Are College Educated Lds Men Slowly Becoming An Endangered Species?

[WalkerW]

Kristina M. Durante, Vladas Griskevicius, Jeffry A. Simpson, Stephanie M. Cantú, Joshua M. Tybur, "Sex Ratio and Women's Career Choice: Does a Scarcity of Men Lead Women to Choose Briefcase Over Baby?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (April 2, 2012).

[Log]

Walker - 2 things.

Is that the study referred to in this article? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129456/Do-girls-want-career-attract-man-Provocative-study-casts-high-fliers-new-light.html?printingPage=true

And, can you tell Consiglieri to make a sock puppet and rejoin the flock?

[WalkerW]

Walker - 2 things.

Is that the study referred to in this article? http://www.dailymail...intingPage=true

And, can you tell Consiglieri to make a sock puppet and rejoin the flock?

Yes, it is, but that is a terrible summary. Women who viewed themselves as less desirable was only one aspect of the study. The one that pertains to this particular discussion is the lack of men on college campuses. Here is a more comprehensive summary: http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/04/18/lack-of-men-leads-women-to-choose-career-over-family/37500.html

[Maidservant]

This thread confuses me. But there is too much to wrap my head around and I'm not conversant in actual sociology.

While I am not a fan of the public school system (to put it mildly) for many, many reasons . . . I am curious about the support for "feminization of the classroom" and what that even looks like. And if the support is "tactile and movement" (which I'm all for!) . . . when was this EVER how men got educated in the past? How about 4 hours of Latin homework a hundred years ago or so? How about the advent of 1950s style public school system of which I think we are getting a lot more sensible to different learning styles since then? And not so long ago, the number of males who graduated weren't that high compared to total men, because college education wasn't accessible to everyone.

The statistic means nothing to me whatsoever also since it can be interpreted many ways. Are we saying that the way we have ever treated boys and men in any age or even culture, have been a good way that has to do with their emotional, physical, spiritual and social potential? I don't know if a case can be made for that. I really like the men that are growing up today. I have nothing to compare it to, only as I imagine the past was, and I really wouldn't want any man from the past (as I imagine it), and I really like men that exist in today's world. The ones I don't appreciate much (personally) are the ones who still seemed formed by past paradigms.

Anyway, like I said, a lot of points are being made, and I'm still thinking on it.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Maidservant

[Cobalt-70]

Maybe it's time to bring back some boys-only and girls-only schools.

No, I don't think there is a war against boys or men. How could there be a war on boys when, despite all of the above statistics, girls ultimately will only make 70% as much money as their comparably-educated and qualified male peers?

Edited April 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

War! War! Warrrrr!

[Storm Rider]

Maybe it's time to bring back some boys-only and girls-only schools.

No, I don't think there is a war against boys or men. How could there be a war on boys when, despite all of the above statistics, girls ultimately will only make 70% as much money as their comparably-educated and qualified male peers?

Unfortunately, what you are doing is looking at the past to judge what is happening now in our schools. It is a very common error of all those that are terrified that women are downtrodden and ignored. That is a myth and it has been a myth for the past 30 years. Everything in education has changed to meet one, single goal: the promotion of female education. Now that it has been achieved the professionals wring their hands in dismay that boys are failing. This is one of the great DUH moments.

You might want to read the plethora of studies about the current status of boys in education. It is obvious that you have not be exposed to any of it.

[Cobalt-70]

Unfortunately, what you are doing is looking at the past to judge what is happening now in our schools. It is a very common error of all those that are terrified that women are downtrodden and ignored. That is a myth and it has been a myth for the past 30 years. Everything in education has changed to meet one, single goal: the promotion of female education. Now that it has been achieved the professionals wring their hands in dismay that boys are failing. This is one of the great DUH moments.

Again, I'll recognize the U.S. as being in a state of "war on boys" as soon as these boys, when they get to the workforce, stop making 40% more money than similarly-qualified girls. All the education is for nothing if there is no equality in the workforce.

[Calm]

when they get to the workforce, stop making 40% more money than similarly-qualified girls

Are you suggesting that at entry into the workforce, men are getting paid 40% more on average than women?

[Calm]

Everything in education has changed to meet one, single goal: the promotion of female education.....

You might want to read the plethora of studies about the current status of boys in education. It is obvious that you have not be exposed to any of it.

Any chance we can get a few specific examples of how things have changed?

[Nofear]

Any chance we can get a few specific examples of how things have changed?

While the data is unambiguously clear that girls are outperforming boys in schools the patterns and behaviors in schools that lead to this are much less than clear. Some random sources:

Why Boys under perform in schools

The Myth that Schools Shortchange Girls

Gender Gap

One interesting theory is given by Philip Zimbardo The Demise of Guys? in which he points to games and porn and other factors as explanatory (though the theory would have difficulty with the gap appearing for elementary age children). Nonetheless, the theories I tend to see posited are less about curricula and more about sociological factors.

[Calm]

When I was in school, the stats were about the poorer performance of girls and while considered impractical, it was suggested that girls only schools would be the best environment for allowing girls to less intimidated etc.

Haven't been keeping up on the studies in this topic since university.

If the styles of learning are significantly different by gender and if they do better without the presence of the 'other', then it would be wise imo to split into one gender classes for subjects that merit such treatment while having other classes which are not affected by such influences together.

[Calm]

The Internet terrifies most teachers, and some boys know more about the Internet than do many educators.

If this is the main reason as is claimed in the first article, it would seem that this problem will work itself out as the internet age children become the teachers (not saying that anyone should not do anything about it now to help those having problems during the transition).

Totally agree with the second article about the lack of proper gifted standards. My son knew how to add and subtract, multiple and divide before he entered kindergarten, he understood the concept of squares and negative numbers (my speciality is math and it was so fun to play mathematics with him...unfortunately my daughter did not feel the same way but she always loved reading which was as fun...I remember her just having learned how to stand up, hunkering down in front of a newspaper on the floor pretending to read it so she could be just like everyone else in the family). Anyway, when I suggest to his first grade teacher that he get tested for the gifted program (he was an extremely well behaved student, btw), she informed me that anyone gifted taught themselves how to read before kindergarten and because his reading skills were average, he couldn't be gifted....and she just blew me off when I asked how many gifted students knew how to do negative numbers and squares by first grade? If reading is emphasized as a sign of intelligence, etc. I can see how boys can get shortchanged in general. New teacher evaluated him midyear and he was immediately placed in the gifted program.... whose teacher adored him, btw.

Edited April 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

Are you suggesting that at entry into the workforce, men are getting paid 40% more on average than women?

Actually, I see that the number has gone down since the 2007 recession to about 30%. And, no, this is not necessarily the pay upon entry into the workforce. This is the average of all women. But the pay gap doesn't go away among younger women--those who are supposedly to have benefited from the undoubtedly-real increase in their educational achievement and opportunity over the last few decades. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2008.pdf

Edited April 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Pahoran]

Actually, I see that the number has gone down since the 2007 recession to about 30%. And, no, this is not necessarily the pay upon entry into the workforce. This is the average of all women. But the pay gap doesn't go away among younger women--those who are supposedly to have benefited from the undoubtedly-real increase in their educational achievement and opportunity over the last few decades. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2008.pdf

So, IOW, your blanket statistic doesn't factor in different career choices, longer uninterrupted career engagement or anything else that might be relevant; you simply rattle it off and assume that it represents some kind of "disadvantaged" status for women.

Even if that were true (which it arguably is not) the fact would then remain that it is only a distraction to the question of whether boys are disadvantaged (to whatever extent that girls are advantaged) in formal education.

Which is to say that you appear to be changing the subject.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

So, IOW, your blanket statistic doesn't factor in different career choices, longer uninterrupted career engagement or anything else that might be relevant; you simply rattle it off and assume that it represents some kind of "disadvantaged" status for women.

Even if that were true (which it arguably is not) the fact would then remain that it is only a distraction to the question of whether boys are disadvantaged (to whatever extent that girls are advantaged) in formal education.

Even taking all factors into account, like career choice, continuous experience, etc, there is still remains a gender gap. So the point is, although girls have for whatever reason been thriving educationally over the last few decades, it is not like these changes have translated into a real advantage to women in the workplace. So what's the solution? Keep doing what we have been doing so successfully for girls, because eventually the gender gap will go away. At the same time, however, we need to start introducing some boy-directed programs too.

[Pahoran]

Even taking all factors into account, like career choice, continuous experience, etc, there is still remains a gender gap. So the point is, although girls have for whatever reason been thriving educationally over the last few decades, it is not like these changes have translated into a real advantage to women in the workplace. So what's the solution? Keep doing what we have been doing so successfully for girls, because eventually the gender gap will go away.

By all means; let's punish my sons because their great-aunts didn't have so many job opportunities when they were young.

Am I the only one having difficulty with this approach?

At the same time, however, we need to start introducing some boy-directed programs too.

You bet; if there's a problem, throw money at it. That's the ticket!

Alternatively, we might try encouraging more male teachers into the workforce, and look at creating learning environments that engage boys more. Or would that be anathema because boys are not a designated Victim(™ and ©) group?

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

Alternatively, we might try encouraging more male teachers into the workforce, and look at creating learning environments that engage boys more. Or would that be anathema because boys are not a designated Victim(™ and ©) group?

Regards,

Pahoran

Sounds like a plan-get on it.

When girls were the 'victims' of the classrooms and were being left behind because education was focused and supported males better than females, women were the ones who actively worked to change it.

If the same is now happening for boys, then it's time for men to rally to cause.

[Storm Rider]

Again, I'll recognize the U.S. as being in a state of "war on boys" as soon as these boys, when they get to the workforce, stop making 40% more money than similarly-qualified girls. All the education is for nothing if there is no equality in the workforce.

Forgive me, I had to clean the vomit off my shoes. This is the type of mentality that dooms all positive thought in any industry. "Yammit, we are going to continue doing what we are doing because 50 years ago my grandmother couldn't be the President!!!". Sorry, but your grandmother was the president of the company and she quit the job. Ignorance never anwered a question to aid society; but let them act, as that have in education, and you will have turned the leading education system in the world into a third rate system on its best days.

Oh, but hey we got the girls doing. So glad they are the backbone of the labor force. Yup, you keep doing that over and over and expecting a different outcome, like the mamby pamby, I want an equal society. Excuse I just vomited on my dang shoes again.

[bluebell]

Oh, but hey we got the girls doing. So glad they are the backbone of the labor force. Yup, you keep doing that over and over and expecting a different outcome, like the mamby pamby, I want an equal society. Excuse I just vomited on my dang shoes again.

If you want an equal society, then shouldn't the pay discrepency between men and women concern you just as much as how boys are doing in school? Does throwing girls under the bus somehow create equality?

[saemo]

"Utah's wage gap for women is third largest in the U.S."

http://www.sltrib.co...-cents.html.csp

"Women in Utah are paid 69 cents for every dollar paid to men — amounting to a yearly gap of $14,446."

"African American and Latina women working full time are paid 52 cents for every dollar paid to all men, a difference of more than $22,200 per year."

US stats: "Women working full time, year round are paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to all men. African American women are paid 62 cents and Latinas are paid 54 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men."

The article sites as one reason:

"Utah has the worst disparity in the nation between men and women earning bachelor’s degrees or higher — a difference of 6 percentage points. The Utah education gap more than doubles that of the next closest state, Idaho, at 2.4 percentage points, while the national average is 0.6 points."

Not sure how less women graduates in UT equates to less men LDS men with college degrees?

As for history, my father-in-law once commented to me that it was men who "allowed" women into the workforce, so we should be grateful for what we have, because without this allowance we wouldn't have what we do have. Needless to say, I'm not in agreement with him on this.

Edited April 23, 2012 by saemo