White males are recieve minority status at colleges.

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,099
4,233
460
It depends on what the issue is. If people cannot sit still in a room, then this is an issue that will persist, because how do you suppose research is going to work? At least for theoretical subjects, having the ability to sit still and focus is pretty important. Things like using different media to present information in ways that different people can grasp them most easily is of course fine, but we certainly don't need 10 minutes "sports breaks" for lectures.
Yes, and some men excel at that. Not everyone is destined to be a theoretical physicist. Human intelligence falls along a bell curve distribution, and men have a higher degree of variance from the baseline 100 in both directions.

I think it is an issue with discipline and testosterone not being good friends. But that's in inherent problem of males, not a systematic discrimination.
Men, the same people who have been soldiers for thousands of years, who were trained to face violent death, have problems with discipline....
 

PKM

Gold Member
Oct 11, 2017
810
846
370
I fall into the camp of 'cant sit still' even now.

I was the prototypical trouble maker starting in 8th grade. Finally dropped out in 11th and starting working.

Around 25 I went and got all my IT certs.

I went for interviews and saw a life of 9 to 5...getting up everyday and getting "proper" for work...a cubicle and office..

I ditched it all and work in HVAC-R and Water Treatment. I wake up, throw on Jean's and a T-shirt...bake in the summer, freeze in the winter..sweaty, dirty, and dangerous.
But it feels right.
I am free from the ties of 'rules', walls, time clocks, etc..

Theres a lot of boys who could benefit from bypassing college and getting dirty.
 
Last edited:

Dude Abides

Banned
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
405
They are deliberately disadvantaged, have been for years and you know it so spare anyone your dumb act its really eye rolling dude you really are not as smart or subtle as you think you are.
Lol. This post is definitely evidence of deliberate disadvantage.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Yes, and some men excel at that. Not everyone is destined to be a theoretical physicist. Human intelligence falls along a bell curve distribution, and men have a higher degree of variance from the baseline 100 in both directions.
That's probably close to my point: If less men (than women) have the potential to be good scientists, then it's fine if less men (than women) study. Those who do have the potential and the drive have all opportunities to stud and be successful in the field.



Men, the same people who have been soldiers for thousands of years, who were trained to face violent death, have problems with discipline....
Well, different kind of discipline, I am not talking obediance here and it could in principle also make a difference if we are talking physical activity or mental activity, afterall, I was referencing these postings with my sitting still remark:
boys need a way to get rid of their energy through more sport activities, maybe some rough play which today means suspension. You can not even bring a super hero figure to some school because they represent violence. And playing swords with RULERs? Suspension.
Yes, biologically boys tend to dislike being confined in controlled social spaces. There's a lot of research on the matter to that effect.
These issues are these boy's issues and at least for university level of education I see no good way of helping those who cannot deal with being in controlled social spaces. No way at least, that would not disregard the ability to do just that, which is required in a research job afterwards anyway.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,850
6,083
335
That's probably close to my point: If less men (than women) have the potential to be good scientists, then it's fine if less men (than women) study. Those who do have the potential and the drive have all opportunities to stud and be successful in the field.



Well, different kind of discipline, I am not talking obediance here and it could in principle also make a difference if we are talking physical activity or mental activity, afterall, I was referencing these postings with my sitting still remark:

These issues are these boy's issues and at least for university level of education I see no good way of helping those who cannot deal with being in controlled social spaces. No way at least, that would not disregard the ability to do just that, which is required in a research job afterwards anyway.
Boys never get a chance to prove themselves today. They are often being suspended they learn to hate school and studying. That is where they need help IMO. We need Programs to support everyone not only girls/women.

If you think school is boring and always gets punished for stupid shit I also would hate school to be honest.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Boys never get a chance to prove themselves today. They are often being suspended they learn to hate school and studying. That is where they need help IMO. We need Programs to support everyone not only girls/women.

If you think school is boring and always gets punished for stupid shit I also would hate school to be honest.
Since you are German: There's the Matheolympiade, Jugend Forscht, most schools have special programms for the gifted... There are ample opportunities to prove yourself in school, even though the speed and challenge of the main courses is low.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,850
6,083
335
Since you are German: There's the Matheolympiade, Jugend Forscht, most schools have special programms for the gifted... There are ample opportunities to prove yourself in school, even though the speed and challenge of the main courses is low.
They have a lot support programs for girls. The Programs you mention are already for people interested and knowledgeable. I am talking about beginner classes, like they are existing for girls. These classes should not be separated by gender at all.

Another example would be girls day. Why girls day? But here there are already changes happening. Call it children day boys and girls day girls and boys day etc.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
They have a lot support programs for girls. The Programs you mention are already for people interested and knowledgeable. I am talking about beginner classes, like they are existing for girls. These classes should not be separated by gender at all.

Another example would be girls day. Why girls day? But here there are already changes happening. Call it children day boys and girls day girls and boys day etc.
Girls day is to capture girl's interest in technical fields where it is alleged that societal issues prevent them from developing it otherwise. The university I work for has a boy's day as well by the way.

People who are not knowledgeable should find enough challenges in the regular curriculum, however, programms to train the weaker students are available to all genders as well.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,850
6,083
335
Girls day is to capture girl's interest in technical fields where it is alleged that societal issues prevent them from developing it otherwise. The university I work for has a boy's day as well by the way.

People who are not knowledgeable should find enough challenges in the regular curriculum, however, programms to train the weaker students are available to all genders as well.
So boys can not be interested in it? Again. When do you get the chance as a boy to visit a game studio? A Newspaper etc? These are special events everyone should have access too on the same day under the same conditions. I will never see the segregation of people based on gender or race as a good thing even in these kind of events.

As I said before. these classes are more in advantage or girls. And I also believe from 5-7th grade we should have more specialized classes and schedules for children. At this time you already see the strength and advantages/interests of each person. be it language, math, STEM in general etc. This is where you should focus these schedules
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
So boys can not be interested in it? Again. When do you get the chance as a boy to visit a game studio? A Newspaper etc? These are special events everyone should have access too on the same day under the same conditions. I will never see the segregation of people based on gender or race as a good thing even in these kind of events.

As I said before. these classes are more in advantage or girls. And I also believe from 5-7th grade we should have more specialized classes and schedules for children. At this time you already see the strength and advantages/interests of each person. be it language, math, STEM in general etc. This is where you should focus these schedules
I agree that substantial classes should be open to both genders, but activities that are specifically designed to combat structural discriminatory pressures. The main goal of girls days is not to teach girls something, but to give them the opportunity to deal with topics they are allegedly not supposed to from the perspective of their environment and thus may feel inhibited to do when boys are there, as well. Such an issue probably does not exist for boys with STEM fields.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,850
6,083
335
I agree that substantial classes should be open to both genders, but activities that are specifically designed to combat structural discriminatory pressures. The main goal of girls days is not to teach girls something, but to give them the opportunity to deal with topics they are allegedly not supposed to from the perspective of their environment and thus may feel inhibited to do when boys are there, as well. Such an issue probably does not exist for boys with STEM fields.
But these pressures do not exist anymore...

They only exist in the modern feminist mind. Their are biological reasons why women are less interested in STEMS in General. And yes it also has something to do with testosterone. See Norway in which women tend more and more to traditional jobs because they now truly have the choice. The more equally a women feels the more she wants to do.

Even with 1 day old babies you can see these differences when boys with a huge amount of testosterone react to mechanical object while girls and babies with less concentrate on the faces of human people. Right now we try to teach girls how exciting STEMS can be but we do not really ask if they even want to do this.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
But these pressures do not exist anymore...
This is not true, stereotypical assignments of interests and capabilities are still present in our society. It is not a legal barrier, but a societal nevertheless. How it relates to this:
They only exist in the modern feminist mind. Their are biological reasons why women are less interested in STEMS in General. And yes it also has something to do with testosterone. See Norway in which women tend more and more to traditional jobs because they now truly have the choice. The more equally a women feels the more she wants to do.

Even with 1 day old babies you can see these differences when boys with a huge amount of testosterone react to mechanical object while girls and babies with less concentrate on the faces of human people. Right now we try to teach girls how exciting STEMS can be but we do not really ask if they even want to do this.
and which factor, if any, is dominant, it an open question. A biological difference in interest in mechanical or technical objects is contested.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,850
6,083
335
This is not true, stereotypical assignments of interests and capabilities are still present in our society. It is not a legal barrier, but a societal nevertheless. How it relates to this:

and which factor, if any, is dominant, it an open question. A biological difference in interest in mechanical or technical objects is contested.
IT has been proven y several studies It also has been proven why women in not so equal countries have a much higher interest in STEM
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Wow. So boys lagging at school because they are not as smart is a fact, seriously? Thanks for the shitpost.

That's great for men actually.
The point was there is a huge list of "men built structures" that disadvantage men. Are you seriously challenging that?

If yes, Ok, when Chernobyl and Fukushima happend, people of which gender were sent to dangerous zones? Certainly you don't need to google to answer that question.
Now, is that also "great for men actually"? Perhaps we can study how damaging that is to male bodies and hence know male bodies batter than female bodies, so sacrificing men is good?
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
As far as IQ..
Men are dumber then women.
Let's point out, that we can only talk about actual IQ test results, IQ itself is elusive.
What you state is factually wrong:

A 2004 meta-analysis by Richard Lynn and Paul Irwing published in 2005 found that the mean IQ of men exceeded that of women by up to 5 points on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test.[3][24] Lynn's findings were debated in a series of articles for Nature.[25][26][27] Jackson and Philipe Rushton found that males aged 17–18 years had an average of 3.63 IQ points in excess of their female equivalents on the Scholastic Assessment Test.[28]
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,268
11,638
830
Australia
That's great for men actually. Not for the testers involved, but knowledge about averse reactions and dosage is gathered based on the male physiology, so if you are dependent on the medicine (and not a test subject), then it is great for you to be a man rather than a woman here.
lol

And what about the men acting as guinea pigs?
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,444
305
1,025
More should be done to help all students reach their potential - whether they be from disadvantaged backgrounds, rural schools, recent immigrants etc.

At the same time, changes need to be developed carefully and practically. You can't just stop doing exams, implement sport everyday or just allow 'roughhousing'.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
IT has been proven y several studies It also has been proven why women in not so equal countries have a much higher interest in STEM
It is pretty near impossible to control for societal factors. There have been studies which suggest a biological component, but it is not a closed case.
The point was there is a huge list of "men built structures" that disadvantage men. Are you seriously challenging that?
No, I do not challenge that in principle, I know of one that is in the constitution in Germany (military service). But the university system was made specifically to create a learning environment for men, so I doubt that's an example of that.
If yes, Ok, when Chernobyl and Fukushima happend, people of which gender were sent to dangerous zones? Certainly you don't need to google to answer that question.
Now, is that also "great for men actually"? Perhaps we can study how damaging that is to male bodies and hence know male bodies batter than female bodies, so sacrificing men is good?
I have no idea what structure you are talking about here. Yes, it was disadvantageous to the people who had to secure Chernobyl and Fukushima and yes, due to the distribution of sexes in jobs, there are much more men than women involved here. But that is not a designed system. It is not a valid example.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
That's probably close to my point: If less men (than women) have the potential to be good scientists, then it's fine if less men (than women) study.
Let's put it in gender neutral way: there should be no barriers to gender/race/sexual orientation/age/weight, and once we achieve that, whatever outcome we get, is fine.
I hope we can agree on that.

Now the problematic part starts when we start looking at the barriers.
E.g. this study done in Israel in 2008, that concludes that students of certain gender "face discrimination in each subject".
Another one, done in Sweden in 2013, concludes that "in English, Swedish and Mathematics, <certain> students are more generously rewarded in final grades than <certain students>.

But the university system was made specifically to create a learning environment for men
Would you mind to elaborate. As I'm struggling with "for gender" part.

...due to the distribution of sexes in jobs, there are much more men than women involved here...
No, women simply are not sent to die, even when you have them available, US military is a very easy example.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
How about the malemen?
For such discussions on medicine, all men mentioned are male men. Male women and female men would not apply because who would wnat to test medicine on people who regularly take artificial hormones and this could fuck up the research results considerably?
Let's put it in gender neutral way: there should be no barriers to gender/race/sexual orientation/age/weight, and once we achieve that, whatever outcome we get, is fine.
I hope we can agree on that.
I agree.
Now the problematic part starts when we start looking at the barriers.
E.g. this study done in Israel in 2008, that concludes that students of certain gender "face discrimination in each subject".
Another one, done in Sweden in 2013, concludes that "in English, Swedish and Mathematics, <certain> students are more generously rewarded in final grades than <certain students>.
Yes, that is an issue.
Would you mind to elaborate. As I'm struggling with "for gender" part.
E.g. in Germany, women are allowed to study since 1900. The core structures of universities in Germany are significantly older and therefore obviously designed for men.
No, women simply are not sent to die, even when you have them available, US military is a very easy example.
That's an individual decision and not a general rule (unsure whether it is a general rule for the US military though; If it is, it is discriminatory and should be changed).
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
E.g. in Germany, women are allowed to study since 1900. The core structures of universities in Germany are significantly older and therefore obviously designed for men.
I see.
That is barring ENTRY into university. (and as far as I remember, 150+ years ago high education was only for elites, but that's not the point here)
What part of the structure at the university was somehow tailored for men?

I am challenging "designed by men = obviously designed for men", not obviously and factually not at all as far as I see.
I can see where this theory is coming from though, as that is the way the authors and supporters of this theory actually act.
But as I see you are not arguing for it, but just couldn't help mentioning Canadian style "equality".

That's an individual decision and not a general rule (unsure whether it is a general rule for the US military though; If it is, it is discriminatory and should be changed).
No argument that it is discriminatory, in no way it is "individual" and there are way less harsher circumstances (e.g. evacuation rules) where it still sticks, but I wanted to point out WHY that was happening.

To any state/government/ruthless ruler (we had plenty of both genders, with no noticeable differences at likeliness to wage war) prime fertility age women are, without exaggeration, dozen of times more valuable than easily replaceable men.

Is that fair or "equal"? Nope. Does it make perfect sense to do? Yes.

Naturally, we would have built in biases for that, I recall studies in "moral dilemma, whom would you sacrifice" 88% choosing a man. (in case person self identified as feminist, they won't tell us the figures, hiding behind "more likely to sacrifice men":) ) My take is that of course, people self identifying as feminists are more likely in the "we re not doing enough for women" camp.

Since forever, if a tribe had to risk/sacrifice part of its population, sending men to death was a no-brainer and for a very practical reason: they are so much easier to replace.
To my knowledge, men to women ratio among our ancestors is 1 to 2. At times in Egypt it was up to 1 to 37.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
That is barring ENTRY into university. (and as far as I remember, 150+ years ago high education was only for elites, but that's not the point here)
What part of the structure at the university was somehow tailored for men?
If only men can enter university, then it is only natural that it is designed for them. Why would you design it for women or consider female needs and preferences if no women will be there? This is not to state that the people deliberately thought "what are special requirement for men", but just that, since only men were the target audience, it was clearly designed for them.

EDIT: I have trouble verifying the claim of prioritising women in evacuation. I can only find statements that it is not the case (officially).
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,268
11,638
830
Australia
If only men can enter university, then it is only natural that it is designed for them. Why would you design it for women or consider female needs and preferences if no women will be there? This is not to state that the people deliberately thought "what are special requirement for men", but just that, since only men were the target audience, it was clearly designed for them.
Which female-specific needs are you talking about?
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
If only men can enter university, then it is only natural that it is designed for them.
University that I've attended was designed so that lecturers could present their teaching to a wide audience of people, auditoriums designed with such acoustics that people sitting far away could ask questions and be heard without having to shout. Some rooms were designed for labs, including a couple with radioactive materials, there was a large array of accumulators in the cellar serving 120V constant current to lab rooms, roof housed a small observatory.
Other than that, ceilings at about 5 meter, but I suspect it was pretty normal even in any building back then.

Exactly what can you do, to design University for men?
Were doors harder to open so that women would suffer?
Where desks of made so that women would somehow not be able to sit?


It was a general discussion on whether the design of the university system is made in a way to preferentially treat women.
If you would ask "but had there been any changes to make it better for girls/women" I would tell you, but we are still at decoding "universities built for men" and I'm not the only one puzzled with that. :)
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
University that I've attended was designed so that lecturers could present their teaching to a wide audience of people, auditoriums designed with such acoustics that people sitting far away could ask questions and be heard without having to shout. Some rooms were designed for labs, including a couple with radioactive materials, there was a large array of accumulators in the ceiling serving 120V constant current to lab rooms, roof housed a small observatory.
Other than that, ceilings at about 5 meter, but I suspect it was pretty normal even in any building back then.

Exactly what can you do, to design University for men?
Were doors harder to open so that women would suffer?
Where desks of made so that women would somehow not be able to sit?



If you would ask "but had there been any changes to make it better for girls/women" I would tell you, but we are still at decoding "universities built for men" and I'm not the only one puzzled with that. :)
I do not understand what's so hard to understand with this claim. Saying it is designed for men does not say it is designed in a way to decidedly exclude women or be inconvenient to women. Then I would say "it is designed to exclude women". They are designed for men because at the time of design they were naturally only planned for them, so by default they are designed for men, because that's the only target audience at the time. So the idea of keeping your ass on a seat and focus on the object of study is not driven by a testosterone-averse agenda.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,416
1,702
475
I do not understand what's so hard to understand with this claim.
Because the claim implies "and there was/is something in it that disadvantaged women".
There should be an example of that "something" in the "design" of universities, if so.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Because the claim implies "and there was/is something in it that disadvantaged women".
This implication is in your head. If I design a shoe to perfectly fit my foot, then it will fit my foot, but I will not go out of the way to make sure it does not fit some other person's foot. It's just a coincidence if it does. I did not say that there is something the specifically disadvantages women, nor did I want to say this. Just that, considering the target audience, there is nothing to suspect it was designed in a way to disadvantage men.*
Quite the opposite actually... just different kinds of discipline in many ways...
Yes. Which is what I wanted to clarify with this earlier statement:
Well, different kind of discipline, I am not talking obediance here and it could in principle also make a difference if we are talking physical activity or mental activity, (...)
* I just want to add that the time frame and criteria to become a professor at least in Germany, is such that women realistically are forced to decide between having biological children and becoming a professor, which is not true for men. This is something that could be considered an issue with the way the system is designed with disregard for female participants.
 
Last edited:

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,181
1,126
225
The opposition to helping males in education is sad. We don't see such opposition when it comes to helping females which is why we are where we are now.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,985
1,641
440
The opposition to helping males in education is sad. We don't see such opposition when it comes to helping females which is why we are where we are now.
I don't think we should be "helping" either and let people who excel excel and let people who under perform under perform...
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,002
15,277
665
USA
dunpachi.com
I don't think we should be "helping" either and let people who excel excel and let people who under perform under perform...
Education itself is "helping", so we should at least be tailoring the structure to produce the best possible students.

Should we cut remedial and special-needs schooling as well? 'Cause... those demographics are far smaller than 'males' yet they get tons of funding and training.
 

share

Neo Member
Dec 17, 2018
4
2
75
boys need a way to get rid of their energy through more sport activities,
This is honestly the exact opposite of what you would want to do if you want the education system to be more equal. Sending boys out to "get rid of their energy" while women and girls learn more in their classroom environment sounds like a great way to directly disadvantage men. There are also alot of arguments to be made from the perspective of coping skills. Sure men may need certain things, I am not educated enough on the topic to argue against men 'needing' to go outside and play or wrestle or "play swords with rulers", but in real life men don't get to do this. Psychologically a large part of child development is coping skills. Everyone wants things they cant have, feels things they shouldnt feel or can't achieve, etc. and understanding how to stay focused in a classroom environment when you are only thinking about other things is a part of that. The lack of coping skills is exactly why you have many violent and agressive people in the first place, most children learn how to cope with aggressive, violent, or even simply more "rough" desires, since our society doesn't support that kind of behaviour, but those who were not able to learn propor coping mechanisms get angry and can't regulate their emotions proporly to survive in the 'real world'.

maybe some rough play which today means suspension. You can not even bring a super hero figure to some school because they represent violence. And playing swords with RULERs? Suspension.
It's a school, you go there to learn. When I was in high school only a few years ago many people in my class were not interested in school, they were disrespectful to teachers and they goofed off all day in class. I tried to focus on finishing assignments and projects while these kids were messing around but it was sometimes difficult when you have things flying around the room and the teacher just sits in the corner on their phone not caring. This led to me having to do even more work outside of school as homework, something most of those students would never do. What I am trying to say is that if you create a structured environment where children go to learn, it will get them used to being in the kind of place the real world is, and will give the kids who want to learn a better environment overall. Catering to the needs of these "hooligans" seems very reactionary to modern sexism culture. When kids go home, they can goof off, mess around, and be disrespectful all they want (or at least however much their parents can tolerate) but when I was (and am in) school I just wanted to learn, pass my classes, get good grades, so I can move on.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,985
1,641
440
Education itself is "helping", so we should at least be tailoring the structure to produce the best possible students.

Should we cut remedial and special-needs schooling as well? 'Cause... those demographics are far smaller than 'males' yet they get tons of funding and training.
I was referring to helping one half the population vs the other half, I wasn't talking about the entire vague structure of school itself...
 

Bogey

Member
May 4, 2014
183
70
180
This implication is in your head. If I design a shoe to perfectly fit my foot, then it will fit my foot, but I will not go out of the way to make sure it does not fit some other person's foot. It's just a coincidence if it does. I did not say that there is something the specifically disadvantages women, nor did I want to say this. Just that, considering the target audience, there is nothing to suspect it was designed in a way to disadvantage men.*
If I understand you right, your conclusion is a bit misleading though.

Sure, there's not much to suggest the school/University system has been designed to disadvantage men in particular. But that doesn't imply men are necessarily on equal footing with women.

Maybe the current Form of schooling is indeed the most effective one, and/or most cost efficient one or whatever. So the system would be designed just fine. But men might still biologically be a bit behind women in terms of abilities to perform in such a system.

Maybe clearer - think of sports. On average, men are significantly better there than women, even though lots of sports aren't geared towards any gender whatsoever (think of running, swimming etc etc). The fact that women may be at disadvantage there is purely biological, not per design.

Either way. Quotas almost always suck, and this case is no exception (though it is indeed rather entertaining to read reactions from people who otherwise strongly support quotas... When it suits them, that is)
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,106
510
430
Reading, Berkshire
Education itself is "helping", so we should at least be tailoring the structure to produce the best possible students.

Should we cut remedial and special-needs schooling as well? 'Cause... those demographics are far smaller than 'males' yet they get tons of funding and training.
But half of that demographics is males so by cutting that funding you'd still be hurting...men...
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,126
1,737
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If I understand you right, your conclusion is a bit misleading though.

Sure, there's not much to suggest the school/University system has been designed to disadvantage men in particular. But that doesn't imply men are necessarily on equal footing with women.

Maybe the current Form of schooling is indeed the most effective one, and/or most cost efficient one or whatever. So the system would be designed just fine. But men might still biologically be a bit behind women in terms of abilities to perform in such a system.

Maybe clearer - think of sports. On average, men are significantly better there than women, even though lots of sports aren't geared towards any gender whatsoever (think of running, swimming etc etc). The fact that women may be at disadvantage there is purely biological, not per design.

Either way. Quotas almost always suck, and this case is no exception (though it is indeed rather entertaining to read reactions from people who otherwise strongly support quotas... When it suits them, that is)
Yes, that might be, but then it is not a systematic issue but a biological disadvantage and thus... tough luck. Either way the difference certainly is not as big as it is in sports.
 

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
2,081
2,526
340
Men -- of all races -- have lower graduation rates and lower grades on average.

Girls caught up. It's time to focus on the boys again. They're suffering in our educational system.
Except in developed societies where women have full control over their study choices, men tend to graduate in STEM much more. Even a crappy transcript in IT or Engineering is infinitely more useful than a High Distinction laced transcript attached to a degree in Social Studies or Youth Work.

This is why men continue to earn ~25% more on average. Better jobs plus fewer days off work due to less sick leave. It is biological, and it shouldn't be touched/changed. Equality of opportunity achieved in tertiary education. Equality of outcome can't be guaranteed and it certainly can't be controlled without crippling your entire economy.

However boys are greatly disadvantaged in high school. Despite that, they still manage to do better long term. I'll allow it.
 
Last edited:

share

Neo Member
Dec 17, 2018
4
2
75
Except* in developed societies where women have full control over their study choices, men tend to graduate in STEM much more. Even a crappy transcript in IT or Engineering is infinitely more useful than a High Distinction laced transcript attached to a degree in Social Studies or Youth Work.

This is why men continue to earn ~25% more on average. Better jobs plus fewer days off work due to less sick leave. It is biological, and it shouldn't be touched/changed. Equality of opportunity achieved in tertiary education. Equality of outcome can't be guaranteed and it certainly can't be controlled without crippling your entire economy.

However boys are greatly disadvantaged in high school. Despite that, they still manage to do better long term. I'll allow it.
While I generally agree with most of what you just said, I think its important not to start becoming the moral god of what is allowable and what is not in terms of inequality. Inequality of two inidentical things can never "equal out", there are just disadvantages and advantages. For example: many point to women being weaker on average, and the counterargument is that they are treated better by society in terms of social favor, and say that these disparagies "equal out" so its no big deal.

I personally don't want equality of outcome, I want equallity of opportunity, and thats generally what we have, but I think it's important to avoid saying "I'll allow it" specifically, or that "despite these challenges, they do better overall, so it doesnt matter". That kind of mentallity is not very condusive to fixing inequality related problems. The important thing to ask, rather, is 'Does this specific issue need to be fixed to reach equality of opportunity?'. In my opinion comparing disadvantages in some pro / cons list is totally counterproductive.

*Assuming you meant "In developed societies, where women have full controll over their study choices..." [citation]
 
Last edited:

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
2,081
2,526
340
While I generally agree with most of what you just said, I think its important not to start becoming the moral god of what is allowable and what is not in terms of inequality. Inequality of two inidentical things can never "equal out", there are just disadvantages and advantages. For example: many point to women being weaker on average, and the counterargument is that they are treated better by society in terms of social favor, and say that these disparagies "equal out" so its no big deal.

I personally don't want equality of outcome, I want equallity of opportunity, and thats generally what we have, but I think it's important to avoid saying "I'll allow it" specifically, or that "despite these challenges, they do better overall, so it doesnt matter". That kind of mentallity is not very condusive to fixing inequality related problems. The important thing to ask, rather, is 'Does this specific issue need to be fixed to reach equality of opportunity?'. In my opinion comparing disadvantages in some pro / cons list is totally counterproductive.

*Assuming you meant "In developed societies, where women have full controll over their study choices..." [citation]
Yes that's what I meant. When given choice and options, women tend away from stem. They actually outnumber men in stem in many developing regions where they are basically forced into such fields by their families.

And I was being facetious when I said 'I'll allow it'. Another term in my case for 'I don't care'. Boys should have a tougher time growing up, it helps build character as they will be expected to bear the brunt of societal upkeep and development.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,850
6,083
335
None, specifically. It was a general discussion on whether the design of the university system is made in a way to preferentially treat women. For historic reasons I find this exceedingly unlikely.
But this did already happen. In school and on University level. It highly favors women and also in the US especially men are presented as sexual predators having to take do not rape classes or the Aricle IX which also stigmatized men from the begining.

example of this here:
Eliminating feminist teacher bias erases boys' falling grades, study finds

Has the Sexual Revolution, and the feminist ideology that drives it, pushed men out of universities by undermining boys in school as early as kindergarten? Some writers are beginning to connect the dots between the shift over the last few decades in educational practices from fact-based grading to evaluation based on “non-cognitive” and “emotional skills” and the drop in school performance of boys.
The problem of boys’ underachievement in primary and secondary school follows them into their later lives. Research from 2006 has tracked the decline in male academic performance over the same period as the rise of feminist-dominated ideologies in academia and policymaking.

The ratio of males to females graduating from a four-year college stood at 1.60 in 1960, fell to parity by 1980, and continued its decline until by 2003, there were 135 females for every 100 males who graduated from a four-year college. Another study found that half of the current gender gap in college attendance can be linked to lower rates of high-school graduation among males, particularly for young black men

The answer lies in the way teachers, who are statistically mostly women, evaluate students without reference to objective test scores. Boys are regularly graded well below their actual academic performance.

After fifth grade, he found, student assessment becomes a matter of “a teacher’s subjective assessment of the student’s performance,” and is further removed from the guidance of objective test results. Teachers, he says, tend to assess students on non-cognitive, “socio-emotional skills.” This has had a significant impact on boys’ later achievement because, while objective test scores are important, it is teacher-assigned grades that determine a child’s future with class placement, high school graduation and college admissibility.

Eliminating the factor of “non-cognitive skills…almost eliminates the estimated gender gap in reading grades,” Cornwell found. He said he found it “surprising” that although boys out-perform girls on math and science test scores, girls out-perform boys on teacher-assigned grades.


In science and general knowledge, as in math skills, the data showed that kindergarten and first grade white boys’ grades “are lower by 0.11 and 0.06 standard deviations, even though their test scores are higher.” This disparity continues and grows through to the fifth grade, with white boys and girls being graded similarly, “but the disparity between their test performance and teacher assessment grows.”

“From kindergarten to fifth grade,” he found, “the top half of the test-score distribution” among whites is increasingly populated by boys, “while the grade distribution provides no corresponding evidence that boys are out-performing girls”.

These disparities are “even sharper for black and Hispanic children” with the “misalignment of grades with test scores steadily increases as black and Hispanic students advance in school.”