‘There Was Definitely a Thumb on the Scale to Get Boys’ - Declining male enrollment has led many colleges to adopt an unofficial policy: affirmative action for men.
‘There Was Definitely a Thumb on the Scale to Get Boys’ - Declining male enrollment has led many colleges to adopt an unofficial policy: affirmative action for men.
Declining male enrollment has led many colleges to adopt an unofficial policy: affirmative action for men.
You're viewing a single thread.
I've seen a few other articles on this issue and the double standard is astounding.
If a conventional minority group struggles, they need to be helped. If it's a man, screw them! They're oppressive and don't deserve help.
If men are dominant in certain fields, it's a sign of systematic discrimination against women. If women are dominant in certain fields, then that's just because men suck at xyz and this is just the natural outcome.
And the funny part is, I read one article about this and the editor (a middle aged woman as usual) said that this imbalanced ratio is an issue because surprise surprise young women won't have enough men to date!
It's almost like men's issues only matter if it affects women, and somehow that's the only concern.
If men are dominant in certain fields, it’s a sign of systematic discrimination against women. If women are dominant in certain fields, then that’s just because men suck at xyz and this is just the natural outcome.
I'm open to having my mind changed, but I think that might actually be true. In cases where men are dominant, we can point to specific discriminatory situations. We can see how hiring committees consist primarily or exclusively of men. We can see how popular depictions of people in [field] are all male. We can note that neurodivergent boys are far more likely to get diagnoses and support than neurodivergent girls. With the exception of certain fields like education and nursing, I can't think of any systemic factors that discriminate against men.
Fair enough, but I'd make a few objections,
I don't think an imbalance necessarily means that we should automatically assume discrimination, for example there is a small correlation between sex and interest (men to objects, women to living things) which may account for some discrepancy in certain fields.
Hiring committees would depend but very often we see HR is majority female, and some studies show that female named job applications in certain cases may be more favoured even when the exact same application is given with a male name.
In terms of school, I can attest that boys need to stop fucking around during class time and actually pay attention, but I've seen another study show that for the exact same work, public school teachers sometimes mark higher for a girls work.
The last point I would make is that there are quite a few female only grants and bursaries and aid programs, but there's very few that outright exist for males.
That's my two cents, but I understand your perspective as well.
I think Warren Farrell especially, and a bit of Leonard Sax as well have gone into this in more detail.
Unfortunately the mainstream feminist objection is that "men should just make their own support organizations" but the problem is sometimes the government won't give them a nickel, which I find absurd.
This guy in Calgary Canada made a men's domestic violence shelter, (shockingly women are first statistically to initiate domestic violence, which I didn't know). This was around 2011 or so? But the local feminists at the time online were saying that he should not feel entitled to government funding and only women's shelters should get government funding. I think he killed himself afterwards.
So it seems like when men do band together to make a support group, it doesn't get the same amount of government support as a women's group will.