Or, with a slightly different twist, because men at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum have a variety of moderately well-paying job choices available that do not require college degrees (trades, especially, and things like HVAC installation and construction) whereas women from those same backgrounds have fewer serious options that do not require a degree. (In other words, Joe can go make $40K a year at a machine shop or go to college–Sally can make $20K a year working at the grocery store or go to college. Sally’s opportunity cost is much lower, making school a more attractive choice).
I wouldn’t worry about this. It’s not clear to me that we need to increase the number of people going to college anyway. And men have carrier options in pretty good paying jobs that women typically haven’t participated in. Construction jobs are in the shitter right now, but generally the trades (electricians, plumbers, carpenters) can do pretty well, and you just don’t see many women in those jobs.
And, in fact, I have heard that men are in higher demand (or have an easier time getting hired) than women as primary school teachers.
I find this to be a rather touchy subject because I have a hard time finding reliable information. I’ve run into too many people who use this as a platform to attack feminism, the woman’s movement, etc. I don’t have a cite for any of this but from what I can recall boys are more likely to have disciplinary problems in school, are less likely to graduate high school, are less likely to go to college, and those that do go to college are less likely to graduate than girls are. Maybe we are failing our boys.
I am concerned that its boys who make up the overwhelming majority of those diagnosed with ADHD and then medicated. It just reminds me of 19th century Hysteria
Out of curiosity, what happens to those earnings figures when you eliminate sex workers?
Regarding the gender gap in college attendance, some interesting patterns emerge once you start to break the figures down by age, race, and income. Basically, the big gaps exist among low-income, minority, and (especially) older students. Among traditionally-aged white and Asian students in the highest income quartile, slightly more men attend college than women.
So I’m not convinced that the situation warrants affirmative action directed at men in general. (I suspect that the primary beneficiaries of such a policy would be the privileged male students who are going to college anyway, rather than the less privileged ones who seem to be getting turned off of school in large numbers.) We probably do need to do something to target low-income and minority men in particular (although I think admission preferences aren’t the best solution, since simply lowering the bar for men won’t automatically increase their interest level or preparedness for college). But the really massive gaps appear among older, returning students, and this may not be a sign of a problem at all; it’s quite possible that the majority of these students are women because men in this age range are more likely to already have a bachelor’s degree.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/women-dominate-higher-education-at.html
Women are now earning 40-67% more undergraduate & masters degrees than men. I think that needs to be rectified and taken seriously, yes.
By 2017 women will earn about 62% of college degrees vs 38% for men.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm
Kudos for women for taking education seriously. I wonder why guys are falling so far behind.
What I found interesting is that among middle income students (30-70k income) the gender gap between blacks, whites & latinos is the same. It is about a 58:42 ratio for blacks, whites and latinos (asians are 50/50 at that income)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm
So white middle class families are seeing a massive gap forming too, it isn’t just poor families and non-whites seeing this.
The core discrepancy is that if women are underrepresented in some area it’s presumed that this must be due to some discrimination that needs to be corrected, and those suggesting otherwise have a heavy burden of proof placed on them. If men are underrepresented in some area, it’s taken as being just the way things are … maybe women are just better at these things …
Some of the posts in this thread are evidence.
That’s a fair argument, but can you point to anything which might support the idea that men are being discriminated against?
I don’t think men really are being discriminated against in a significant way, other than affirmative action. But I think AA is pretty big, and by use of this term I mean general pressure - through the possibility of lawsuits, or bad PR - to keep a high percentage of women employed and promoted in areas that they would not naturally be, and not just to legal quota requirements. This does not exist in areas that naturally favor women.
For example, my belief in general is that on average men work harder than women (at income producing jobs, that is, not overall). I’ve seen (articles about) studies confirming this. Men work longer hours and commute longer distances than women in with similar jobs in the same fields.
And it makes sense, when you consider what society expects of each gender, and how society hands out its rewards. For men, perhaps the biggest factor in their social standing is how much money they make. For women money counts (although it doesn’t seem to make much difference if they earn it themselves or otherwise come by it) but other factors are also big as well, e.g. familial ties, appearance. So if the question is how hard an individual is willing to push him/herself to make that extra buck, on average men will push themselves harder.
And I’ve seen references to studies that support this, as above. And it conforms to the experience of people I know. You have a husband and wife who are both lawyers, which one is going to commute from the suburbs into the big city to work killer hours at a major firm and which is going to find some local law firm with lower pay and a shorter commute and more flexible hours?
But this doesn’t get cited in studies which compare salaries of men and women in the same fields, or lawsuits which compare men and women in the same firm. It’s un-PC.
Not to mention the possibility that women might be less capable - in certain areas - then men. Can’t suggest that either. (Ask Larry Summers.)
But suppose there are areas that favor women, e.g. suppose women are “more socially intelligent and more adept with language compared to men”, as a poster suggested earlier in this thread. This gets casually tossed out as a valid possibility that justifiably produces results that favor women.
So if you have a situation where the natural laws of biology and sociology would favor men in some areas and women in others, and the areas that favor men are viewed as obstacles that have to be forcefully overcome and the areas that favor women are viewed as natural and fine, what you end up with is a situation that overall skews against men.
I can guarantee you that nobody ignores potential defenses to a lawsuit because they’re un-PC.
I can guarantee you that they do.
You put up a defense like that in the environment that exists today, you’re effectively admitting guilt. You might as well not start.