had gone too far, women had completely overcome patriarchy, setting up a new matriarchy oppressive to males. Ridiculous.

    You say "a lack of a clear role" for males, but one thing I admired about Farrell is his insistence on moving beyond gender roles.

    My criticism: He is ahistorical and lacks a class analysis, and therefore a better insight into (masculine) social rebellion these days. It isn't about a lack of acceptance of Mr. Moms; it's about all humans being able to develop their talents while sharing family and community work as well. Why must any one group (by gender, by ethnicity, by class) be relegated to one kind of work, i.e. nurturing children?

    For more context about the crisis of the American male student, along with other social and cultural phenomena concommitant with economic phases, see "When Capitalism Hits the Fan":

    http://www.vimeo.com/1962208

    Note Professor Wolfe's proposal for the present crisis, which could have profound implications for our "Lost Men on Campus."

  • Posted by carolinem on May 24, 2009 at 4:30am EDT
  •  

    Southwest phd must feel at home at the politically correct modern college campus, where the only criticism and judgmentalism allowed are against white males.  He cannot believe institutions have mandatory women’s studies courses.  Many university students are mandated to take numerous victim’s studies courses that include women’s studies, ethnic studies and other America-as-oppressor propaganda courses.  Kate’s pointing out that campuses encourage people to view themselves as part of ethnic groups instead of individuals is obvious on its face – witness the separate dorms, graduations and majors based on race that not only are accepted but encouraged in the typical college environment.

     

    If southwest phd finds anger in lower-income white men because they cannot live the American Dream, the same anger and frustration do not seem to affect Asians and international students who surpass all other ethnic groups because of their hard work and devotion to study.

     

    Political correctness does not mean inclusiveness.  It is the predominant philosophy on campuses that views Americans, especially white males, as oppressors, and all other groups as victims of oppression.  It defines people in terms of their ethnic or cultural backgrounds or sexuality instead of individuals.  From the moment they step on campus, men are made to feel they are evil attackers against women and minorities.  If such stereotypes were perpetrated against any other group, the campus thought police would be hauling the accusers into their reeducation seminars and silly diversity events.

     

    If southwest phd’s students appear resentful at having to work hard to achieve the American Dream, it may be they have been brainwashed by the dominant liberal policies of America that praise and reward kids no matter how little they achieve in order to not damage their self esteem, reward indolence with welfare, and convince students that the government will take care of them, no matter what.

     

  • "Lost Men on Campus"
  • Posted by Curmudgeon on May 24, 2009 at 9:45pm EDT
  • I had to double-check the website URL. I thought I was reading the Onion.

    I tartly suggest that the reason for low numbers of men on campuses is that they aren't made to feel welcome. Every social dust-up is automatically presumed to be due to male chauvinism (old term; look it up).

  • An Additional Thought
  • Posted by Chuck Pelto on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • TO: All
    RE: Perhaps....

    ....if these 'researchers' wish to find out why men are NOT going to college....

    .....they should ASK the men who did not go to college, instead of those that are going to it.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    P.S. I have to wonder, how many of THOSE men went into the military instead.....

  • Mitzy comments
  • Posted by Raoul on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Mitzy cracks me up. When females outperform males in the contrived, politically correct, feminized education system, it's due to their superior intellect and drive.

     

    When males outperform females in the real world, where you have to produce something of actual value to others, it's sexism. Ha! Ha!

  • Class vs Gender
  • Posted by mrsizer , Software Architect at Financial Software on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • My response to southwestprof was going to be very similar to carolinem's. Instead, I'll add this:

    Many well-paying technical fields do not "require" a four year degree; it's just a gate-keeping criteria because HR departments are not allowed to "discriminate". Almost all of them require an ability to think in abstractions. This is the rare and well-paid-for ability that is really the coin of the information age.

    Skilled and motivated men without that ability can do very well in trades - but that is an entire class of well-paying, non-out-sourceable professions that is left out of our education system.

    Low-skill individuals of either gender have limited job opportunities in today's economy. Many of the jobs that they used to fill (secretaries and manufacturing, if you want gender-based stereotypes) have been automated or out-sourced. For those that are left, the competion is so fierce (let's not even mention illegal immigrants) that wages are driven down.

    Women can fall back on house-wife as a career. It raises no questions (quick, more diversity training is required!) and it's very rewarding, assuming one likes children.

    What are men supposed to do? Getting in touch with their feelings really isn't very helpful. Knowing one is angry about facing a dead-end future is really not all that more helpful that simply being angry and not knowing why. Going off to college - even if it's free - is not going to do any good. Not everyone can, or should, graduate from college; and if everyone does, what's the point? The four year degree loses its gate-keeping status and employers will start asking for Masters degrees (mine already does this).

    What do I suggest? Country-wide, abolish whatever departments and fire whatever people are involved in the stupidy reported on, above. Get rid of all this social engineering crap at every university. Use the money saved to lower tuition and teach students something practical. 

    Will it help men, in general? Probably not. It also probably will not hurt and it will save an immense amount of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

  • The hostile, anti-Male bias of Education
  • Posted by Whiskey , Former Educator at A SoCal High School on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Education, both higher and K-12, is a very hostile place for boys/men, and innately hostile to Straight White Boys and men. As a former High School teacher, I can well attest to the anti-male bias among teachers, the curriculum, and mostly female staff/administration.

    Out: boy-oriented history and literature, such as military history, battles, adventure stories, and so on that engage boys who are more active and learn differently than girls. In: girl-oriented consensus group work (boys are far more argumentative and competitive) and PC laden nonsense about Colonial Lesbians of Color that turn boys off learning like clockwork. And that's just in the High School Level.

    In Higher Ed (where I got my MBA) even the business courses are filled with PC junk and "diversity" nonsense that overtly discriminate against Straight White Men in favor of gays, Women, various non-White groups.

    This is never going to change (too much power to the PC crowd) and as a result, boys and men will simply drop out of what will become increasingly a PC-bound, dogmatic, Gay/Female ghetto of education, in favor of stuff like the Teaching Company, and other competitors (University of Phoenix) that offer just the skills/knowledge at fractions of the cost and without a PC indoctrination.

    As a result, a whole class of mostly Straight White Men will attempt to bring down the Higher Ed establishment by "skill tests" that certify knowledge/skills, instead of costly and PC-ridden (and therefore anti Straight White Male) Higher Ed establishments. This group will certainly bloc vote against money to Higher Ed, the latter being innately hostile to them, and they might well pick up the Straight White Male alumni who have been told in no uncertain terms that they are not wanted. Most of Higher Ed consists of various degrees of Ward Churchill, and you can't expect Straight White Men, still the demographic majority, to suppor that, particularly in hard times.

  • Nonsense
  • Posted by Tomb on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • I can't believe the garbage I am reading here.

    Women are more numerous than men in college. But men are still dominant in fields that lead to real jobs, such as engineering, finance, economics, etc.

    Women are merely pursuing fields in the humanities and social sciences, in greater numbers. These do not have good job prospects. This has devalued the average starting salaries of a college degree (though not of an engineering degree, mind you, even despite outsourcing).

    The arrogance of leftists/feminists is that they think they can undo thousands of years of biologically-rooted cultural tradition, and remake men and women into each other.

    This will fail.

    No society in the world has ever succeeded without allowing both men and women to be true to their natures. Islam is rapidly spreading into the West, and will soon make demands that the legal system suit their religion, not the wishes of some leftist feminists. Feminism will end quickly, at that point. Try getting Muslims to be sensitive to 'sexual harassment', 'gay marriage', etc.

    The highest paying jobs will always be male-dominated. So will the lowest-paying jobs. Women will always congregate around the median. That will never change. Women are usually of average intelligence, with low standard deviation. Men, on the other hand, have high standard deviation, and are numerous at the very top and very bottom of the IQ scale.

  • Anyone with an open mind
  • Posted by JorgXMcKie on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • should be able to recognize the 'cause' of the problem of declining numbers of males simply by reading these comments and seeing what the majority are like.

    Sad.

  • pc crap
  • Posted by Mike Kelley on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • I went to school back in the old days before you guys invented "gendered experiences" and "hegemonic masculinity". We learned real stuff then, not a bunch of pc crap.

  • Correction to Mitzy
  • Posted by Paul L , Mr. on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • To take issue with Mitzy's statements that women have superior intellects, and all performance discrepancies of the past are caused by discrimination etc: While true that women have a slightly higher average intellect (e.g. IQ), men have a greater variability of scores (i.e. the bell curve is flatter). This explains the large discrepancies in the higher echelons of technical fields and genius level work in general, and quite frankly invalidates anti-male rhetoric such as Mitzy's. Women do also tend to work harder; but how much of that is due to a female-friendly atmosphere in schools? And how do you compare work ethics across scholastic departments-- do art history majors (or other "soft" fields, where women are highly represented) work as hard as engineering majors (where men are highly represented)? These are things to explore before making blanket statements that all that is wrong with academia is due to anti-female bias.

  • Lost Men? What a surprise
  • Posted by Robert , na at na on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Every college now a "university," seeks to expand enrollment, sweeping onto campus, people who simply do not belong there. Men that would have previously been steered to trade schools are now walking the quad with books they have no interest in reading.

    Second, college is becoming irrelevant: internet and financial businesses value experience and inherent intellect, not warmed over english or ethnic studies classes. For many sharp kids, college is simply four wasted years.

    Third, the "word is out." Many posters acknowledge it: colleges are anti-male. The arts and sciences have become stained by the "studies" departments. Four years of that is seen now as more likely to distort your intellect and self esteem. Unless you want to be a lawyer, doctor or professor, many men see it as four years of intellectual and emotional waterboarding. In class and out, the male, esp the white male feels like he is obliged to atone for all the imagined sins of western society that provided such a comfortable home for his professors. Outside, lucrative jobs await him with people that have his same outlook on life. The choice is getting easier and easier.

    College is becoming more expensive, less relevant and more annoying. There is no mystery here.

  • Posted by Borris on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • One major problem that this doesn't address (but hints at) is that you lose men way back in elementary school. It quickly becomes apparent to little boys that school is for girls and not for boys.
    If you are a boy, you have a very good chance of being medicated (sit still) and lacking any positive male role models (we have chased men out of grade school teaching, those pedophiles. And, most kids are now born into single mother households.) This is also a time when grade school has switched its emphasis to verbal skills. Skills boys develop much later than girls. Plus, post-Columbine, if you write a story that includes violence (always a male favorite), you are off to the principal's office (a female principal) for "re-education".

    Plus men aren't stupid. They know college doesn't want them there. They often just do the minimum to get the certification that will get them the interview.

  • Missing men?
  • Posted by Retired White Male Dean at Border State CC on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Perhaps men no longer see any economic or social benefit from paying money and spending time to attend an institution that belittles them?

  • Posted by Maurice , Prof. Mech. Engineering on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • I think that several of the comments here demonstrate the attitudes and assumptions that are contributing to this problem. They are indicative of campus and academic cultures that are avowedly hostile to masculinity. And while the proponents of these cultures may wish to distinguish their anti-masculine attitudes from a general bias against males, they should accept that most males, straight, gay or otherwise, recognize masculinity as an essentially male trait. So for male students, this is a distinction without a difference.

    We're not going to make any headway in rectifying this situation until these ideologies are confronted. And frankly student affairs professionals are the least likely group that I could imagine being able or willing to do so.

    And let's keep in mind that not all students attend community colleges, or similarly remedial institutions. The problems that these students will encounter are somewhat distinct and not indicative of males generally.

  • Huh?
  • Posted by OldRedJoe on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • "study involved 68 men; three interviews each with 10 men"

    Wow... now THAT is hard science....

  • No need to be zero sum?
  • Posted by novaseeker on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Sure, it suits women to not be zero sum when they are ascendant.

    How self serving.

    You do realize that women are hypergamous, and if trends continue and women are 65% of college grads -- effectively twice as many as men -- women will struggle to find men to whom they attracted enough to partner with.

    And, no, the issue isn't solved by making men more squishy and sensitive and nurturing. Women do not flock to these men. We know that now. It's time to end speaking of nonsense and speak the truth. The key to contemporary manhood does not lie in the feminization of men by making them squishy and vulnerable and sensitive, despite what fembots in women's studies departments think. The key is for men to rediscover how to be masculine men -- neither exagerrations of it per a hypo-macho culture, nor feminized pseudo-men socially engineered by feminists to be unattractive to most women.

    Masculinity for the twenty-first century. Perhaps the most important academic topic. But NOT one that should ever be trusted to women's studies professors or their accomplices.

  • Recalling the words of Herzen...
  • Posted by Bill Hawks on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Great talent and scholarship are still found in American universities. How ironic virtually none of that extends to the administration, or the subculture and industry of modern education. 

    Awash in "Educators" one would think those in your world would know Identity Politics; know how it frequently masquerades as science -- a pathological blend of Hubris and projection operating as Bigotry institutionalized within a popularized norm. The postmodern resurrection of this rebranded "Identity Phrenology" as illuminated in this article would be laughable were it not so entirely perverse.

    Here is the cardinal issue: When will the Bigotry stop? When will People of Character rise up and demand an end to the shameful, predatory, serial dissembling of individual lives routinely obliterated by ad hoc administrative assignment to a predetermined group identity? 

    The Humanities once had the goal of liberating the individual mind and freeing each individual from the ravages of Bigotry and Ignorance. 

    The Humanities practiced in Education today are but the husk; both hollow and a deceptive, begging fraud.

  • Posted by Vader on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • "The gender gap favoring females in K-16 education is not the result of 'something being wrong with contemporary males.' It is the result of a leveling of the playing field that has been going on for the last half century; to wit, when females are not discriminated against, they prove to be the superior students and intellects."

    Sexism is alive and well. Like the earth's magnetic field, it simply flips polarity now and then.

  • Look at Title IX
  • Posted by John Rohan at Washington University on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Well I suppose that a "Title IX" style approach might work; simply force the Universities to make their men/women numbers equal by any means necessary. Maybe then women's groups will finally realize how destructive that's been to sports programs and men's opportunities in general. And, of course, Title IX is certainly one reason for the decline of men on campus.

    You could also look at the numbers of whose being hired after college, and see if there's an imbalance there. In this economic downturn (and even before) I suspect that many men want to get a paying job right out of high school, while many women attend college with no intention to use their degree, but rather to just to fill time until they find a man they can live with and get married.

  • Fewer Men or More Women?
  • Posted by J on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • "It is the result of a leveling of the playing field that has been going on for the last half century; to wit, when females are not discriminated against, they prove to be the superior students and intellects"

    I'd be more inclined to buy that argument if women dominated fields where academic excellence can be objectively measured, like engineering or physical science. Still, I have a sneaking suspicion you're right that there isn't really a problem here. There hasn't been, at least based on the data I can find, a reduction in the number of men going to college, just a large increase in the number of women. The article laments male participation in a lot of activities (campus leadership positions, study abroad, humanities/social science majors) many male students consider a collossal waste of time. I'm not convinced there's any loss there.

    There's no question that the campus is a somewhat hostile environment for men:

    "Edwards and Harris also recommended providing opportunities for critical self-reflection about what it means to be a man – “to disrupt the functioning of hegemonic masculinity” – including through facilitated student affairs programming and academic courses (a course in women’s studies, for instance)."

    Is that some sort of parody of academic thinking?

  • Posted by Rich on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • For many men today, the college campus amounts to a hostile environment. They are guilty until proven innocent and awash in politically correct BS. Just look at what the Duke lacrosse team went through.

    If you treat a group of people in a consistently hostile manner, why are you surprised when they stop showing up?

  • Gender normative queer theory.
  • Posted by An Oppressed Oppressor on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • I refuse to stand for this patricarchal gender normative anti-queer theory fascism!

    Seriously, do you people even listen to yourselves? This may be why you're spending your lives trying to justify your inadequacies for $50,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime, while MEN go out and make this a better world.

  • Posted by tom swift on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Now that we've turned all our schools into the functional equivalent of girls' schools, it seems disingenuous to feign surprise when we find that the boys are neither interested not particularly well suited to study whatever-it-is that's being taught there now.

  • Not Lost
  • Posted by Korla Pundit on May 24, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • Men are more likely to be conservative, toward which modern academic life is intolerant and unwelcoming. Women are more likely to be liberal, and they eat up the "Feminism in the Marxist Dialectic" crap offered at universities today in lieu of anything actually useful, like for example, job skills. Men are also more likely to have realized by now that a college degree is worth almost nothing, and "higher" education is largely a waste of time, when instead you could already be starting a business or getting a . . . dare I say it: job?

  • Why do "real men" whine so much?
  • Posted by Michael McIntyre , Associate Professor, International Studies at DePaul University on May 25, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • Yes, the pale liberalism of the modern university has a number of problems, chief among them, in my view, that high grades are routinely handed out for almost no effort. At my school, the average grade is a B+, and the average student studies about two hours per week per class (three if we're being very generous). But over 60% of the students in my program's courses study 6 or more hours per week. So we've beaten back the tide of liberal condescension and the myth that all children are above average. But you know what? Women have still won the outstanding senior award for 15 years in a row. Each year, I hope that this will be the year a guy finally wins, but so far none have measured up. Now I know why. Men have now imbibed the victim ideology of the anti-pc crowd. They whine about the resident life classes. And they stop trying. Well, boys, it's time to wean yourself from the right-wing whine machine. You know why women are kicking your asses? They work harder than you do!

  • Posted by Ken Hahn on May 25, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • We sink billions of dollars into higher education in this country and produce an academic environment dominated by radical feminists and other far left extremists. Political correctness is valued over history and membership in an "oppressed" group is valued over ability. Men are leaving the colleges and universities because they are unwelcome by the academic power structure. No better example of modern academic thinking can be found than the Duke "rape" scandal. The university administration behaved unethically and illegally in support of a totally corrupt rogue prosecutor and a mentally and morally disturbed young woman. The only evidence in the "case" was the racial and gender prejudice of Mr Nifong and his academic enablers. 

    Any male who contributes financially to todays academia is insane. And any male who contributes intellectually is castrated. For the whiny male feminists, I have total contempt. You'd rather be women but are too gutless to even admit that. Academia is a wasteland where any deviation from the approved political position is punished. 

    With the economic downturn, the graduates of trade schools have better jobs that the graduates of universities. Maybe, we'll finally realize that academics are overpaid and, more importantly, overvalued. 

  • The swinging pendulum
  • Posted by Angry White Male on May 25, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • "Edwards and Harris also recommended providing opportunities for critical self-reflection about what it means to be a man – “to disrupt the functioning of hegemonic masculinity” – including through facilitated student affairs programming and academic courses (a course in women’s studies, for instance)."

    One has to wonder how one can make such a statement and then ask "Now why is it there are less males on campus?"

    The answer to why males are less represented on campus is simple. For the last 50 years there has been a tremendous effort in our culture to get more women on campus. Everybody from the Government [TItle IX] to dad at home encouraging his daughter to go to college. Focused attention produces results.

    And now we are shocked, shocked to learn that our focused attention has produced results. We pushed the pendulum but did not ever provide any resistance to keep it from swinging to far to the other side. The only thing that will stop it, is a focused attention on getting males back to college. Now the key will be, to provide the right amount of resistance so we don't swing back to a male dominated campus, but one that is gender balanced.

  • Where have the men gone?
  • Posted by Don Meaker , Parent at Several on May 25, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • So, instead of complaining about men committing rape, why not permit women, or men for that matter, to defend themselves with guns? I blame the people who have disarmed students for setting up an environment where violent people have little to fear from the honest people. Where men would protect women, they are reviled as misanthropes or paternalists. Where men do not protect women, they are reviled as being enablers.

    Who would want to play your silly games? I have enough trouble with the foolishness at work.

  • Institutionalized sexism and racism
  • Posted by Mame on May 25, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • It's there on campus, right in front of anybody who wishes to see it. I just spent a year visiting campuses with my son, a high school senior. Campuses that require freshmen to live in dorms offer all-female dorms but not all-male dorms. When I asked why, I was told "Guys don't want all-guy dorms." I wonder who is basing these assumptions on what studies? Some men want quiet places to study and retreat to, just as women do, but do the universities care about that? Campuses have Women's Centers, but no Men's Centers. One female student tour guide told us her campus's Women's Center offered free massages to women students during finals weeks--"Sorry, guys," she joked to us. As the mother of a son I did not find that amusing, or even respectful. If campuses are this blatent and careless in their anti-male discrimination even to the students they attempt to recruit, what are they like when they have these men enrolled and in their clutches? And don't even get me started on the dirty little open secret of institutionalized racism against Asian-Americans in the U.S. education system. Clearly within some institutions in the U.S. "some animals are more equal than others" and higher education is at the forefront of perpetuating this offensive and immoral proposition.

    I was the first in my family to attain a college degree, thanks to winning scholarships. I believe fervently in higher education, the liberal arts, and academic achievement as they existed 30 years ago, and have raised my children to follow. Now as my son has his scholarship in hand ready to go off to college, I suspect he will soon be one of the dinosaurs, the last generation of kids to attend a traditional four-year university campus. I am not sure if we had to pay for his college education we would do so (but the scholarship reduces our costs and risks). Already the process he's about to embark upon seems clunky and less than optimal, and hanging around a campus rife with political correctness for four years seems like a drag. Better and more innovative higher education alternatives are coming, and soon, I hope. Currently campuses are no longer what they used to be, or should be, and as the comments here reveal, the cat is out of the bag--lots of Americans know it.

  • Posted by Bilgeman on May 25, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Didn't attend college.
    Didn't feel particularly wanted, and didn't feel particularly welcome.
    Why should I have put myself tens of thousands of dollars into debt to try paying off from an entry-level salary, for the privilege of listening to people whine and snivel about how tough they had it and how it was all white straight Christian men's fault? Not to mention putting up with a bunch of teenagers getting drunk and doing drugs?
    Is that any kind of environment conducive to learning anything useful?

    So now these parasites have found something else to whine about...not enough males on campus.(Or more pointedly, not enough tuition and fees that those unwanted men represent).
    And you want to know WHY?

    Look in the mirror...listen to yourselves.

    I have FAR better things to do than sit in a "Women's Studies" class.(The people who floated that as a solution to the dearth of men on campus should vigorously flogged with a length of garden hose...seriously. That recommendation is so stoopid as to beggar belief.).

    Do you people REALLY expect me to have paid for THAT?

    And what's the payoff? What's the starting salary differential that justifies the wager?

    Let me drop some wisdom on you folks...in a city full of nothing but lawyers and accountants, the only plumber will be the richest guy in town.

    Methinks the salad days of unquestioned subsidies to higher education are coming to an end.
    No value in too much of what you're teaching, how you're teaching it, and the environment you've created to teach it in.

    But don't listen to me...I was at least 50 grand in a "sale" that never even walked into your showroom.
    Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns" and all that.

  • Growth Attributes
  • Posted by Budahmon at Parent on May 25, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • This has been an interesting discussion, but it descended into a discussion of political correctness between gender identity...My thoughts on the matter maybe that boys and girls while in middle and high school are being affected by growth rate and thus it is a physical difference that affects boys much more so than girls. The physical reaction of the body to growth is much more pronounced in boys than girls and last, on average, over a much longer period of time in adolescence. This actually changes the learning curve for boys, affecting their cognitive ability during adolescence. During periods of physical growth, i.e. bones lengthening, the body actually drives the brain to sleep. The body cannot grow while awake and in a standing position, it must be at rest and asleep. Thus, what we see with girls outperforming boys during their adolescence at school may be based upon physical reactions to growth. Girls mature faster and earlier than boys due to the growth rate. Just my thoughts on the matter.

  • Maleness is the problem
  • Posted by DADvocate on May 25, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Reading the article, one easily sees the problem - that males are male. Virtually all the discussed "solutions" focus on masculinity as a problem and if the guys could just find their inner femininity.

    The educational system is hostile towards boys from start to finish. Boys don't like to sit still and are more likely to challenge the teacher's/professor's knowledge and logic. So far the people at this conference have come up with ways to perpetuate the problem.

  • Men and the University
  • Posted by Dennis on May 25, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I could solve the lack of men enrolled in colleges and universities right now. The first and only thing I would do is have the availability for all male schools at all levels. This should present no problem because as feminists and many of the commenter s have mentioned how intelligent women are in comparison to men so that in itself should not worry anyone. Though I suspect that feminists would howl sex discrimination because they have to keep men at a disadvantage in feminists run hell holes. I do not believe even feminists believe men lack the intellectual skills to compete. They just need a way to deter men as much as possible so that women can compete. It is one of the reasons that Men will never be allowed Men s Studies or the equivalent of what is available to women on campus.
    What say feminists all, why not allow men to be taught in separate schools for you are so intelligent that nothing men could learn or do would be a challenge to you? I suspect it will be a cold day in HELL before that happens for all of the obvious reasons. It might even be a cold day in HELL before this approval.

  • Whining?
  • Posted by Arie Korving at Michigan Tech on May 25, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • In addition to the inanity exhibited in the article, we have to put up with the typical liberal accusation that labels any pushback as “whining.”

     

    This is per Michael McIntyre , Associate Professor, International Studies at DePaul University. With your thumb on the scale and you on the faculty we know why no man has won your indoctrination center’s outstanding senior award.

     

    Go to the DePaul website and the home page shows 2 women and metro sexual. DePaul brags to us about its diversity. Its commitment to social justice (do we need to tell you what that means white boys?) Going to the studies list at DePaul we find the first three are accountancy, acting and Africa and Black Diaspora Studies.

     

    Oh yeah. That’s the school for my grandkids. Because DePaul says “We’ve been ranked number one in student happiness and diversity.” It just doesn’t get any better than that.

  • what a bunch of drivel.
  • Posted by Dadofhomeschoolers on May 25, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • The above is the reason so many of us homeschool. If my son wants to take a break and run around the block, that's ok. If the truant officer doesnt pick him up. No pc rubbish, deep study of history, no "women's studies".

    People, people, this isn't about what and who is in college. It's about, and has always been about, WHO'S IN CHARGE. Who gets to say "you succeed" and "you fail". All the politically correct newspeak is designed to obscure that point. The bad thing about not enough men on campus is about the ones we are not controlling.

    Higher education is the next bubble, just like technology, just like housing.

  • Posted by Penny on May 25, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • If male students were able to "just be themselves" what would they be?

    The idea that an adolescent can be anything without feeling fraudulent denies the task of adolescence, to define oneself. Instead, some commenters appeal to an inherent maleness that is somehow being denied (stifled), during K-12 education and college.

    A theme of literature is that the students at all-male privileged boys schools are timid, bookish, given to homosexual attachments and need to be coaxed into creativity and boldness. Hardless the stereotype of maleness some readers here seem to think would emerge if girls weren't around. But it is the image of intellectualism and scholarship as effete, feminine pursuits. And it predates today's movement to include women in education.

    It may be true that without sports and banned from pursuits that reinforce masculinity (such as date-rape and beer pong), college men do not know how to reject the negative stereotype of intellectualism while still acquiring the benefits of education. That fault lies with our culture, one that defines engineering as manly because it builds things, while philosophy is girlish because it produces nothing but a sane, principled and ethical world.

    Change is hard. Multi-culturalism and feminism aren't the issues -- anti-intellectualism is. Boys cannot have it both ways. If you are going to become educated you have to value learning. I think Jack London's Martin Eden should be required reading for educators and students alike.

    By the way, in a service economy, most jobs are filled by people from the social sciences and humanities because they teach students how to interact with other people without violence or racism. It doesn't surprise me at all that this job training is not valued by so many commenters here. Do you really want police officers without negotiating skills, who think the best way to resolve conflict is to beat heads? If so, send them to MP school instead of local college for a psychology degree.

  • Posted by Money Talks on May 25, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • These comments reveal that many of us know what is happening on campus but what can be done? These are tough times with less funding to go around. Until higher ed welcomes males it deserves a disproportionate share of state funding cuts and decreases in philanthropic donations. This already appears to be happening but we need to accelerate the trend.

  • Posted by Arie Korving on May 25, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Penny believes: By the way, in a service economy, most jobs are filled by people from the social sciences and humanities because they teach students how to interact with other people without violence or racism.

    In a service economy many jobs are filled with people from the social sciences and humanities because they are cheaper and the jobs require less intellectual rigor. Can you say "do you want fries with that?" That's why the cashier's keys at McDonald's have pictures of the order, so that the social science majors can give the correct change. If you want to confuse the social sciences graduates, give them an extra penny with your order and see if they can make the proper change.

  • Mishmash
  • Posted by Oldfrt , Retired JD/ChE on May 25, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Seems to me that the answer might lie in mismash of so-called "College level" courses being offered. Take any college catalog and count the courses by category. Math and science are few and far between...we no longer require basic math for the first years of college. Count the enrollment in the various schools...how many English majors and polisci majors do we really need? Where are the jobs for these people? My brother-in-law got his degree in History...had to develop computer and accounting skills to get a job.

     

    And who is it that the soft courses enroll?

     

    We need to rethink the number of colleges and the number of courses. We have ended up with a lot of people who are not truly college material trying to get college degrees...and this requires a lot of people who have no business teaching at that level in order to provide professors for the classes.

     

    We need seriously to downsize.

  • Men continues to flourish ...
  • Posted by Cato on May 25, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • .....at Schools that still emphasize traditional masculinity; there you will find plenty of men....

    There are still a few colleges that, though they are no longer exclusively male, still emphasize the traditional male virtues and masculinity: the federal service academies (West Point, Annapolis, Air Force, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine) and most of the senior military colleges (VMI, Citadel, Norwich, and North Georgia State remain entirely (VMI, Citadel) or mostly (Norwich, NGS) military -- Texas A&M and VPI still have cadet corps but they are a very small part of the universities).

    At these colleges, the vast majority of the student body remains male, and the tolerance for male-bashing and political correctness remains low, in large measure because a large percentage of the graduates will be commissioned as officers, many of whom will spend time in the combat arms - where the traditional male virtues and masculinity are a necessity, not a luxury.

    One might suggest that men looking for colleges where they will not be subjected to a hostile atmosphere seriously consider these colleges, and administrators who are serious about understanding why men are so unhappy at most liberal arts colleges and universities take a hard look at the general atmosphere at the military colleges to see what they do differently: life is considerably more spartan, there is extensive intensive physical training and sports, personal responsibility is emphasized, and traditional values, honor and courage are not only not disparaged, but actively encouraged.

  • Posted on May 25, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I am a rising senior in high school. I am not overly terrified by the loss of men at college campuses. All that means to me is a greater selection of hot chicks. I don't care about PC bullcrap, I'm a guy, I can take it. It's a price I'll have to pay, but it will be worth it.

  • Fatally Flawed 'Research'
  • Posted by Chuck Pelto on May 25, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • TO: All
    RE: The 'Research'

    What? They did focus groups at one place on the East Coast and another on the West? Nothing from the Mid-West or Mountains?

    There's the FIRST fatal flaw.

    Then they ask questions like, about "hegemonic masculinity"? Leading questions like any push-poll?

    There's the SECOND fatal flaw.

    Then we have the fact, that I mentioned earlier—as an addendum to the post that did't quite make it through 'moderation' on this 'open discussion'

    If these 'researchers' REALLY wanted to find out why men are not going to college after high school....

    ....maybe they should ask THEM questions. Not questioning the ones who ARE going to college.

    That's the THIRD fatal flaw.

    This isn't research. A self-fulfilling survey for political correctness sake. And nothing else.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Where have all the young men gone?
    Long-time passing.
    Where have all the young men gone?
    Long-time agoooooo.
    Where have all the young men gone?
    Not to college anymore.
    When will we every learn?
    When will we every learn? -- Joanie Mitchell (paraphrased)]

  • Response to Penny
  • Posted by Paul Manner, MD on May 25, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Penny notes, "By the way, in a service economy, most jobs are filled by people from the social sciences and humanities because they teach students how to interact with other people without violence or racism."

    Right.  I'm sure there are tons of engineering students right now, thinking, "OK, I passed Thermo, I passed Linear Algebra,  but there's just no way I'll be able to interact with other people without "Hip Hop and Critical Citizenship," or "Earth Science and Environmental Justice," or "Queer Alphabets," so I guess I can't get that job at Initech."  (all real courses, BTW)

    No offense, Penny, but if that's what you call intellectualism, count me out.  I would put it to you that you are the true anti-intellectual; the students in the humanities and social sciences are the ones without a grounding in their own civilization, whether from their lack of knowledge of Enlightenment thinking, their lack of understanding of the physical sciences, or their lack of comprehension of basic economics.  And they are being cheated if they're told that their "Ed-Lite" is a real education. 

    Oh, and if I'm hiring?  Damn right I'll take the vet who served as an MP, and didn't bother with the psychology degree.  That way, I'll know my employee shows up on time, follows directions, and puts in a day's work.  You want to apply your "philosophy" to crooks?  Good.  When you're the chief, you can channel your inner John Locke.

    I won't bother with the "date rape" slander, other than to point out that the 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 declared that any Title IV-eligible school must publish an annual report detailing, among other things, crime statistics.  And just looking at the figures, in 2006, the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (enrollment 27,429) reported zero forcible sex offenses, and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (enrollment 28,356), had four, for example.  Another one of those things that everyone knows, that just isn't true.

  • Posted by MnZ on May 25, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Why is there absolutely no mention made of young women's role in this problem? Hasn't it occurred to anyone that perhaps the most important determinant in the behavior of young men is the expectations of young women? I am young enough to remember that many young women wanted a good looking guy to take them to the cool parties, a guy to pay for expensive trips and gifts, or a athletic guy that was in really good shape. Certainly, there were some women that put value on an intelligent, well-read man, but those young women were not the majority. A young man was much better off being connected to the cool parties, spending money on clothes and gifts, and working out than hitting the books.

    Wouldn't it be a good use of resources to make young women engage in critical self-reflection about the type of men they seek to date?

  • WHiny???
  • Posted by pep , Dr at Federal Lab on May 25, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • So, in your opinion, those who refuse to play a game with loaded dice are whining? Is the feminist mewling I have had to listen to for decades whining too? I see a lot more overt discrimination against men than I have ever seen against women. What a pity that your ideology blinds you to the main source of the problem. If you don't understand that, then you can't solve it.

    btw, I have 4 highly academically successful daughters, and I am very worried about these trends because I want them to be able to find compatible mates.

  • Posted by Penny on May 25, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Aside from the silly sexual stereotypes, I see some mistakes about math and the social sciences. We require two courses, one lower division and one upper division, in statistics for psych majors. Several Univ of CA campuses require a year of calculus or a year of statistics.

    Service occupations for college graduates include jobs in policing ($50,000-90,000 depending on education, to start), jobs in probation, family services, juvenile justice, campus academic services, places like the DMV and other bureaucracies (where you'd better hope people are more efficient than you claim). They also include teaching, coaching, human resources, advertising and PR, market research, professional child care, corporate training, and non-master's level counseling (such as in jobs programs, weight loss and drug addiction, working with autistic and mentally disabled), staff in a variety of care facilities, all those people behind counters when you have a problem you want handled properly, and so on. These are not "fries with that" occupations. They require patience, compassion, and interpersonal skills that don't necessarily come naturally.

    Some of our psych grads are hired by Kaiser Permanente to do statistics. This isn't your father's "soft" science any more.

    Engineers do not automatically lack social skills, but neither do they gain them in their courses. Although one of my colleagues jokes about teaching his students not to look at their shoes so much when interacting with others.

    It is easy to devalue the skills one lacks. There is no reason why someone should denigrate the strengths of women in order to attract men to college. Having them doesn't make you female any more than reading a book or liking music makes a boy gay (the lingering fear of the blue collar father).

    Those stats on rape are for violent crimes (e.g., stranger rape), not acquaintance (date) rape that does not involve force. Knowing how to manipulate numbers is useless if you cannot interpret them properly.

  • Chuck Pelto
  • Posted by sestamibi , Critical Queer Studies at Lagado University on May 25, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Chuck--

    First of all, it's Joni, not Joanie Mitchell. Second, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" was written by the execrable 90-year old Pete Seeger and popularized by Peter, Paul & Mary.

    To the HS senior who thinks he'll have a huge selection of hot chicks from which to choose: lots of luck, kid. While the numbers are decidedly in your favor, the politics are not. The first one of those hot chicks that turns on you will have the weight of the entire school administration on her side (even if she's lying through her teeth), not to mention that of the local law enforcement authorities.

    And that is the whole point. All the critics here have described the situation as it exists quite correctly, but not the reason motivating it. All of this is by design to create a society in which feminists rule, men are discarded, marriage exists only for same-sex couples, and babies are produced (when they ARE produced) by artificial insemination.

    This is clearly not, to use a fashionable word, sustainable. Philip Longman has already explained why:

    http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy

     

     

     

     

  • 2nd response to Penny
  • Posted by Paul Manner, MD on May 26, 2009 at 4:30am EDT
  • "Aside from the silly sexual stereotypes, I see some mistakes about math and the social sciences. We require two courses, one lower division and one upper division, in statistics for psych majors. Several Univ of CA campuses require a year of calculus or a year of statistics."

    Penny, you're the one who attributed date rape and beer pong to men.  So any silly sexual stereotypes are coming from your end, not mine.  I'm glad to see that your institution, wherever it may be, believes it appropriate to teach some math.  How nice.  

    "It is easy to devalue the skills one lacks. There is no reason why someone should denigrate the strengths of women in order to attract men to college."  I could easily ask why you feel it necessary to denigrate the strengths of men in order to attract women, but it's clear that self-awareness is not your strong suit.  Your initial post was pretty clear, and there wasn't much there to validate the idea that you believe that men have much to contribute.

    Lastly, your info on on-campus crime is just flat out wrong.  The info is from http://ope.ed.gov/security/, run by the Department of Education.  The definitions are very clear, and don't differentiate between known and unknown assailants.  Look it up.

  • Another response to Penny
  • Posted by Cato on May 26, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • It's telling that virtually all of the jobs Penny describes as filled by her new style humanities and liberal arts graduates are essentially make-work jobs in the public sector or the "helping professions." With the exception of actual police work - which is primarily done by those much more in tune with the traditional male virtues and masculinity - these are jobs which didn't exist to any large degree even 75 years ago, or were performed perfectly adequately by those with traditional liberal arts educations before the arrival of the politically correct leftist wrecking crew. One wonders the extent to which these jobs were created to find employment for the otherwise unemployable rather than to meet any truly pressing needs.

    It is a remarkably inconvenient fact for Penny and her ilk that civilizations (both Asian and Western) flourished remarkably well for several thousand years with traditional notions of male virtue and masculinity. The war on men we see today is a reductio ad absurdam where literal non sense has replaced thought and reason has fled in the face of emotion. But the girls feel good about it. The verneer of civilization is thin, and all of this would last about a week in the face of any significant disruption of the easy lives these women and academics live. In the face of civil unrest, shortages of food, shelter or fuel, or even simply crime rampant on the scale of South Africa, they would be running for the protection of traditionally masculine men, the rough men with guns and the ability to use them.

    In fact, most women are, as others have pointed out, looking for men who are fit, athletic, sociable, and attractive rather than intellectuals. All of those qualities are the ones that genetics researchers suggest have higher long term survival potential and are probably hardwired into human nature. Likewise, the traits of attractiveness, nurturing, and amiability that most men look for may 'signal' better genetic fitness. I'm by no means convinced by the genetic arguments, but they are certainly more plausible than some sort of male conspiracy to subjugate women.

    As to Penny's comment that We require two courses, one lower division and one upper division, in statistics for psych majors. Several Univ of CA campuses require a year of calculus or a year of statistic, as the holder of several University of California degrees, I'm astonished that there are UC campuses that do not require every undergraduate to take a year of calculus. Well, that was another time, I suppose.

  • Pep: Blindness and Insight
  • Posted by Andrew on May 26, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • "I see a lot more overt discrimination against men than I have ever seen against women."

    I respect your experience and your perspective. Maybe we all see what we see and are blind to the rest unless, through further learning, we enlarge our vision. We remain true to who we are precisely through such enlargement of vision.

    Another commentator alludes to Philip Longman and "sustainability." There's always been much, much more to survival than mere competition: namely inter-species and inter-tribal cooperation. Otherwise, humans are long extinct. See Alfie Kohn's No Contest: The Case against Competition." See Natalie Angier, "Men, Women, Sex and Darwin" in which she is critiquing "Hard Core" Evolutionary Psychology with numerous ah! counterexamples!

    Longman does credit capitalism, though, as being anti-conservative, a crucial insight. So do we abolish money and drive everyone back into the countryside like the Khmer Rouge? Do we build a cooperative, democratic economic system beyond capitalism/Communism predicated on gender equity, nurturing children and maximizing everyone's talents?

    What true education amounts to is looking at multiple narratives and trying to get our minds around all the mind-boggling contradictions. Like the one, for example, about what traits potential mates are attracted to. Don't know what circles some of you've been running in but women and men throughout society appear to me quite variously attracted to poets, intellectuals, philosophers and sensitive, contemplative souls.(Such groups seem always to have been necessary to temper the warrior class, lest, again, extinction.) Ever hear of bio-diversity?(The good MD surely knows his bacteria.) What of socio-diversity? The Buddhist concept of Interbeing? Diversity and interbeing are also key to survival, paradoxically enough (much as fear--too often irrational fear--leads us to construct and police boundaries.) To see biology or culture only in limited terms is not very objective: it's political. Of course, Women's Studies also are political, admittedly so. Democracy is political! What do you know? Yes, as has been insighfully put forth here, each of the many feminisms indeed have their own blindnesses. As an educator I'm interested in all the blindnesses and insights I can discover. Note: "insight" does not have to mean "conclusion." Neither does "blindness."

    Patriarchal education systems have, of course, always been about Men's Studies. They just weren't called that. Hence Women's Studies emerged for balance and to fill many gaps in human reasoning.

    By the way, Google "Men's Studies." They are legion. And rightfully so. I, for one, see a lot of overt discrimination against both men and women. But that brings up a whole 'nother topic full of blindness and insight: capitalist economics and capitalist culture.

  • Sexual stereotypes and bigotry
  • Posted by colorless.blue.ideas on May 26, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Penny, I somewhat straddle the two worlds of the arts and the
    sciences -- my undergrad major was linguistics, while my doctorate is in physics, and I'm currently employed with numerous engineers -- so I'm moderately well acquainted with the average and variety of math capabilities of those in the humanities and soft sciences, as well as the diversity of interpersonal skills represented within engineering and the hard sciences.

    I think you have quite correctly pointed out that some -- many --
    service jobs are more than low-paid, unskilled, entry-level positions. That needed to said.

    You also indicated in your 8:45PM/25May post a desire to avoid "silly sexual stereotypes". I fully agree. Yet, in an earlier post
    [10:45AM/25May] you wrote about college men being banned from
    "pursuits that reinforce masculinity (such as date-rape and beer
    pong)". This, while not really 'silly', is such a false sexual
    stereotype that it's presence ought not be overlooked. Upon
    reflection, I thought of the following possible reasons for you
    to have written it.

    1. An attempt at humor. If so, it was a very lame
      attempt that gives rise to another observation. Given the
      sexist stereotypes involved, and the hurtful nature of the
      accusation, why did you believe it acceptable humor in a public list. Do you regularly socialize with people who find that sort of crude jest to be acceptable? Has their own crudeness rubbed off onto you? If so, you might consider reevaluating your social network. It is well known that teenagers are heavily influenced by their associates: adults also have that tendency.
    2. A 'tit-for-tat' response to other commenters. Some of the other comments have utilized other insulting stereotypes, to be
      sure. Yet these others have generally not posed themselves as voices of intellectual reason or champions of 'intellectualism' (to use your term). That doesn't excuse them at all. Even less so are you excused, as an 'intellectual', from such crude and bigoted words.
    3. Which leads to a third possible reason -- one which I hope is not the case, but needs to be noted in order to examine all possibilities. Perhaps the bigotry of the statement is an indication of some deeper-held prejudice. If so -- and I am not saying it is -- the exposure of that bigotry may be the first step in overcoming it.

    As you said, Penny, "It is easy to devalue the skills one lacks.
    There is no reason why someone should denigrate the strengths of women in order to attract men to college." The analogue is also true: there is no reason why someone should denigrate the strengths of men in order to attract women to college.

    The original article addresses a problem which, while perhaps
    peripheral to other discussions on higher education, has some
    importance in its own right. I think that a comparison of the
    original article to the comments indicates a rather isolated
    and parochial nature of many of those gathered for the 2nd
    Conference on College Men. There appears to be little
    introspection and self-criticism amongst those involved, to
    evaluate the extent to which they are part of the problem, and
    not the solution.

  • My Son Just Said "No".
  • Posted by Jay on May 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • My son just sat down with his mother and me two weeks ago. He informed us that he won't be going to college in the fall, but instead will be taking both core courses from the local community college and courses leading to internet security certifications from a technical school downtown.

    As his mother and I both have graduate degrees (MSEng/MSW), we were both very surprised, as this was not the path we had been building. I'm sure that he found our initial reactions to this new plan to be firmly in the "Less Than Totally Supportive" category.

    Both his HS grades and SAT/ACT scores are very solid. He was accepted at four of his top five choices. He seemed very pleased when he made his final decision.

    When asked, he replied that the tide turned for him when discussing college life with several of his friends (male, Anglo, hetero, generally $125k-$200k annual family income) who were finishing their freshman years. The feedback was not positive, and to the degree that we asked them over to talk about it with us too.

    Four young men came over to our house on a Sunday afternoon. We've known three of them for at least five years, and the fourth since he moved to town in our son's sophomore year. Two graduated from the "Excellent"-rated high school our son attends. Two graduated from a "Recognized"-rated high school in the next town. Three of the four were in the top 10% of their HS classes, and the fourth "around 15%". They attend three separate four-year universities in the midwest (1), the south (2), and the east (1).

    Their narrative of their freshman experiences were very similar in many aspects: required sexual assault prevention classes; required gender and racial sensitivity seminars; and long list of support structures available for every group - except them.

    One of the four boys recounted his error in truthfully answering a question in a "Campus Safety Issues" seminar. His response that physically defending yourself against violence was proper led to his instant scapegoating by the "seminar leader" as an example of the wrong-thinking that made the campus unsafe for everyone else.

    Another of the four made a grave error by raising his hand when his professor in Intro to Sociology asked if there were any Eagle Scouts present. Big mistake. After being regularly harassed and made the butt of "neo-fascist" comments, he ended up dropping the class.

    All four of these young men boiled down the issue to the basic premise that the change from an environment in which they were respected and applauded for their individual efforts and achievements into environments in which they were the "Designated Assholes" (their collective term) for everything perceived to be wrong with the campus/country/world was pretty shocking.

    As I wrote earlier, I know these young men. They are intelligent, accomplished, and have already demonstrated their leadership abilities in various roles. I have worked with all four of them on public service projects (for which they were not required to volunteer). Two were peer counselors. These are not young men who should fall into anybody's definition of "problem".

    I find myself unwilling to force my son into a similar situation, as the university he picked was the private university in the south that two of the four attended.

    Maybe he's making a mistake. I don't know.

    I do know that blindly branding ANY group of people as the "Designated Assholes" will discourage future people of the same group from wanting to follow in their footsteps.

  • predetermined conclusions
  • Posted by Gypsy Boots on May 26, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Edwards' and Harris' sample was far too small, and their main question far too generalized, to permit them any valid conclusions about anything, certainly not "men". They offer no factual or statistical support for any of the sweeping, unprovable (and undisprovable) assertions made by them. (Watch: their supporters will claim I'm being "hegemonically masculinist" for insisting on facts instead of sweeping attitudes.)
    Did they look at admissions practices and criteria, or at males in primary and secondary schools, to find out why makes are coming to college in lesser numbers? Apparently not. It's all about males' self-image for them.
    That may have been the point, since their conclusions sound like they were well in place long before the study took place. Those conclusions sound like standard education-major / homosexualist narratives about how "rigid" hetereosexual men "deny who they are" (a code phrase). Easy enough to do such "studies" and list them on your vita, but of no value whatsoever except as a notch on yoru vita.
    Can education majors do anything else but substitue shrill attitude, political conformity, and poorly reasoned ideology and invective for knowledge, facts, and reason? How long can American higher education tolerate the diversion of resources into education majors?
    For one possible partial explanation of why men are less seen on college campuses, read Matthew B. Crawford, Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work.

  • Jay - try some other schools....
  • Posted by Cato on May 26, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Jay, encourage your son to apply to a few other schools that aren't full of pc - well-rated examples (in the South, as that's where he was going to go) include Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel. On the USNews list, VMI is the #3 public liberal arts college in the country (after West Point and Annapolis) and #71 overall.

  • the impact of gender wars on higher ed funding
  • Posted by Scooby , Father at CC on May 26, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • As a father whose son has also chosen a community college in spite of a SAT score of 1240, I read the article and comments with interest. Young men see higher ed as a racket designed to incur serious debt loads without giving them the education to succeed in today's recessionary environment. In spite of an adequate college fund, my son refused to spedn more money going to an university. Why pay for incredible private school rates or even state university tuition when community colleges offer a less hostile environment (along with the hot babes one of commentators noted).

    My work has me travelling to colleges and universities and I see daily the reality of too few men at universities. The 57-43 ration of women to men is disturbing to all of us who want an "equitable" society.

    If you think state funding of higher education is bad now, just wait until the ratio hits 60-40 and the girls start choosing to go where the men can be found. That's right...community colleges. Expect to see universities wither and community colleges flourish and adapt to meet their students' need.

    Is anyone at the state universities noticing how many bachelor programs are being offered at previously 2 yr institutions? Figure it out before you become obsolete.

  • Seeking Understanding
  • Posted by Jed Leland on May 26, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I can dig it: No one wants to be scapegoated. Most responders are understandably insulted at the phrase "hegemonic masculinity" (meaning, I suppose masculinity defined in one way only).

    The findings of these "social scientists," though, was that, overwhelmingly, instances of negative behavior, violence, drugs, underachievment on campus was that of males, a small minority, to be sure, but a growing problem to be addressed by the larger community, hopefully without putting all white males, especially, under surveilance, as in racial profiling. The study accounted for this as males experiencing unbearable external pressure to be "masculine." They are bottling up feelings and sneaking behind peer groups' backs to study, to "get by" without really trying, thus subverting their own educations in exchange for appearing to be cool in the here and now.

    Sure, the study is flawed, and that's not the only interpretation. Much better ones have been offered here. But the peer group of males who influenced the above young man's decision not to attend a traditional university complained of support groups on campus for everyone except them. That seems to corroborate the study, at least in part (i.e. opportunities to present one's own perspective and explore feelings about campus pressures and to be listened to without automatic rejoinders like "you're wrong!").

    But one answer I'm hearing in this discussion does confuse me: the problem, some aver, is PC-related external pressure on men NOT to be the real men they really are. After all, men are essentially, biologically rugged individualists; they're self reliant. That is, the need for such things as community and exploring feelings is not a human need. It's a female need.

    Is that it?

    Most of the discussion has been about alienating European-American men. But what about an especially underepresented group: African-American men, whose enrollment rate, says the study, is far below that of African-American women? If white men are now the designated assholes, what's alienating black men?

  • Posted by Sib in Texas on May 26, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Sadly... Dr. McIntyre's comments were on track. As a student turned educator, I've seen slackers of both genders, but with the guys having the edge and being less likely to ask for help, such as remedial assistance. My female friends tore their hair out and endlessly edited their theses; my male roommate wrote most of his drunk and watched a lot of "South Park" and "Daily Show". Few male classmates hustled to get a job after graduation, with two of them self-sabotaging opportunities at jobs others would literally kill to be offered.

    The problem of "school not being cool" starts long before college. By that time, girls are in the habit of working harder, it's not just "wired in". My nephews, for example, hate to read and want to play video games all the time.

    I recommend reading Dr. Leonard Sax about what's happening to our nation's boys. Like this article exploring why boys suddenly, as a group, do not like to read: http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6472910.html

    There's a lot of political ranting and anti-female, anti-feminist rhetoric above that rivals the anti-male stuff I had to listen to in college - but ultimately it's playing the victim card.

    It's also obvious from the talking points that several posters were directed here by aggregate sites where feminism is a dirty word and all higher ed is viewed as "bunk". I don't disagree that there's unacceptable politicizing in some quarters of the humanities, but did any of you actually take any technical studies, in which men still predominate? The truth is that a lot of those classes are pretty boring to most people, of either gender - as explained to me by a grad who told me, after working as an engineer for some years, "On my day off I don't even want to deal with this stuff." He was in it for the money.

    So why study something "boring"? Did any of you read Warren Farrell's "Why Men Earn More," in which he notes that men simply are more likely to take higher paying jobs that are either disgusting, boring or dangerous, thus the premium for their labor? I.e. a librarian gets to be warm and be around books; a plumber unplugs toilets. Considering that most people would prefer to work in a library than on toilets, which do YOU think is worth more money? Today, though, as Dr. Sax has written, many young men don't even seem motivated to join lucrative trades like plumbing and electric.

    Many young women, however, have not accepted the reality (or haven't been taught) that they can't bank on their future partner making more money. They are still more likely to get the humanities degrees, which may be enjoyable - but without careful planning, are hard to utilize in the real world.

    (Some of you have proudly stated you have no degree, and loathe the entire culture of higher ed, which makes me wonder why you decided to visit this page?)

    Mame, I'm sorry you didn't look at any schools that have Men's Centers or groups for young men. They're out there. Here's a tip - use Google and Livesearch - http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=men%27s+center+university&form=QBRE finds several on the first page.

    Dennis, you're ignorant of the fine men's schools out there with which private schools like the Seven Sisters have no quarrel. I would be proud if my son attended Deep Springs College. You're confusing the Citadel case, in which the question was whether a public military insitution for women with COMPARABLE facilities existed. The claim was that small Mary Baldwin had comparable facilities to the Citadel, for their small group of women military students. It was found lacking, and thus, the Citadel was opened to women. Personally, I'd rather see one kick-ass military institution for women only, as used to exist with the WACs and other groups in WWII. Then the Citadel and so on can stay all male.

    Jay, I'm sorry those kids had that experience. They sound like fine students, the kind we could all use seeing in our classrooms and hallways.

  • Good For Him
  • Posted by Chuck Pelto on May 26, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • TO: Jay
    RE: Your Son

    <i>My son just sat down with his mother and me two weeks ago. He informed us that he won't be going to college in the fall, but instead will be taking both core courses from the local community college and courses leading to internet security certifications from a technical school downtown.</i> -- Jay

    May I suggest a 'follow-on' program?

    A tour of service in the US Army. [Note: If he has a taste for 'adventure', I recommend going Airborne-Ranger. Or at least Airborne.]

    I say this based on personal experience. As I do believe the stint of service I did between my frosh year in college and my sophomoric year served me VERY WELL. I was more exprienced than my 'contemporaries'....note, I do not say my 'peers'.

    REAL men exude a sense of confidence that women are naturally drawn towards. The problem for these men is recognizing the vipers from the lambs. But that's another 'lesson'.....

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier. -- Samuel Johnson]

  • Some challenges for us educators
  • Posted by dennymack , High School Teacher at high school in Oregon on May 26, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • I have seen two problems that together account for a great deal of the failure of men at to attend and succeed in universities. The first is internal to the young men, the second is environmental.
    The first factor is the frustrating stigma attached to diligence. As a society, at least at the teen pop-culture level, we adore slackers, men who have all the trappings of success without any apparent effort. In middle class schools no one ever says "Don't work, it looks lame." But who do they see as role models? On the local level, the guys the girls all seem fascinated with are the slackers. On TV it's ball players and musicians. They play for a living, and have the most aberrant lifestyles when not performing. Of course, we rarely see the daily practice that made them what they are. What young men absorb is that girls are attracted to apathetic cool kids, so they aspire to that. Doesn't work out so well for them, of course. I bet research would find a positive correlation between male failure and this aesthetic. Having taught at several schools ranging from the low-middle to one of the nations top 50 high schools, I have observed this in action. The lower achieving school had a strong "chill surfer" aspiration. The top flight school had a strong "be cool by outperforming everyone else" aspiration. For a lot of kids, there is no in home male role model, so this observed phenomenon is the totality of their education on what it means to be a man.
    The other factor is external, and it is what I observed at my very liberal West Coast alma mater. The guys I lived with who were more traditional men called it "groovy fascism." The university is not a place of open inquiry where challenging ideas are played against each other in a search for truth. There is a party line that pretty much reflects the thinking of the feminist studies vanguard. Challenging these ideas is treated as a transgression, not an inquiry. Many men hold views at odds with this orthodoxy, and keeping you mouth shut for four years is not an enticing prospect. If you doubt the power of this orthodoxy, recall what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard. He asked an offensive question and it was nearly a career ender. Luckily he was rehabilitated. Try doing the same as an undergrad, instead of the President of our most famous university. This blinkered mindset serves no one, least of all feminist studies. How good are ideas that are never challenged? Not so good, in my experience.
    I still remember trying to get into the course "Modern Masculinity." Only three men showed up, and 35 women. Only one of the guys got in. I am sure they learned a lot about men in the absence of men. This hermeticaly sealed dialogue is what produces solutions to the missing men like "exploring the societal achetypes that reify hegemonic masculinity and a gendered view of academia." Get three regular guys in a room, explain your plan, and it will get a more rigourous review than a chorus of gender studies majors.

  • Posted on May 27, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • MNZ: "I am young enough to remember that many young women wanted a good looking guy to take them to the cool parties, a guy to pay for expensive trips and gifts, or a athletic guy that was in really good shape. Certainly, there were some women that put value on an intelligent, well-read man, but those young women were not the majority. A young man was much better off being connected to the cool parties, spending money on clothes and gifts, and working out than hitting the books.

    Wouldn't it be a good use of resources to make young women engage in critical self-reflection about the type of men they seek to date?"

    So are you suggesting we would be better off if women valued men based on their money and ability to buy expensive gifts, rather than their minds? (Isn't there a word for that? A golddigger?) No thank you. I have dated many men who seemed to think their money and "cool" car made them a catch, but who couldn't string together a thought and who lacked any ability to listen to others. I will stick with intelligent and well-read as my criteria - because I'm not an anti-intellectual. I make money to pay for things for myself just fine because...guess what? I went to college, worked hard, planned a career and am sticking with it. I also have a lovely significant other who is an intelligent, thoughtful man.

  • Posted on May 27, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • A postscript: many of my female friends were assaulted or raped during college, mostly by their boyfriends. The boyfriends were all completely backed up by their male friends and fraternity brothers, and for the most part saw nothing wrong with their actions. Date rape is not a new thing, but it's something that absolutely needs to be made unacceptable and quashed. And to that end I say go ahead and roll out those freshman orientation programs - if they prevent even one incident of date rape, they are well worth it. And they do not have to be threatening to men. The best programs I have seen bring men in as part of the solution, not the problem, by encouraging them to create a climate among their friends where rape and violence are NOT OKAY. I've spent too many nights holding and listening to female friends who were sobbing because the young man they trusted "took advantage of"... or well, let's just say it...raped them.

  • Every Man?
  • Posted by A Man on May 27, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Chuck(le): While I appreciate and admire men AND WOMEN who have themselves seen fit to serve in the military, I don't, as Samuel Johnson says in your quote, think meanly of myself, as a man, for not having done so. Such an "every man" statement must be historically specific?, and does not apply to me. I, myself, in my historical epoch, mistakenly or not, have not seen fit to serve. --A man.

    To Dennymack: I think some feminists can indeed be faulted for addressing public audiences no differently than the way they may talk secretly to each other behind the scenes (to blow off steam). Surely they must know that's bad faith rhetoric and their goal of advancing women's causes will be thus undermined and distorted because others don't share the context. I also think anti-feminists have done their share of distorting feminists' work, i.e., that the very term "feminist" means one who hates men. That shows a woeful ignorance of most feminist projects. On the other hand, there's no substitute for truth telling (as one sees it at the time) and respectful disagreement.

    The remedy for the crisis of masculinity suggested by Edwards and Harris, that men take Women's Studies courses, struck so many as absurd, nay, insulting. Yet that is exactly what I, too, would propose. For unless we men have likewise studied history, literature, science--everything, from women's points of view then we are comparably as ignorant as women were before the 20th century when their education was forbidden or truncated. Women know the other side of that complex equation, human experience. Only by learning very substantially about that side as well can we move on to the next most logical questions. Thus, Larry Summers's modest proposal came off as purely politically motivated, reactionary, or idiotic because he hadn't an accurate clue what gender studies have contributed to human knowledge about the interaction of genetics and culture. Had he known he could very well have raised such a question and influenced new research, only then in a way that was up to speed with the actual science.

    Though it can be uncomfortable for a time, emotionally scary as combat, perhaps, learning to see things from others' points of view is enlightening and liberating, and yes, for men, masuculine-enhancing. Takes courage. That goes for feminists too, who might bear in mind that many young men AND WOMEN these days lack context and need to be brought up to date, patiently and compassionately, on scholarly conversations.

  • The 'Soldier' Think
  • Posted by Chuck Pelto on May 27, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • TO: A Man
    RE: Proper Perspective

    "While I appreciate and admire men AND WOMEN who have themselves seen fit to serve in the military, I don't, as Samuel Johnson says in your quote, think meanly of myself, as a man, for not having done so. Such an "every man" statement must be historically specific?, and does not apply to me. I, myself, in my historical epoch, mistakenly or not, have not seen fit to serve." -- A Man

    Maybe not....yet....

    But I notice later on in your comment that you say....

    "Though it can be uncomfortable for a time, emotionally scary as combat...." -- A Man

    There is something of a difference between feeling 'uncomfortable' and feeling that in the next few seconds your life could be snuffed out.

    What was it Tom Wolf related in his classic The Right Stuff?

    One of the wives of the test pilots relates going to a class reunion. And in there she hears her contemporaries discussing how 'hard' it is for their husbands to be working on Madison Avenue.

    And she thinks to herself, how much harder it is on you when whenever your husband walks into a meeting of the board, there's a one-in-four chance that he won't walk out alive.

    So....

    ....tell me, my 'Man', how many of these 'meetings' you went to actually threatened your very life?

    Hope that helps put thinks into 'perspective'.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [God IS alive.....and airborne-ranger qualified....and so am I....for the moment....]

  • Read the dissident feminists
  • Posted by NW , Professor of Econ at Chapman U. and U. Houston on May 27, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Lost in all this is that dissident feminists have been among the sternest critics of these kinds of studies. Many of these books are now more than a decade old. If you want to read the standard party line stuff coming out of the Ed Departments, make sure to supplement that with one or more of the following, for a contrarian view coming from some women.

    Hoff Sommers, Christine. 2000. The War Against Boys. Taste here:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200005/war-against-boys

    Roiphe, Katie. 1994. The Morning After: Sex Fear and Feminism. For an interesting recent interview and discussion of a more recent book of hers, see:

    http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/07/09/katie_roiphe/

    Happy motoring.

  • Women won't be leaving any time soon....
  • Posted by anon on May 27, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • If you think state funding of higher education is bad now, just wait until the ratio hits 60-40 and the girls start choosing to go where the men can be found. That's right...community colleges. Expect to see universities wither and community colleges flourish and adapt to meet their students' need.

    Just thought I'd point out that most women do not go to college to meet boys and get husbands - we go to get degrees so we can get jobs. If there are fewer men on campus, that's not likely to change women's interest in being there. Frankly, for a lot of us, it makes it more comfortable.

    What I would like to see is a masculinity built on something other than aggression. Can't you be a man without being confrontational and insulting to other people? Is it possible to be a gentle man and still "be a man"? It's strange that while women are now "allowed" to have a diversity of personality types, men are turning on themselves and enforcing a rigid limited way of being male - that in the case of college is stopping men from succeeding.

  • Posted on May 27, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • @Jay
    My brother left Virginia Military Institute because, having survived violent hazing himself with aplomb, he said that he could not bring himself to buy into the kind of violent version of masculinity they espoused (he witnessed a female cadet being kicked on the floor until her ribs broke). He is everything one might describe as "masculine" in build and attitude, but he did not want to be a part of a culture of pointless violence.

    And to the person who said date rape is mere slander - tell it to me and the women I know who were victims, but who didn't report it because nobody would believe us and campus would be a miserable place after reporting. Date rape stats are low because reporting is low. I was an RA for three years and I know because they came to me after the fact, looking for solace and assistance obtaining medical treatment and emergency contraception. But they would not report, because they knew that reporting would mark them as a target for the rest of their time on campus. No, not all men date rape, of course not. And not all date rapists are men - I know women who have forced themselves on men, and it's every bit as bad. But we can't confront a very real problem on campuses unless people admit that it's a problem.

  • To Chuck Pelto
  • Posted by A Man on May 27, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • The point is you don't have to be a man to face death--women do it from combat (Vietnam war) to childbirth in adverse circumstances. It does take a courage which derives from some sort of collective source--self sacrifice for what one believes is a greater good, like trying to protect one's buddies in a firefight. As far as EMOTIONAL courage goes, your example is not parallel to what I was talking about.

    I was perhaps referring to a Native American creation myth. Great Spirit comes to the animals and announces the creation of a wonderful new creature called The People. Great Spirit will give this creature a special Gift. In order for the People to appreciate it, however, Great Spirit must hide the gift in a special place. Does any of the animals have a suggestion?

    The buffalo steps forward: "Hide the gift on the prairie."

    "That's too easy," says the Great Spirit. "The people are someday destined to go there."

    The salmon says, "I know. Hide it deep in the ocean."

    "Too easy. The People are someday destined to go there."

    Then the eagle swoops down: "Put this gift on the moon."

    "The people are someday destined to go there."

    Then a mole comes forward. It is a creature that spends all its time burrowing in the earth. "Put the gift of true wisdom inside the people themselves. Only the wisest and most courageous will look for it there."

    "Good," says the Great Spirit.

    Swift Achilles has just been on the longest crying jag in history, prompted by the death of Patroclos at the hands of Hector. Achilles (at first a consciencious objector--he had bucked for a Section 8--then a sulker in his tent) knows that if re-enters the war, faces and kills Hector he himself must die soon thereafter, according to the prophesy. Yes, he fulfills his talent for warfare by dispatching "My Lord Hector." But then he refuses to give up Hector's body for burial, a cardinal sin. That's how f____ing angry Achilles is, his thirst for vengeance unquenchable. Hector's father, Priam, the Trojan chief, bravely sneaks into the Greek camp to beseech Achilles for the body of his son. Achilles cries and relents. Thus he achieves "arete," which is to say, he finaly, at the end of twelve books, becomes fully human. (Some scholars think The Iliad is an anti-war epic.)

    I sign myself as "A man." A dead Salvadoran guerrila fighter might likewise have signed herself as "A Woman." How many of us, in our lifetimes, could be said to achieve "arete"?

  • I call BS
  • Posted by Cato on May 27, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Someone wrote:
    My brother left Virginia Military Institute because, having survived violent hazing himself with aplomb, he said that he could not bring himself to buy into the kind of violent version of masculinity they espoused (he witnessed a female cadet being kicked on the floor until her ribs broke). He is everything one might describe as "masculine" in build and attitude, but he did not want to be a part of a culture of pointless violence.

    I call Bull Sh** on that claim. Not necessarily that your brother left, but the rib kicking of a female cadet. VMI's Ratline is physically and mentally demanding, but one thing it is not, and has not been since the system was reformed in the late 1920s and early 1930s, is physically violent. Aside from the fact that the Institute officials would have dismissed any cadet who physically assaulted another cadet, the Corps itself does not tolerate physical violence: any cadet who kicked another cadet on the floor until her or his ribs broke would have been punished to the limit of the Executive Committee's authority, which would have included dismissal from the Institute, subject to the Superintendent's approval. Nor could an incident like that have occurred without it having become common knowledge within alumni circles. That's not to say there haven't been problems with the integration of women into the Corps, although fewer than most of us expected, but that just isn't one of them.

  • Just as an 'Aside'....
  • Posted by Chuck Pelto on May 27, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • TO: A Man

    RE: ....WHERE....

    ....in all of your reply do you answer my simple question of....

    "How many of these 'meetings' you went to actually threatened your very life?" -- Myself, asking YOU on May 27, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT.

    You go off on this 'fable' and you never answer the simple question.

    Why is that?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)

  • Wowzers!
  • Posted by Chuck Pelto on May 27, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • TO: "" -- the unwilling to be recognized commenter
    RE: THAT....

    "....he could not bring himself to buy into the kind of violent version of masculinity they espoused (he witnessed a female cadet being kicked on the floor until her ribs broke)...." -- "unwilling to be recognized commenter"

    ....is SOME KIND OF REPORT.

    Based on my 27 years of service, enlisted and commissioned, beginning in 1970 and ending in 1997: starting as a slick-sleeve private and ending as a lieutenant colonel of infantry....

    THAT is cause for criminal proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), i.e., 'holy writ' in the military.

    Please.....

    .....show me the URL that documents this report of yours. I'm VERY 'interested' in when and under what circumstances it occurred. Furthermore, what "Virginia's Marching Idiots" (VMI) as we who did not graduate from that 'school', DID about it.

    I look forward to your reply.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out....]

  • ???
  • Posted by A Man on May 27, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • Chuck,

    You were making a point about fear and courage using Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff." I never mentioned Wolfe. You brought it up as an illustration, and I thought it missed the original point about education--the need for men and women to grow, to be able to modify orientations on the world, which can be terrifying, which can require emotional bravery metaphorical, I think, with going into combat. Your point is well taken about LITERAL life and death. But so is my point about METAPHORICAL life or death when it comes to exploring the human heart--hence the myths, the lessons from literature.

    My point remains: you don't have to be a man to know the LITERAL terror and valor of facing death or maiming in combat. Women do it. Humans do it in necessary and unnecessary wars alike.

    Relevance to this discussion? The education of males, particularly, who may have soaked up a very restrictive notion of manhood to the exclusion of their larger personalities. Achilles is terrified of his own humanity, his own compassion for his enemies. (In fact, he was against the war until clever Odysseus talked him into it, as happens in a story before the story.) Achilles would rather die than face up to his deepest feelings about the whole thing. He exhibits in the end a valor of another--call it--spiritual kind.

    I myself said nothing about going to any board meetings on Madison Avenue. You made ME a character in Tom Wolfe's book. Go back and look at our posts.

    But your point is taken. I only hope you take mine (i.e. you don't have to be a man . . ." There's physical (animal) fear and emotional (human) fear. Both pertain to the "Gift" of being human. Look for it within: "Only the wisest and most courageous will search for it there." That's what Achilles does: he achieves the highest ancient Greek ideal: "Arete'". Too many boys and girls don't know this story. And many others worth their thinking and feeling about, including predominantly female-centric experiences, equally important.

  • Posted by Cato on May 28, 2009 at 7:30am EDT
  • A Man writes:

    There's physical (animal) fear and emotional (human) fear. Both pertain to the "Gift" of being human. Look for it within: "Only the wisest and most courageous will search for it there." That's what Achilles does: he achieves the highest ancient Greek ideal: "Arete'". Too many boys and girls don't know this story.

    You make a very valid point: the vast majority of our young men and women do not know the Western classics (other than, perhaps, in very watered down or stylized versions) that deal with the great complexity of what it means to be human or a "man" or a "woman" (though less of that literature seems to have survived from the ancient world). I think we have definitely lost something when these stories (and much of the philosophy, especially the stoics) are no longer an integral part of the education of the young. Our Founders were steeped in the classics, often Homer in the original Greek and and Caesar and Vergil in the original Latin, Greek and Roman notions of democracy and republic, and, especially, what was called "republican virtue" and the cautionary tales of the decline of Athenian democracy and the transformation of Rome from the republic to the empire and its ultimate decline into what then seemed very dark ages and a feudalism from which the 18th century was still (in some ways almost everywhere, and more in some places) emerging. Boys are first attracted to these tales as adventures -- as they are to other stories of war, buccaneering, exploration and adventure -- but as they learned them more deeply as emerging adults in the serious high schools and colleges of the 19th and early 20th centuries, they came to appreciate them in their complexity. War and death were closer to us then, and people took them more seriously as real.

    As I often point out, the vast majority of Americans and Europeans of the boomer and more recent generations have no clue just how thin the verneer of civilization is, how precious is our rationality and reason.

  • To Cato
  • Posted by A Man on May 28, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • ". . . just how thin the veneer of civilization is, how precious is our rationality."

    Are you familiar with the BBC documentary _The Century of the Self_? All four 1-hour episodes are available on YouTube.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

    Naturally, I have some problems with its narrative. No single narrative can ever be the whole story. But it does raise the question whether your phrase "our rationality" refers to an elite or to all people. If the latter then most of what we take for granted as "nature" may well be institutions imposed on us by elites with their hands on power, i.e. money and military power and whose policies to keep and increase that power actually create a more dangerous world.

    You're right that children must be brought along toward understanding increasing complexity, but it still begs the question to what extent it is innocent boys' biological nature that leads them instinctively to aestheticize competition, violence and mutilated bodies (as in video games) as a preparation for warfare. Or is it so-called rational instituions that so prepare them? (Warren Farrel blames women for the instituion of war!) If institutions turn out to be humanly made (rather than emanating from Nature), then institutions can be humanly changed, but not as long as an elite is setting up self-serving institutions. Remember that instituions go deep down in the psyche and can seem like Nature when they are not.

    I think the crisis of boys' education may have more to do with a false attempt to preserve nostalgic, patriarchal thinking into them (that only SEEMS to fit boys's real nature) rather than truly empowering them for manhood in a way that will enable them to change economic and social institutions--alongside women.

    This is what I think is terrifying, at least to elitist thinking, "something we know not of" as Hamlet, contemplating suicide, would say.

    This whole discussion, including the links to such articles as "The War against Boys" in The Atlantic, suffers from too narrow a discourse. Narrowing the discourse just to a feminist/anti-feminist debate makes reality look one way, when widening the discourse to include, say, modes of economic production changes yet again what reality might look like.

    Again, I have problems with "The Century of the Self" on any number of fronts and from a more "direct democracy" point of view. See what you think. (Hope you have four hours to indulge.)

    Then Google Rick Wolfe, "Capitalism Hits the Fan" for another perspective on what may have been happening to boys over the last 30 years, namely his analyis of family break down, and his "Entrepreneurial Innovation" solution. See the full, 40-minute lecture he did at UMass last Fall. I'll try to send the link after I submit this. Perhaps we can't have this discussion about boys and "Lost Men on Campus" without taking an economist like Wolfe into consideration.

  • On Rick Wolff
  • Posted by A Man on May 28, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • How a Marxian economist at UMass advances a socialist solution [to family breakdown and the crisis of boys' education] already in progress called "Entrepreneurial Innovation."

    Copy and paste:

    http://vimeo.com/1962208

  • I wish we could ban...
  • Posted by Nat Wilcox , Professor of Econ at Chapman. U. and U. Houston on May 29, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • ...the overuse of the word "narrative."

  • I Go Back to Jay
  • Posted by DFS on May 29, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Jay describes the reality of today.

    I am former Airborne. I am also a former intelligence analyst, and therefore for once in my life I believe Cato: these kinds of things could not have happened in a vacuum.

    Jay has painted the picture which several choose to dance around. The truth is still the truth.

    Men are now damned at the university. We must instead conform to Women's Studies characterizations.

    Keep this in mind as you look at the faces of those 'men' in charge anywhere in academia.

  • Sustainable Science
  • Posted by Kris hna Kaphle BVSc, PhD, GHC , Vet teaching hospital at IAAS on May 30, 2009 at 12:15am EDT
  • All the phenomenon revolves around our evolution and roles. Untill the urge and inner drive to spread the genes over those of nurturing and securing them do not change, this sterotype observations will remain. It is all in the chemicals up in the brain and their alteration to the need of the time. I find this study interesting and one direction I am interested with and will love to find out is the family roles and activities among such respondents.

  • Heh....
  • Posted by Chuck Pelto on May 31, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • ....when was the last time you ever watched 'Saving Private Ryan'?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)

  • About 6 months ago
  • Posted by A Man on May 31, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • Why do you ask?

  • "Saving Private Ryan," "Matewan" and Carol Gilligan
  • Posted by A Man on June 1, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • My question, Chuck: What does your question about the last time I saw "Saving Private Ryan" have to do with educating young males in today's culture?

    I confess. "Re-lived" the D-Day scene for the nth time some months ago. Growing up, I was just as enculturated--"imprinted"--as any male, with a fascination for such Violence Porn. (Real anti-war films show hardly any violence lest they glorify it nonetheless. See Renoir's great achievment, "Grand Illusion.")"Saving" is not actual combat, of course, but highly staged, i.e. cameras positioned under water in studio tanks to show rounds zipping under the "surf."

    For an image of manhood see the Joe Kenehan character (Chris Cooper) in John Sayles's "Matewan" (1987). It's based on a true story. Kenehan strikes me as every bit as much a man as the Tom Hanks character. (Yes, there is "Matewan" some violence porn in hopes that the "boys" in us will watch and maybe learn something ELSE about American history.) Compare with the Juan Chacon character in "Salt of the Earth" (1954).

    Look up women soldiers in the Civil War, married spouses, evidently, sometimes fighting alongside each other on both sides.

    Finally,see the link way above to the article critizing Carol Gilligan. Then try something interesting. Go read Carol Gilligan yourself! Determine how much you think Sommers's assessment is accurate and how much she may be DISTORTING Gilligan's ACTUAL PROJECT. There's at least one key omission that I think is crucial. Sommers misses it.

  • Marshall McLuhan saw this coming a long time ago
  • Posted by Bill Hawks on June 3, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • "The reason universities are so full of knowledge is students come with so much and they leave with so little."   --  Marshall McLuhan 

    A good Liberal Arts education should indemnify one from Hubris, not infect them. 

    That Hubris has spread to such systemic extremes displays the magnitude of diseased thinking and thought disorders which dominate the current system.

    These "educators" have nowhere to turn but to authoritarianism and totalitarian structures... devices typical to the "19th century labor union mind" that dominates and controls today's campus. The infesting unions have been conclusive in destroying the liberal arts tradition in modern education. Union thuggery and distemper are incompatible with liberal thought and its teaching.

    The entire national institution of K-16 is badly diseased; pernicious and pathological -- a sick, sick system. If it were not, such pathologies would not be normalized and codified into institutional form as doctrinal products to be force-fed to students per policy by unionized classroom workers of varying station. What sickness, waste and malicious wrongdoing this paradigm has wrought.

    My child will get a more meaningful liberal arts education reading Lapham's Quarterly.

  • Hubris, Liberalism: Thanks, Bill Hawks
  • Posted by A Man on June 4, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • I'm puzzled, though, especially if your comment is in any way responding to my last post. The context of this lengthy discussion indeed is that of hubris, or masculinity vs. hyper-masculinity.("Hubris" meant to the ancient Greeks "over shooting the mark," as in the example of Achilles above). It took on a more complex moral intonation in restrospect during the Renaissance.)

    If you're referring to the characters of Joe and Ramon in "Matewan" and "Salt of the Earth," respectively, I'm sure a viewing of each film will show that they are not held aloft as model thugs. Rather, their message is non-violence. To the extent that there was ever such thing as an Americn Dream (a living wage, education, housing, 8-hour work day, health insurance, vacation, sharing the profits of increasing productivity, etc.) these gains were won through peaceful citizen/worker participation in the political process. Yes, they did make trouble. But it was the non-violent trouble that made the gains! The labor movement was always set back when workers allowed themselves to be provoked into violence. (Hence, the provocation.) This is the message of both films.

    See what's happened to the term "liberalism" since corporations attained the legal status as "individuals" in the late 19th century. Noam Chomsky calls himself liberatarian and suscribes to your values as a product of the Enlightenment, liberal education, science, logic and so on. He uses science and logic to show that a kind of "private tyranny" has done its best to invert our notions of freedom.

    We are among the freest nations in the world because that mystification never completely works. People power is always at work to counteract corporate tyranny, by which Chomsky means the collusion between the State and corporations that so often contravene the will of the larger population. Hence massive lobbying, Public Relations, and media campaigns to propagandize and subvert large-scale democratic participation. It takes that much money power for economic elites to try and control the citizenry. To a great extent it works. To a substantial extent it does not and the struggle continues.

    How are Joe and Ramon as masculine heroes, including their attempts to steer their fellows away from violence and toward non-violent action to expand freedom and well-being for their communities--how are they examples of "thuggery" or totalitarianism?

  • Posted by Brian Gillin on June 17, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • It appears that the program began from a popular misconception that the perpetrators of sexual assault and domestic abuse are "overwhelmingly" men. Numerous studies indicate that abuse in heterosexual relationships is often reciprocal, and that when it ISN'T reciprocal more often than not the woman is the violent party.

    We will not make a dent into the problem of domestic violence until we cease to rely on gender stereotypes.

  • Posted by Brian Gillin on June 17, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • "And to the person who said date rape is mere slander..."

    No one said this. Someone pointed out that it's slander to suggest that beer pong and date rape are "masculine" activities.

  • Posted by chaosakita on August 6, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Wow, it's just so hard to be a white male these days! Everyone's just oppressing them! Boo hoo!

  • The Male Crisis explained
  • Posted by ann duckworth , Teacher at Not at present on September 12, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • This is the reversal - In the nineteenth century, we lived in a very physical world and one that required much strength and courage for boys and later men. This created a form of treatment from a young age to create this strength.

    1. Boy children even less than a year old were (and are) given more aggressive treatment to make them tough to compete in the big physical world.

    2. Boys were (and are) not given kind, stabilizing, nurturing, mental, emotional, social, verbal, interaction and other kind, caring treatment for fear of coddling the Male child, again to make them tough.

    3. Boys were (and are) by design not given love, honor, respect unless they display some form of achievement, status, image, etc. All of this was designed to make boys tough.

    Girls were (and are) given more protection from that big physical world, because it was very physical and bad back then. Since girls did not have to be tough, girls could be(and are) given much kind, stabilizing, mental, emotional, social, verbal, interaction from a young age without regard to need for strength. Also since girls did not need to be strong, they were (and are) given love honor, and respect simply for being girls. This protective treatment extended (and extends today) through adulthood.

    Now we are living in the information age where the need and means to make a living have been "completely reversed". The toughness, aggressive, neglectful treatment given boys is still in place even from infancy. This is creating higher average stress that impedes thinking, learning, and motivation to learn (mental reward received for mental work expended). It also creates higher activity in working class Males, less stability there – activity is used as a natural stress relief. In addition, boys fall behind in writing due to higher muscle tension created by the high average stress that greatly affects handwriting ability and motivation to write. This is “not some natural, genetic weakness”. Note, nice Middle/Upper class boys do not have this problem of need for higher activity nor do they have the higher muscle tension that inhibits handwriting skills and motivation to write. The lack of kind, caring mental, emotional, social, verbal interaction create a tremendous lag in mental, emotional, social, and verbal skills. In addition, this creates more wariness of social contact due to lack of accumulated skills and more aggression given to boys from a young age. This defensiveness also creates the Male Ego or defensive front boys, later men put on to help protect them from aggression they have received. This further impedes positive social interaction with significant others (teachers).

    Girls on the "other hand" are now reaping a windfall of many fine information age skills. The much protection and care girls receive from infancy onward create lower average stress, ease of nature (less need for activity for stress relief), and lower muscle tension that makes handwriting easier, more neat, and more rewarding. The much kind, positive, stabilizing, verbal and other social interaction increase their mental, emotional, social, verbal, and academic skills along with a feeling of love and support as they use that instilled social knowledge in a school setting with teachers. Since girls were (and are) given love, honor, respect, (no need to be tough) simply for being girls, they have an almost assurance of good treatment in society through adulthood. This protection also allows for much more freedom of expression to both vent, gain further support, and more care. This is why girls mature faster than boys. These differences have been socially created.

    Now in the information age and as society has become more unstable, more information dependent, and there is massive support for girls, girls are surging ahead big time. Recently there is much more allowed aggression allowed upon Males as more instability allows the valve of aggression on Males to increase, but the valve of protection is still left in place for girls. To top even that, boys have to generate their own feelings of self-worth, for they are only given love, honor, and respect only on condition of sufficient achievement. Boys who are not succeeding in the classroom do not receive the essentials of self-worth; therefore, they must generate a sense of self-worth through other areas such as sports, video games, etc.

     

    In addition, there is the terrible belief that boys not succeeding in school need more discipline or need to learn differently – more hands on training or active teaching. This will make it even harder on boys and poses more stereotyping of Males that such activity levels are genetically based rather than environmentally produced. This could lead to a societal acceptance of a caste system where boys, later men will be trained and expected to perform more menial labor, while girls will be trained for more white-collar positions.

    As a result, boys are now falling far behind the girls in academics and later economically. I feel society in its over reliance on genetics and effort will completely drop the ball for boys until both boys and men begin to react and retaliate in mass in the only way they have been taught.

  • Men dislike college
  • Posted by Will , Soldier at U.S. Army on November 24, 2009 at 7:45pm EST
  • I concur with the comments of "Retired White Male Dean". As a soldier with Two Masters Degrees, I have seen how colleges have now turned into hostile environments for young men that have no relevance to what they are interested in and ultimately, what they would like to do. Why would I send my son to a learning institution, devoid of male instructors that can provide an example to him, filled with females who consider him hostile and have no advantages offered to him? In a larger sense, this is a nation defense issue, in that with few males graduating from college; the U.S. Military will have fewer Male Officers that are currently desperately needed. To discuss this crisis on a national scale is seen as sexist and anti-women. Our politicians are now so feminized and PC that to even debate this obvious issue is non-starter before it begins. At this time I write this email, we, as a nation, are getting our clocks cleaned by other nations, particularly Asian Nations, that have no problem with ensuring that they have enough men in college, and at all teaching levels of school, to ensure that their nation progresses. Their weathering of the latest financial crisis is a testament to their educational focus on their societies. So what is the answer? We must provide the same funding and educational focus on boys and men that we have done for girls and women for the last 30 years. I don't think this will happen in my lifetime and, I believe; only a cataclysmic event will cause our once great republic to alter our present course.