Comments on Stop Avoiding the Issue of Failing Boys

• Amen
• Posted by Alan Tuchtenhagen , Associate Vice Chancellor Enrollment Services at University of Wisconsin-River Falls on March 6, 2009 at 9:15am EST

• Thank you for raising this issue. I have made a number of presentations on this topic in recent years. This is not an equity issue (i.e. I don't think boys are being discriminated against because of their gender). We have just not been tuned to the changing culture that seems to be leaving many boys behind. There are some startling implications for us to think about. For example, in the spring of 2005, the University of Wisconsin System awarded over 3500 more baccalaureate degrees to women than men. That means that if men had been enrolled in the UW at the same rate as women, the state system would have produced over 3500 more baccalaureate degrees in that one year alone.

• Posted by Dominick on March 6, 2009 at 9:15am EST

• Colleges are more aware of this issue than is mentioned in this article. At my previous institution, male enrollment was a regular topic of discuss leading to admissions making efforts to recruit men to balance out the 60% female enrollment. One of the biggest hurdles in creating a gender balance in higher education is the decreasing high school graduation rates of males. If they are not earning a high school diploma or a GED, they are not attending college. Even when they do graduate, males are likely to seek full time employment after high school. College is seen as a waste of time and money.

  While females are earning more degrees than males, they are still lagging behind them in wages.

• Posted by Harold Jewell , Athletics & Recreation at University of Rochester on March 6, 2009 at 9:30am EST

• Amen.

• Of males and females...birds and bees...
• Posted by feudi , Financial Aid Officer on March 6, 2009 at 10:30am EST

• Very interesting article...At my nursing schools, we are finally starting to see a pretty dramatic increase in the number of males entering the profession. This change is healthy, but it does not seem to have had much impact in the larger society. There has been a coarsening within our culture that has hurt both genders. Although females have made great strides in higher ed, they have been far too accepting, indeed, often encouraging a culture that objectifies them into sort of sexual appliances for the use and pleasure of men. As just one small example, the Bratz Dolls phenomena, in my mind, is one step above child porn, yet the market is flooded with these little "floozy dolls" and little girls play with them with no compunction whatsoever.

  Young men, on the other hand, are constantly bombarded with commercials touting one erection pill over the other dozen to the point where many men begin to think of themselves as mean, lean sex machines, and not much more. Given the state of the male hormone hurricane going on from about age 13 to 50, higher ed just does not measure up priority-wise. Short answer: ease up on our total absorption with the sex act, and both genders will be far better adjusted to the real world and what really matters.

• Posted by Alan Tuchtenhagen on March 6, 2009 at 11:15am EST

• In response to Dominck, I often hear this response that "women still lag behind men in wages." I am not insensitive to this issue, but it is not the same -- quite frankly I have found it to be a red herring in the discussions surrounding this issue. Wage equity should not be an excuse to avoid addressing the significant failure rate for males. It almost implies that we should hold men back.

• In agreement here ....
• Posted by Sriram , Assoc. Prof. at WOU on March 6, 2009 at 12:45pm EST

• Yes, I remember reading Christina Sommers' article in the Atlantic. That was when my daughter was in the final year of high school (or was she a college freshman?) and I asked her to read that article and give me feedback. Her response was essentially, "duh!". Throughout her high school life, girls were far ahead of boys in the academic top tier. Even the student body was dominated by girls--in other words, it was not merely in the "textbook" world.

  The last ten years, I have been at two state universities where the gender split is more than 60/40 in favor of women. In fact, it is closer to 2:1 at my current U. Rarely do I have a male student who earns an A in my classes. Sometimes I kid around that male students are fast becoming endangered species on college campuses.

  Yet, this is not discussed at all. Neither by academics who experience the data day in and day out, nor in the media.
  I hope we will soon stop being in denial about this and openly discuss the issues. Maybe there are racial/ethnic undertones. Maybe there are class issues. But, we won't know about any of these until we get into the details.

• Posted by Chris on March 6, 2009 at 1:00pm EST

• In response to feudi, I'll agree wholeheartedly that the coarsening of our culture hurts both genders, and the "grownup girl" bit is one of the most disturbing (especially to the father of two young girls), but I don't think that it's germane to this discussion because, as you say, it's being perpetrated on both genders. As to getting young men between 12 and 20 (the peak years of hormonal activity & sexual appetite for young men) to stop obsessing about sexual matters, I don't think that will ever happen, and anyone who suggests the idea has either never been a young man or has forgotten the experience.

  The problem has always been there - girls have always, after all, outperformed boys in grade school. I suspect that the late adolescent flagging of this performance in the past was due to a confluence of cultural expectation (that the woman belonged in the home), parental training (ladies are demure), and peer pressure (in this case silent - don't be the "odd girl"). As the article suggests, those pressures have eased a great deal, allowing women to maintain their classroom acumen.

  I also agree with the idea that certain groups have commodified and sanctified the concept of victimhood, insisting - with contemptible (and hypocritical) racism and classism - that the underperforming boys must be from poor and violent backgrounds. They seem to feel that neurological and psychosocial development patterns - largely governed by biology - cannot discriminate, that some boys don't perform well in classrooms not because of race or class, but because their brains are wired to learn differently because of some latent evolutionary processes - millions of years in development - that haven't caught up to civilization (only several thousand years old). Civilization and culture change rapidly, while nature takes its time.

  I'm not saying that different is bad, or that anyone deserves special treatment. Indeed, I'm arguing the opposite: difference is present in all aspects of life, and to fail to acknowledge a difference that presents itself biologically (via gender) because it conflicts with a cultural ideal is foolish and irresponsible.

• Posted by Who Loses on March 6, 2009 at 1:30pm EST

• Higher Ed is hostile to males, but in a strange way the victims in all this include young women who will find it increasingly hard to find a comparably-educated mate. This has already happened in minority communities where women have ridden the affirmative action double-bean-count to leave their men in the rear view mirror. A man who is not supporting a wife and children can get by on very little, including little education, but is not very appealing marriage material. So old women angry at men are harming young women looking for one.

• Posted by Senex on March 6, 2009 at 1:30pm EST

• At our college, one of three surviving all-male institutions, we've been arguing for years that this is a major problem for American higher education.

  Even so,  we do not promote our all-male status.  The market for all-male education, where young men might have a chance to help each other work out their academic difficulties, has effectively collapsed to a small niche.  Were we to intensively study the problem and design new programs to handle it, it may be that we could help.  But so far as I can see, we teach exactly as one would teach at a coeducational institution: an environment that the cited research shows favors female learning styles.

  Time after time when we have applied for outside grants from places like the Howard Hughes Foundation or federal agencies, the subtle feedback is that since we can do nothing to increase the representation of women in fields like science and mathematics, our proposals, no matter how meritorious otherwise, are not considered viable.  Well, in at least one science, a strong majority of the degrees are now granted to women, and programs to help men do better might be appropriate.  But that is not the recieved wisdom.

  I hope that some of the money that now is out there can be directed toward a solution.  If it is, then the few remaining all-male institutions have a large role to play by sharing their experience with others.

• Boys
• Posted by Gretchen on March 6, 2009 at 4:45pm EST

• In my experience, discrimination against boys in educational settings begins very young and probably in the way teachers are taught. My son attended a progressive pre-school in a prestigious private institution in New York. It was the teacher’s first year. Everyday when I left him off, the teacher would be sitting at a table with the little girls, as they drew. The boys were relegated to a corner and were ignored for the most part until some loud disruption forced the teacher to pay attention. I went to a school official to comment on the teacher’s inability or unwillingness to interact with boys and was told “She will learn.” Occasionally my son would read which would result in notes from the teacher telling me he was reading again and it was age inappropriate. Such notes did not go home with the girls. Needless to say, he did not return to the school in the fall.

• Posted by higher ed scholar on March 7, 2009 at 2:00pm EST

• It would be nice if any of this discussion actually got to the heart of the matter: it's not "boys" who are underrepresented in higher ed or advanced classes, but minority boys and working class & poor boys. White privileged boys, by all the research, are doing just fine. I'm sorry that I don't have time to dig up some relevant links here - but apparently the author didn't either.

• Posted by SP on March 7, 2009 at 2:00pm EST

• I don't think higher ed is generally hostile to males. Don't private liberal arts schools actually favor them in their admissions practices, for example? I seem to recall a New York Times editorial to that effect a few years ago.

  I teach at a two-year school, and I spend a lot more time on my male students than my female ones, as do most of my colleagues. How do we spend that time? Reminding them to bring their books to class. Contacting their coaches about their absences. Lending them pens, which they've forgotten to bring. Asking them to stop texting in class. Telling them, over and over, that the assignments are on the syllabus. Practically begging them to stop by the office for help.

  A lot of them fail anyway. So what's the problem? I really don't know. But it happens before they ever get here. If I had to guess, I'd say that part of the difficulty is that they just don't respond to their mothers and their mostly female primary and secondary school teachers. They'd rather be like men instead, and the men they get images of aren't anywhere near a classroom.

• Boys in college
• Posted by Adjunct George on March 7, 2009 at 11:45pm EST

• I am going to say some very politically incorrect things for which I have been castigated by the education establishment. Please remember that all generalities talk to the overall group, not an individual in the group. Take these comments with that in mind. Now for my observations. Males learn differently than females. There are real gender differences. This does not mean one is smarter than the other - just different. In a classroom lecture sections, the women find it easier to learn. Men seem to need to use their hands as well as their brains. In the survey's I have taken for my introductory physics class, the females invariably want fewer demonstrations and more lecture time. The males invariably want me to keep the number of demonstrations the same or increase the number. The males find the labs more interesting while the females have questioned me on the necessity of having a physics lab. These facts indicate to me a real difference in the way my students learn and do not reflect on which group is smarter - they are just different. Men are different than women and are attracted by different things. Sports attract men to college. I like the fact that the women now have more sports teams. However, the destruction of men's football, wrestling, swimming, and other teams so that women teams can be financially supported may have lead to decline in the male attendance at many schools. One size does not fit all but liberal academia seems to believe that it does. It is not a race or economic status thing as stated by one of the other writers who panders to political correctness. It is a true male - female difference. My wife has also noted this in high school math classes so let's accept the difference and work to attract more males. I'm glad this is beginning to get noticed.

• On the money
• Posted by Igor on March 7, 2009 at 11:45pm EST

• Poster Gretchen above hit the nail on the head:
  "In my experience, discrimination against boys in educational settings begins very young and probably in the way teachers are taught."
  The elephant in the room is that K-12, and especially elementary school, has become very hostile to boys. Female teachers, usually exposed to misandrist Women Studies courses and feminist educators, unconsciously—and sometimes consciously—bring that toxic anti-male attitude into the classroom with them. Ambivalent about teaching future "patriarchal oppressors," they plaster the syllabus, their instruction, and indeed the physical classroom itself, with expressions of grrrl power. To even suggest this is the case is considered far more taboo than raising a "boy problem."

  And as for poor, minority boys skewing the results, if, say, black women outnumber black men 2 to 1 in college, isn't this still a gender problem regardless of skin color. In fact, the problem is only magnified in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities because along with everything else they are matrifocal, fatherlessness being epidemic. In this case, the girl-only programs exacerbate the dysfunction—sorta like kicking a cripple. Imagine, for instance, a summer science camp free for girls, boys pay. A wealthy family doesn't need it. A middle-class family may grumble about the inequity then pay up. But a poor family with a son and daughter has to decide whether to let one go and the other stay, or both stay. As poor single mothers have been shown to more strongly emphasize education for their daughters, the daughter may indeed go and her brother stay. As a result, she may develop a life-long passion for science; he may, on the other hand, just discover the streets. For the poor, these gendered programs cast a long shadow, hence the discrepancy.

• It's the atmosphere...
• Posted by D Moore on March 7, 2009 at 11:45pm EST

• Has anyone considered the fact that nearly all of these boys are reminded daily that they are inadequate, unneccessary, beasts at best and wife beating rapists at worst...

  Has no one considered that this might impact their interest in an Education that tells them these very same things? That ignores their needs and issues? That denies they can be abused, and women can abuse...

  Ever see a men's centre on campus? Men's studies? Men-only groups?

  Anyone ever ask these kids why they hate school?

  Why not???

• Posted by Raul , Student at Pace University on March 8, 2009 at 7:45am EDT

• This is issue will not be adequately addressed until higher education can accept the male student perspective as valid and accurate of his experience.  So thank you Gretchen for being the one bold enough to use it.  Discrimination!!!!  As a male student in the United States of America, and this includes all males (to the higher ed person who posted this is about race, but doesn't have the studies, the reason you don't have the studies is you are wrong, this is about gender and as a class, all boys are struggling).  Discrimination, sexism, misandry and feminism.  You may be uncomfortable accepting that viewpoint, but we have been indoctrinated since pre school with the nonsense that we are not allowed to finish equal to or ahead of girls, we are never equal to or better than girls, and we are pathologies in need of correction.  A trip to your day care center, local park, local elementary school, hour of Disney or Nickelodeon etc will confirm this.  The resources, outreach, scholarships, programs, mentoring programs et al for girls compared to boys are yet another example.  I am sorry I sound bitter, but I grow weary of academics not listening to or accepting the male experience.  The sad outgrowth of the failure to address this issue, and the failure to reign in radical feminist theory as practiced in education is that we young males don't really care much for this society, or feel a need to contribute or give to it.  You have made us unwelcome, and we are responding accordingly.  Some of us do real work, volunteer with boys and tell them how it is, and how going to school can be good for you, but will not be the place to help-- i mention this because there is no way I will ever contribute as an alumni after I graduate, for the very reason that the garbage that is passed off as education is nothing more the anti-male bigotry, the campus does not offer equal services to male students, the campus does not offer equal opportunities to male students, and yet more of our tax dollars will go to girls education, womens health, womens small bussinesses, womens shelters etc etct.  Just accept that there are increasing numbers of us who have tired of the failure to actually do something and as education becomes more feminized and more gynocentric it becomes less relevant.  The percipitous decline in the quality of education in this country goes hand in hand with the social forces that have influenced it.  PC lightly stepping around calling out the real elephants in the room isn't going to fix the problem.

  Failure to address it in these terms will fail.  And like many of us we will choose a different path, the masculine trait of exploration.   But the failings of the education system, and the unwillingness to address it in honest terms for fear of upsetting women is just plain irrepsonsible.

  So to you academics:  please accept this fact, and while it may not be yours, accept it is common of single young men--education from day one is sexist, anti-male, discriminatory and most of all failing.

• swimming against the tide
• Posted by Flora Ward , PhD candidate, Dept. of Art at University of Toronto on March 8, 2009 at 8:00am EDT

• While I would agree that some of the early 1990s research about how primary schools "fail" female students was somewhat flawed and problematic in retrospect, I am still troubled by the aggrieved tenor of most of the comments here. There are clearly many issues at play: gender, class, race--all of these are so intimately linked that to isolate one is to misunderstand the complexity of the situation. That being said, as one comment noted, middle to upper class white men are still doing just fine. I also think it's useful to draw attention back to the context of university education, which is where this thread began. Yes, there are fewer men--but the ones that are there seem (to my admittedly individual perspective) to be given particular attention. In my field, being (a) male and (b) straight seems to transform one into a veritable messiah. When almost all of the students are women and more than half of the faculty male (another issue that could perhaps be mentioned), it is all the more striking that men are given such preferential treatment. Yes, we should by all means encourage male students as educators and colleagues, but I still am convinced that this issue of so-called anti-male bias is a red herring. Funny how as soon as one long-underrepresented group (be they female, black, latino, etc) makes some gains, some cry foul and claim that white men are under threat. When university faculties--even in the humanities--become all female, then come talk to me about the underrepresentation of men.

• Posted by Igor on March 8, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• I sincerely hope poster Flora Ward is not an education major:
  "When university faculties--even in the humanities--become all female, then come talk to me about the underrepresentation of men."[emphasis mine]
  This is precisely the mindset that has produced the present problem. (Oh, right. I keep forgettting, there is no problem.) Funny how the "long-underrepresented" groups (blacks and Latinos) suffer disproportionately from the non-problem of gender bias in schools. Could it be, as common sense suggests, that at-risk populations suffer disproportionately when institutions favor only one gender? A federal catalog of girls-only programs is over three inches thick—and that doesn't include state and local grrrl-power cookies. (For more on this search "Warren Farrell - The Boy Crisis" on YouTube.) At every stage, from pre-school to grad school, girls are given special help. And as for girls being short-changed, when Carol Gilligan did her girl study a decade and a half ago, boys were already lagging behind girls...and her carefully hidden data actually proved it.

  As poster Raul noted:
  "the garbage that is passed off as education is nothing more the anti-male bigotry, the campus does not offer equal services to male students, the campus does not offer equal opportunities to male students"
  Let's see: anti-male sexual harassment and date rape lectures during orientation, men's sports decimated by Title IX, Women Centers, "Take Back the Night" marches, Women Studies, girl-power networking, women-only scholarships, inducements for women to enter math or science, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum; and educators wonder why many men don't choose college.

  (And please, don't start with the "Even if men don't enter college, they still make more than women. Women make $.77 on the dollar...blah, blah, blah." The wage gap has been shown to be a myth by the above author Warren Farrell and a bevy of economists. Not a result of discrimination, the wage gap exists because of the choices women make, favoring lifestyle over money. BUT THIS IS A DIGRESSION. THE TOPIC IS EDUCATION.)

• Posted by ray on March 8, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT

• It's clear from the article and comments that you folks are still in denial about what has very deliberately been done to boys and men in America over the past half-century, not merely in education but across the cultural spectrum. To say they've been disenfranchised is a gross understatement; the truth is that open warfare has been made on males and masculinity, and U.S. educational institutions, K to college, have been great enablers of this hate-movement -- operating, ironically, to empower "oppressed" females.

  In the Nineties I attended a number of colleges, all of which not only favored females at every turn (entrance, scholarships, grants, classroom "dialogue" etc.) but quite smugly engaged in ensuring that any male on campus understand clearly that he was a targeted oppressor -- despite the fact that many of these guys came from far more impoverished circumstances than the females who received free-passes.

  Now your economy's tanked and your boys flee school settings, where they know -- as in the balance of the culture -- they'll be treated as second-class citizens. At best.

  You think your matriarchy is going to back off and start welcoming males back into its degraded and degrading culture, as a result of your nicely reasoned queries?

  LOL! You should have been asking these questions decades ago, and demanding answers.

  Too late, now. Way too late.

  ray

   

• responses
• Posted by richard whitmire on March 8, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT

• These are great comments and useful to me in my future writings. Everyone raises the same point: Isn't this just a matter of poor and minority boys? Not really. Go to my blog, whyboysfail.com and link to the study of the wilmette schools, one of the wealthiest school districts in the country. here's an editorial I wrote about this issue: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/post_14.html#more

  Do nearly all the boys from the Wilmette district go to college? Yes, but many delayed, many getting into top schools because of admissions preferences favoring boys (with some not doing well there academically) and many more going to third tier colleges. How does one measure something like that? Not easily, which makes it easy to claim that upper middle class boys aren't affected (a parent who can afford to pay full tuition can always find a college for their slacker son). I would love to have a snapshot of the Wilmette class of xxxx six years after graduation. How many boys vs. girls have earned degrees from where?

  My general sense is there's a crisis among poor minority boys, a real problem with white, working class boys and a significant (and unquantifiable) issue with upper income boys.

  As for the writer who pointed out that males who do make into higher education and beyond are favored, that may be true in some cases but the "favoritism" can get weird. I offer this commentary I wrote: http://www.whyboysfail.com/2008/07/21/how-college-gender-imbalances-impact-the-social-scene/

  richard whitmire

• Turning Down the Volume
• Posted by cts on March 9, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

• I think much of the commentary here is of the [bi]polarizing sort we get on talk radio.

  Are males and females different for various reasns? Yes. Do boys, at least at this point in time in our culture, tend to do less well in school - particularly in K-12? Yes. Is this either all because of race or class or feminism (!) or boy-bashing? No.

  Girls have long been favored by lower shcool teachers of both sexes; girls tend to sit and pay attention and are less likely than boys to play practical jokes. But, it used to be the case that boys were encouraged educationally and girls were not; so, boys went on and became the leaders and girls got married and ran the local volunteer group.
  World War II had a tremendous affect on the established gender roles, and many women did not forget the lessons of that period. So-called feminism came along later, and some of it was definitely angry and even anti-male. This led to increased opportunities and special attention to girls/young women in formal education.

  Of course, the number of people going to college has grown significantly at the same time. So, what do we see? We see girls continuing in higher ed and doing better than many of the boys - just as girls have always done in shcool if they were not discouraged.
  We see more college-bound students and more women among them. The numbers of men in colleges and universities has not dropped significantly. Rather, the number of women in higher ed has grown significantly.

  So, we have the same problem we have always had: schools are not set up for boys, on the whole. The change has been that schools are now open to girls, and girls are encouraged to pursue higher degrees.

• Posted by Hrothgar on March 9, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT

• I graduated high school in 2001. Nine out of the top ten ranked students were female. There were a couple more males in the late teens. As far as I know, it is still like this.

  My high school was not poor in the least; it was a wealthy suburban school spending over $10,000 per pupil. Some people may try to dismiss it as a disadvantaged-only problem, but I think it has spread further than anyone has imagined.

• Can international comparisons suggest causes?
• Posted by Owen on March 10, 2009 at 5:00am EDT

• If U.S. is losing ground compared to other developing countries, can we discover international differences that explain this--and could then be the basis for reversing our trend?

• some input
• Posted by David , Chief Consultant on March 12, 2009 at 10:30pm EDT

• one commentor states that "women are getting more degrees than men, but are still lacking in wages".

  That is absolutely incorrect. As a matter of fact, a woman that goes through the rigors of a professional degree in a technical science based education will actually out earn the boys with the same education, the same school, etc.

  I just spoke with a department head at Intel and he very emphatically stated that the new hire women make more than the new hire men. Why? Because they have diversity requirements. And they will pay more to meet them.

  It ain't pretty, but it's the truth!!

• Poor and minority boys? Bullsh*t!
• Posted by dan Moore on March 13, 2009 at 5:00am EDT

• http://www.thenewgendergap.com/

  "

  CASE 1

   

  We assume that 12% of all students enrolled in grade 12 courses were poor. To give the ‘super underperforming male’ argument its strongest voice, I assume that poor female students perform equally well as non-poor female students. So then, for this super underperforming group to cause the average male grade to drop to 66% from 73.7% (which is the average grade attained in English 30 by female students), they must have an average grade mark of 2%. It seems utterly impossible that all 731 poor males would attain such a low grade keeping in mind that the remaining 18% of males have poor performers included equal in concentration to those found in the female population. I think it is quite clear that this case is highly unlikely.

   

   

   

  CASE 2

   

  Assume all the facts of Case 1 except consider that the average grade for non-poor male students is lower than the female grade, but only by 1 percentage point, which in statistics is still rather significant. In this case, the average grade for poor males grows to 10%. This number too seems completely incredible.

   

   

   

  CASE 3

   

  Assume all the facts of Case 2 except the subgroup is grown to include the poorest 20% of the male population. Again, to give the Super Underperforming theory as much force as possible, we assume that poor female students perform equally well as non-poor female students. In this case, the low performance is shared over a larger group (1360 male students). As a result, the average grade among this group needs to be 39%. This number starts to seem possible, but keep in mind that the super underperformers do not drop out of school (those kids have already been taken out of the calculation). Also keep in mind that the regular performing males follow the distribution trend of the females and so, in their ranks, already have a number of failures and below average students, proportional to those found in the female population. An additional 1360 male students averaging less than 40% seems very, very unlikely. The failure rate for English A30 among boys would approach 1 in 6, and it is, as a matter of fact, not that high. Also, remember that we have reduced the average grade of non-poor males 1% point below the performance of females. Finally, recall that we have treated the poor females with no distinction from non-poor females, which is contrary to all evidence.

   

   

   

  If we grow the sample size of poor boys to beyond 20% then the group becomes too large to consider it a super-under performing group. Truly, the idea of a small super-underperforming group cannot explain the gender gap."

• Posted by Emily , Adjunct Faculty on March 13, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT

• Flora demonstrates with aplomb the narcissistic arrogance of females in academia to the tenor of brushing off the comments of males and their experience.  I would encourage Flora to recognize the very tone of her individual perspective it that of one that leads to the very discrimination we are talking about.  As women we have to accept some realities, we are disproportionately subsidized, and we benefit from a curriculum that is directed and suited for us.  I recently had a chance to look over test questions from the GRE and LSAT.  I was stunned, not one example of "he" or a masculine name was a physicist, astronomer, city council member, mayor, CEO- they were all females.  Not one game in the LSAT book I perused had a boy "winning" the race in the logic game section.  Again, all females.  Unfortunately women in academia have become duplicitous and sexist, and that is unfortunate given the the great efforts of men to incorporate the needs and interests of female students.  The issue to the naysayers is boys and men; and for that we need to turn to boys and men to find out what needs to be done, not the ruminations of female misandrinist perspectives.  I hear you guys, and I will try to incorporate what you say, that is the true essence of equality.

• Posted by j.b. on March 13, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT

• Raul wrote: "The sad outgrowth of the failure to address this issue, and the failure to reign in radical feminist theory as practiced in education is that we young males don't really care much for this society, or feel a need to contribute or give to it. You have made us unwelcome, and we are responding accordingly."
  Feminists will deny their role in this until the end of time, but Raul's words are exactly true.

  I've attended and then worked at a major Tier 1 university for over 30 years now and I've seen the sexism, misandry and female chauvinism firsthand. Misandrist female chauvinism permeates throughout the faculty, staff and administration, and once here, the female students learn this behavior from their mentors and the male students learn they're second-class citizens. Thus, the presence of a hostile environment for men on campus is very real. Also, the fact that at least at my institution there has not been a single survey asking men about their experiences with sexism and discrimination on campus speaks volumes re. the mindset of the feminists who run the institution. They simply don't want to know because it gives them deniability, and when the issue does come up they do what many here have done and immediately raise red herrings like "girls in math and science," the gender wage gap myth, etc.

  Continuing to ignore this problem will only disenfranchise more boys and men. Step back and imagine the world that the feminists seem to want, a world where women are in charge at work and at home while at the same time men and boys are disenfranchised and mostly unemployed (because we have to give women preference in job hiring and promotion, dontchaknow). All those disenfranchised and unemployed men are relegated to spending all that free time dwelling on all the wrongs done to them by society, particularly women, and with nothing better to do they organize and then take matters into their own hands. Does this sound like a peaceful, harmonious scenario to you? Not me.

  It's crucial that we address this problem and help men and boys now, even if it means putting women and girls on the back burner for a while. And importantly, we need to understand that this problem has been around since at least the 1970s (I was there, so I know), so we have to take a multi-generational approach to this and thus provide assistance to older men as well as boys and young men.

• Why Males are Falling
• Posted by Ann Duckworth , Teacher at Not at present on April 13, 2009 at 4:30am EDT

• Boys are not given mental emotional support for fear of coddling. By intent, are given love, honor respect, essentials of self-worth only for achievement or power. This makes boys competitive to achieve self-worth from society. Boys who do not achieve will receive more aggression from society. Society also allows more aggression toward Males to make them tough even from a very young age. All those areas have led to large decrease in ability to compete in the information age. Women are surging ahead. The words, tones, inflections toward boys are continually more short, hard, more demanding, - more aggressive. This creates more separation and less development. This adds up to much less stability and in turn less mental/emotional growth.

  Girls not supposed to be strong allowing for much mental, emotional support along with love honor respect for being girls. Girls from a young age are given much more kindness, stabilizing, comforting, supporting words. This creates more tendency to relate, to talk, and to learn. This allows girls to mature faster and do better. This continues through adulthood and creates economic advantages.

• Failing Boys
• Posted by William D. Strinden MD , MD on November 11, 2009 at 5:15am EST

• Boys are failing in society because the social services safety net makes males optional, and therefore irrelevant in the raising of children. The strongest motivator of young men is young women. In my day, the only way a young woman would have sex is if a ring were involved. In those instances in which there was not a ring, the young man at least had to have "potential," meaning he would likely be able to support a family. Now, it is financially more advantageous if a woman remains a single mother. The illegitimacy rate has jumped from less than 10% in 1960 (3.4% for Caucasians) to about 40% overall today. One would have to be consciously disregarding these facts to conclude that our system of social services is not at fault. Society tells young men that they have no value as husbands because the state can support her better, and they have no value as fathers because all financial benefits end when he remains in the household and provides financial support. If all government support for illegitimacy ended today, the problems with "lost boys" would go away within five years. Young women would demand that young men once again be able to support a family and young men would comply with their wishes, as we have always done throughout history. For another example of this social experiment, read about divided Berlin and the differences in illegitimacy, crime, and delinquency. The people had a common ethnicity, history, and ethics, separated only by socialism versus capitalism. William D. Strinden MD Lufkin, Texas