What Is Causing Men To Fall Behind Women?

[williamsmith]

What a shame that women finally moving toward their potential isn't seen as something to celebrate.

 

Holy cow....  What a shame that recognizing the decline of men is somehow even about women's potential or otherwise.  

[Calm]

3DOP

Yeah. I woke up this morning asking myself if I really posted that. I have seldom been so candid. Ready for another observation?

It does not concern me that more women now are doctors. My immediate concern is: Why won't women "mash the gas"?

I understand that a set of doubles can appear intimidating when you are trying to merge on to the freeway. But consider this, ladies. My speed is going to be constant. There is no reason to suppose I want to hit you. I can tell by the way the vehicle is being operated whether a driver is female or not by how they merge into traffic. It is consistently the female drivers who panic when they see me behind or beside them with plenty of time and merging lane to get ahead of me. Often they only need to continue accelerating at the same speed. Why are you slowing down now? You have me beat. "Go girl, get in!" If they are even with me they still have the advantage. But they won't speed up (my preference) so that they can go ahead. Occasionally they slow down unnecessarily and come in behind. That's okay. That'll work as long as you don't get mad about it. Usually they just maintain the same speed and look frantic. I move over if I can but sometimes, in the city especially, there isn't room for me to move 75 feet of machinery to the next lane. The length of my vehicle only affects how difficult it is for ME to change lanes. Please, stop being intimidated by the height and length. I don't have the acceleration to ram if that was what I wanted. In almost all of the cars you girls drive, you have the power.

I have to admit the only Cs I got in HS were in PE (fine in slow endurance activities, lacking in 'sprint' type activities where a sudden burst of power was needed) and Drivers' Ed...due to caution in the latter. Didn't help that I had a harsh female instructor (always did better with male instructors for some reason in middle and high school), but I admit to being a shy, overly cautious student when I didn't feel in control of the situation (as when there are a dozen other cars on the road). For one thing, I have too good and too active of an imagination and when I am driving, there is a constant imagining of 'what if' scenarios. However, once I do make a decision to merge, I commit to it and will put the speed on. I think in part my hesitancy is due to poor depth perception so I don't trust my ability to judge significant distances and speed, but once close enough to erase that need, I am more confidant. I also get claustrophobic at times and big trucks to my side are especially one of those.

OTOH, due to my movement issues, I can't stand being in cars these days so I am not imposing myself on others all that much.

PS: I should note that it was the rare class in my HS that if you showed up and did the work no matter the quality, you wouldn't be getting at least a C. I was always close to last for finishing short races, etc and probably should have failed tennis, baseball and basketball if they had measured solely on ability.

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

3DOP, is it because we aren't aggressive enough? I know also, when I am in family gatherings, sometimes it's the men who do most the talking.

Studies show in mixed groups it is generally men who talk more, contrary to the stereotype of women being the talkers. This has been typical in my experience.

I wouldn't be surprised for one on one though if in new relationships men did more of the talking, but in longer relationships, women ended up speaking more generally.

[rpn]

Oh, I think it is simply a statistical thing.   More children are being born to the poor than the rich.  More are being born in minority communities where there are fewer fathers actively involved in their lives.   So larger percentages are growing up without a good education or knowledge of the way to be a man.  So they are self-medicating and/or self-indulgent.  

 

I think if we legalized marijuana and decriminalized illegal drug and alcohol use and possession --- gave men jobs instead of prison, and improved our education for low income and blacks at a far better rate than No Child Left Behind produced, the problem would go away.  

Edited September 15, 2013 by rpn

[Calm]

Holy cow.... What a shame that recognizing the decline of men is somehow even about women's potential or otherwise.

When one measures men's current success against women's instead of measuring it against how men have achieved in the past or against actual men's potential, then it does come across as if men are complaining not that they aren't measuring up to what they could be, but that they see it as a negative that women are working harder to get ahead than they are as a group.

Having grown up being told I should lower my expectations because it's a "man's world" it is very strange to hear that somehow the business world has morphed into being a woman's world. I think one of the problems is that women have been willing to enter careers traditionally male while the reverse isn't quite so true of men....but if so should women be blamed for men not being willing to take on jobs like teaching and nursing?

http://www.minoritynurse.com/minority-nursing-statistics

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

And btw, when it comes to higher paying jobs, men still outstrip women:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57576390/gender-gap-widest-with-high-paying-jobs/

"Property and community management jobs were the nation's worst for pay equity, generating salaries of $62,452 for men but just $37,856 for women. Personal finance advisors ranked as the second-worst position for pay equity, with men earning $79,820 and women making $48,932.

The highest-paid job with the worst pay parity was also the top position at a company: CEO. Male chief executives earned an average of $110,344, while female CEOs earned just $76,128. However, pay equity was also miserable among loan officers, insurance agents, financial managers and education administrators. In all of these professions, men earned at least 30 percent more than their female counterparts.

The highest-paid job with good pay parity was for operations research analysts, where women earned an average of 5 percent more than men -- $68,952 versus $65,416. Female respiratory therapists also earn more than their male counterparts, taking home an average of $53,456, compared with the average wage of $50,232 for a man."

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/02/28/the-best-paying-jobs-for-women-in-2013/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/09/1839281/on-equal-pay-day-why-women-are-paid-less-than-men/

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

You have no clue about what rubs me the wrong way.

 .

My statement was only a weak attempt to avoid any contention between us. You are right I do not know what offends you and I should have not made any assumptions I this regard.

I guess I should just add multiple links regarding the topic and avoid any personal comments.

[Calm]

At least men can take comfort in the fact that even with lower education levels, they are still in comparison making good money:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2013/04/09/59658/what-causes-the-gender-wage-gap/

"One mitigating factor that has actually reduced the gender wage gap is women’s access to higher education. This has helped ease the disparity by nearly 7 percent, as shown in Figure 1, but women’s access to college and advanced degrees has not been enough to close the gap completely. Women need an additional degree in order to make as much as men with a lower degree over the course of a lifetime. A woman would need a doctoral degree, for instance, to earn the same as a man with a bachelor’s degree, and a man with a high school education would earn approximately the same amount as a woman with a bachelor’s degree."

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

My statement was only a weak attempt to avoid any contention between us. You are right I do not know what offends you and I should have not made any assumptions I this regard.

I guess I should just add multiple links regarding the topic and avoid any personal comments.

Where was the contention? You hadn't said anything contentious that I had responded to and I only posted a link in one post and then discussed the need for more male teachers at the lower levels to benefit the boys. I was not disagreeing there was a problem, but instead pointed out a solution to it.

I don't have any problem with observations about how boys are currently unfairly penalised at times in the educational system by many teachers and programs. (I also don't have any problem with it being pointed out happening to women still...as long as all such observations are based on data.) I think it is very unfortunate where women's progress has been at the cost of men (this is not to imply that all or even most of the progress has come at such a cost though). I don't think any society with abundant resources should favour supporting one gender over the other (there may be reasons for societies in crisis to do so for survival reasons). My problem is with men who complain about how hard they have it while not being willing first to recognise that even though in some areas women are advancing past men, financially wise (which means ability to live the "good life" as well as having an impact on level of happiness among other things) men are still significantly ahead of women even when one removes natural limitations (like women taking time for maternity leave and raising children) as well as not attempting to engage in or even promote men being involved in the solution as opposed to just telling the high majority of female teachers in the crucial early years of education they are being unfair and should change.

Providing information to inform any discussion is always a good idea, whether personal experience as in the case of your son or studies and reports of experiments as in the various links provided. Problems can't be solved if they aren't realistically framed.

As to your comment about teaching how to raise hands, body language is a significant part of the communication process (as should be obvious by the higher amounts of misunderstandings that happen over the Internet where it just uses the written word). It is also a process of communication that is not usually taught as is writing and speaking. But is there really anything that weirder about teaching how to better communicate nonverbally than it is to teach better verbal communication skills?

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[rongo]

What, if any, application is Isaiah 3/2 Nephi 13 to this question?

 

"My people, women rule over them, and children are their oppressors" (this isn't given as a good thing)

 

Isaiah's prophecies often uniquely apply to various times at once, not just his own, and I see this as perfectly applying both to the increasing tendency for women to rule over men, as well as children oppressing their elders.

Edited September 15, 2013 by rongo

[Calm]

What, if any, application is Isaiah 3/2 Nephi 13 to this question?

 

"My people, women rule over them, and children are their oppressors" (this isn't given as a good thing)

 

Isaiah's prophecies often uniquely apply to various times at once, not just his own, and I see this as perfectly applying both to the increasing tendency for women to rule over men, as well as children oppressing their elders.

The tendency of men to rule over women and the inappropriate domination of children (I am not talking about prudent parenting decisions, but treatment of children as slaves or property as still occurs in some societies) are as problematic.

[Calm]

Oh, I think it is simply a statistical thing.   More children are being born to the poor than the rich.  More are being born in minority communities where there are fewer fathers actively involved in their lives.   So larger percentages are growing up without a good education or knowledge of the way to be a man.  So they are self-medicating and/or self-indulgent.  

 

I think if we legalized marijuana and decriminalized illegal drug and alcohol use and possession --- gave men jobs instead of prison, and improved our education for low income and blacks at a far better rate than No Child Left Behind produced, the problem would go away.

Men have to be willing to accept lower paying and less status jobs in education as wellto provide positive role models there. As was pointed out in one of the articles I linked to, when a boy's male role model are primarily sports figures, actors and musicians, when they see reading, etc as a 'female' thing because they are primarily exposed to women, not men, doing such activities, they are less likely to become involved in necessary educational activities themselves.

[Tacenda]

What, if any, application is Isaiah 3/2 Nephi 13 to this question?

"My people, women rule over them, and children are their oppressors" (this isn't given as a good thing)

Isaiah's prophecies often uniquely apply to various times at once, not just his own, and I see this as perfectly applying both to the increasing tendency for women to rule over men, as well as children oppressing their elders.

I see a need for women to rule and for children to rule....and that is when they are both being abused. They need to rise up and rule for their own sakes. ETA: I see Cal and I were on the same wavelength! Edited September 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I see a need for women to rule and for children to rule....and that is when they are both being abused. They need to rise up and rule for their own sakes. ETA: I see Cal and I were on the same wavelength!

Amen.

ETA: your ETA was added just as I posted, you are indeed right though my comment included more than just abuse at least in my mind. I don't believe women should be dominated in any way by men (or the reverse) and domination of children should only occur to protect them and provide them with their needs, not for the advantage of the parent.

"Ruling over" another adult should only occur where the 'ruled over' has willingly accepted such and is required by circumstances such as creating a law abiding society by establishing a government.

Edited September 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Amen.

ETA: your ETA was added just as I posted, you are indeed right though my comment included more than just abuse at least in my mind. I don't believe women should be dominated in any way by men (or the reverse) and domination of children should only occur to protect them and provide them with their needs, not for the advantage of the parent.

"Ruling over" another adult should only occur where the 'ruled over' has willingly accepted such and is required by circumstances such as creating a law abiding society by establishing a government.

So true, thanks for elongating, in a perfect world no one would rule over, but have rules in place for safety or preservation of mankind.

[Glenn101]

   This has been a fun thread to read. I am going to put in my -.02c worth here. We have to face it, this is all the doing of men. Women have made their advancements because men have let them. Else they would still be in the barefoot, pregnant, and undereducated mode. But the men began to see the advantages of educating the women, letting them work. This is the world that men have been waiting for. The world where the women begin to provide all of the energy, earning power, etc. taking more responsibility off the men, leaving the men more time to do just what they want.

   It is going to have some unintended consequences though. As men relinquish more and more of the running of the world to the women, the women will begin to become more selective in their men. Soon, polyandry will become the norm, as a woman will select several men to fill her needs because it will get to the point that no one man will be capable of filling all of the needs of this almost super woman of the future.

   So, remember, you read it here on MDADB first!

 

Glenn

[Stone holm]

Oh, I think it is simply a statistical thing.   More children are being born to the poor than the rich.  More are being born in minority communities where there are fewer fathers actively involved in their lives.   So larger percentages are growing up without a good education or knowledge of the way to be a man.  So they are self-medicating and/or self-indulgent.  

 

I think if we legalized marijuana and decriminalized illegal drug and alcohol use and possession --- gave men jobs instead of prison, and improved our education for low income and blacks at a far better rate than No Child Left Behind produced, the problem would go away.

It's hard to say we have a cultural stereotype for males which consistently points them away from some of the skill sets favoured in college. Women are overcoming very slowly the gender stereotyping which in the past was a deterrent to education. All of the anti intellectualism in certain segments of the population however is working against the males. I saw a map of the United States which indicated the highest paid public employee in the State. In the vast majority of the States especially in the west, south and Midwest it was a college coach of either football or basketball. Given this type of emphasis is it any wonder boys are falling behind girls in the Information Age which emphasizes brains over Braun?

[MorningStar]

What I'm curious about is what percentage of men go to college compared to how many men used to go to college?  That should be a concern rather than whether women are "beating" them.  If fewer men are going to college than before, what's the reason? 

 

Do they feel like the student loans aren't worth what their pay will be?

Do they feel less pressure to be the sole provider because more women are working?

Is it harder to get into college because there are many more applicants and the women's grades are better?

Or have they been overindulged with video game time and just aren't trying that hard?

 

The rising generation is filled with boys and girls who don't know what it means to work really, really hard and not give up.

 

I am happy to hear that more women are getting an education.

[Calm]

William R. Doyle, an assistant professor of higher education at Vanderbilt University who has studied sex-based differences in educational attainment, said in an interview Wednesday that women's lower earnings compared with those of equally educated men helps explain why women are progressing further through the education system.

"We have known for a long time that the amount of education people pursue is driven in some part by the labor market," Mr. Doyle said. "For women, if you want to get a decent job and decent earnings, the state of the labor market is such that you are going to need to pursue a couple of extra years of education."

Also helping to explain disparities between men and women in higher education, Mr. Doyle said, are gaps between the sexes in their high-school graduation rates, especially among people who are black, Hispanic, or Native American. The underrepresentation of men in higher education is partly the result of "a tremendous intake problem," he said.

 

http://chronicle.com/article/Mens-Share-of-College/65693/

[Calm]

What I'm curious about is what percentage of men go to college compared to how many men used to go to college?  

Doesn't show percentage, but could be used to determine this perhaps.

 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

 

add-on:  spoke too soon...

 

From 1970 to 1979, female enrollment increased by 66 percent, while male enrollment increased by 13 percent. The larger increase in the number of female students resulted in females accounting for the majority of undergraduate enrollment beginning in 1978. In more recent years, the increases in enrollment for female and male students have been more similar. Between 2000 and 2009, female enrollment increased by 35 percent, while male enrollment increased by 31 percent. Female enrollment is expected to increase by 16 percent (from 10.2 to 11.9 million students) between 2011 and 2021, while male enrollment is expected to increase by 7 percent (from 7.8 to 8.4 million students).

 

Enrollment for males is still going up, just not as fast as for females.

Edited September 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[juliann]

 

Enrollment for males is still going up, just not as fast as for females.

 

So they are not "falling behind" at all.   Some just don't like women catching up.   Makes me wonder how some of these men are handling the increase in women missionaries.   Will they be glad that there will be more feet on the ground or just worried about what they might lose?

[Storm Rider]

1. http://phys.org/news66925169.html.  This issue for boys is a global problem and not limited to the USA.
2. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/02/14/boys-fall-behind-girls-school.  But what exactly is going on with boys? A new study conducted by two economists from the University of Georgia casts some light on the subject. The researchers analyzed a massive amount of data that was collected by the federal government on 10,000 students as they moved from kindergarten to eighth grade.

When the researchers broke down the data by gender, they found that in many cases, classroom grades (subjective measurements awarded by teachers) were not well aligned to test scores. Troublingly, they found that boys, who scored well on tests (indicating mastery of the material being taught) did not get grades from teachers that reflected their abilities in three central subjects: reading, math, and science.

In other words, teachers favored girls.

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-day/why-boys-are-failing-in-a_b_884262.html.  According to Whitmire, children are forced to use literacy skills much earlier than in the past, and boys develop these skills later than girls. In the world of "Kindergarten is the new first grade," boys are struggling mightily to keep up. When it comes to writing, the gender divide is even greater. NCLB and our hyper-focus on standardized test scores is worsening, not ameliorating, the academic struggles of boys, and subsequently increasing the numbers of boys who turn off to school and eventually drop out.

According to Gurian, boys learn by doing and by moving their bodies through space. The more emphasis is placed on the development of early reading skills, and the less emphasis is placed on a healthy amount of movement and experiential learning, the more disadvantageous our schools will be for males.

….Our modern educational system works for many children, particularly girls, but for some boys (and girls) it places constraints on a very normal and necessary experiential type of learning, not to mention the need of many children to move around rather than sit still. While it may be a cynical statement, I have often felt that co-ed schools are girls' schools that boys go to.

….This is not to say that social and cultural influences are not contributing factors to who boys are today, but we now have medical evidence, once elusive, that illuminates the very significant role biology plays in male/female brain development and learning. Parents and teachers need to become better educated about how boys and girls really are different, and how to best meet the needs of each. Particularly relevant to this discussion is the theory of "natural learning," which takes for granted that a learner is a whole person -- a living system -- and that every aspect of a person, boy or girl, contributes to his or her learning.

 

This issue of boys falling behind has become a global concern and the reasons are varied.  Demanding that little boys sit still for six to seven hours a day a listen is not a viable teaching method for boys whereas girls excel in this environment. As one of the articles cited above, boys and girls are very different (much to the chagrin of many that have professed there is hardly any different at all between the two). Our societies have changed the teaching environment and it is more conducive for learning for girls and produced an environment of failure for little boys. It is hardly surprising that boys are not motivated to pursue education.

 

Society is also demanding that reading and verbal skills be taught earlier and earlier in the process, which again only benefits the positive learning experience of girls while demoralizing most boys.

 

This is not a topic that is going away and much needs to change in education. Interestingly, none of the studies cited above talked about the benefits of learning by example i.e. a man teaching rather than a woman. The teaching process has far more to do with successful learning than the gender of the teacher.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60758-the-demise-of-guys-the-end-of-men-and-where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/ There is no simple answer. Nobody knows what is going on, but there are a lot of opinions.

 

I think that men are fundamentally out of their depth in this kind of world. What is happening is that men are becoming more like women if they want to fit into the professional (money-making) world. Men and women are becoming more alike in other words. Men who continue to exude the "manly" or macho persona and interests are marginalized to a lesser or greater degree; they are almost a derogatory stereotypical butt for jokes, from TV commercials to feminist angst in the Medía generally. In the LDS faith, men continue to hold out as the "leaders", but that is only a formality: since women are the actual leaders in almost every respect. Without the "priesthood", men would languish far beneath women in the Church. One day soon, men will be redundant, as genetic technology makes their physical contribution to making babies unnecessary. Once men and women don't have to be physically depended on to produce the next generation (artificial material brought to term in an artificial environment), men and women will be equal again: equally redundant, and the world will be an unrecognizable place. That is my scifi side talking, but it looms as a possible scenario of the future. For now, men need to "grow a pair" and sit at their 'puters and stop complaining that all the jobs they really want to do (especially fightin' and killin' for God) are drying up and blowing away....

 

Watch it, Beast.  Just watch it!!

 

What's really gonna happen is that the computers are going to take over by 2025.  They will find humans unnecessary and eliminate them.  Problem solved.

[Calm]

Interestingly, none of the studies cited above talked about the benefits of learning by example i.e. a man teaching rather than a woman. The teaching process has far more to do with successful learning than the gender of the teacher.

did they bother to test for this or just ignored it? If the latter, how can one conclude it has not as much effect?

[bluebell]

 

1. http://phys.org/news66925169.html.  This issue for boys is a global problem and not limited to the USA.
2. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/02/14/boys-fall-behind-girls-school.  But what exactly is going on with boys? A new study conducted by two economists from the University of Georgia casts some light on the subject. The researchers analyzed a massive amount of data that was collected by the federal government on 10,000 students as they moved from kindergarten to eighth grade.

When the researchers broke down the data by gender, they found that in many cases, classroom grades (subjective measurements awarded by teachers) were not well aligned to test scores. Troublingly, they found that boys, who scored well on tests (indicating mastery of the material being taught) did not get grades from teachers that reflected their abilities in three central subjects: reading, math, and science.

In other words, teachers favored girls.

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-day/why-boys-are-failing-in-a_b_884262.html.  According to Whitmire, children are forced to use literacy skills much earlier than in the past, and boys develop these skills later than girls. In the world of "Kindergarten is the new first grade," boys are struggling mightily to keep up. When it comes to writing, the gender divide is even greater. NCLB and our hyper-focus on standardized test scores is worsening, not ameliorating, the academic struggles of boys, and subsequently increasing the numbers of boys who turn off to school and eventually drop out.

According to Gurian, boys learn by doing and by moving their bodies through space. The more emphasis is placed on the development of early reading skills, and the less emphasis is placed on a healthy amount of movement and experiential learning, the more disadvantageous our schools will be for males.

….Our modern educational system works for many children, particularly girls, but for some boys (and girls) it places constraints on a very normal and necessary experiential type of learning, not to mention the need of many children to move around rather than sit still. While it may be a cynical statement, I have often felt that co-ed schools are girls' schools that boys go to.

….This is not to say that social and cultural influences are not contributing factors to who boys are today, but we now have medical evidence, once elusive, that illuminates the very significant role biology plays in male/female brain development and learning. Parents and teachers need to become better educated about how boys and girls really are different, and how to best meet the needs of each. Particularly relevant to this discussion is the theory of "natural learning," which takes for granted that a learner is a whole person -- a living system -- and that every aspect of a person, boy or girl, contributes to his or her learning.

 

This issue of boys falling behind has become a global concern and the reasons are varied.  Demanding that little boys sit still for six to seven hours a day a listen is not a viable teaching method for boys whereas girls excel in this environment. As one of the articles cited above, boys and girls are very different (much to the chagrin of many that have professed there is hardly any different at all between the two). Our societies have changed the teaching environment and it is more conducive for learning for girls and produced an environment of failure for little boys. It is hardly surprising that boys are not motivated to pursue education.

 

Society is also demanding that reading and verbal skills be taught earlier and earlier in the process, which again only benefits the positive learning experience of girls while demoralizing most boys.

 

This is not a topic that is going away and much needs to change in education. Interestingly, none of the studies cited above talked about the benefits of learning by example i.e. a man teaching rather than a woman. The teaching process has far more to do with successful learning than the gender of the teacher.

 

A couple of things I didn't understand.

 

The second study you sited indicated that as far as test scores go, boys were showing mastery of the skills they were getting bad grades for.  The next study you sited indicated that standardized tests were worsening the academic downfall of boys. 

 

Those two findings seem contradictory.

 

Also, is the school day longer than it used to be?  One of the studies stated that making boys sit still for 6-7 hours a day is part of the reason they don't do well in school.  This makes me wonder, was that not required of them in the 50's, for example?   Did boys NOT have to sit still and be quiet then for 6-7 hours a day? 

 

And one more thing, most schools have been co-ed for decades (or longer).  Does history agree that co-ed schools are more beneficial to girls than boys?  Historically, have boys always suffered in co-ed school environments?

 

I don't personally believe that history supports that assertion, given that this new 'girls are doing better than boys and it's ruining men', attitude seems to be fairly new, while co-ed schools seem to be fairly old, but as I've never studied the subject I would love to understand the relationship better.

 

As a mother of sons (no daughters) I'm very invested in how current education trends affect boys. Personally, I think it is our current societal culture, where men are shown to be idiotic buffoons which women have to suffer through and keep the family going in spite of rather than in partnership with, as well as the huge amount of absentee fathers and lack of positive male role models, and not elementary teaching models, that are causing most of the damage. 

 

But I'm not going to lament the strides that girls have achieved, especially considering it's been an all uphill battle for women, and men have been, generally speaking, a privileged class for millennia.