Gender Ratios are so lop-sided? What is going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many complex factors contribute to this. To over simplify and scratch just the surface, we have...

1) An education system that rewards young kids who sit still, can follow orders, take standardized tests since age 4-7, do hours of homework since 5th grade. All of these favor girls who mature sooner, are under greater gender pressure to be compliant. This education hamster wheel is enough to burn any kids out and turn them off school by college age, esp for boys.

2) At the same time, the last two generations of kids (after Gen X who are left to roam wild by themselves) are over-programmed to an inch of their lives for schools, sports, music and other ECs that require unreal level of executive functioning. Girls again fare better here...they are recognized even if they don't score or win the big trophy but are hardworking, collaborative team player; boys in general face higher expectation to have to win gold and be the future MLB/NBA/NHL/NFL start since age 4. All these ES and unrealistic expectations also mean kids (both genders) have multiple opportunities each day to feel bad about themselves that make them crave emotional outlets.

3) This takes us to the addiction to social media, video games, online influencers...boys often dive a lot deeper into these escapes and addictions; some get so lost and disillusioned they can't climb back up from the deep hole. So many of these teen boys are not sleeping even 5-6 hours a night, let alone build the kind of school and EC portfolios and do SAT preps to get into these colleges OP is touring.

This was how education has worked essentially since the 1700s and it used to be much worse. Teachers would literally smack kids in the head who didn't sit still and follow orders...yet boys seemed to do just fine in the 1950s or all the previous eras that were much worse than today.

Let's stop blaming a disciplined classroom for anything...because again, it used to be much, much worse yet we never worried about boys back in the day.

It's not true that education is the way it always has been. In another thread that I cannot remember now, someone mentioned it is not just the sitting and learning part that is harder for boy, but the way things are taught now, with a lot more group projects and collaboration. This person said her boy did much better in a Catholic school that just had direct instruction and clear expectations, even though there was a lot of sitting.

But also recesses are shorter now, and there are way less male teachers. Those are also huge factors.

This has been true since the 18th century. This is not the problem.

Um, it has gone down recently and continues to do so.

Men have not been the majority of school teachers since the 18th century. The decline of boys is much more recent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many complex factors contribute to this. To over simplify and scratch just the surface, we have...

1) An education system that rewards young kids who sit still, can follow orders, take standardized tests since age 4-7, do hours of homework since 5th grade. All of these favor girls who mature sooner, are under greater gender pressure to be compliant. This education hamster wheel is enough to burn any kids out and turn them off school by college age, esp for boys.

2) At the same time, the last two generations of kids (after Gen X who are left to roam wild by themselves) are over-programmed to an inch of their lives for schools, sports, music and other ECs that require unreal level of executive functioning. Girls again fare better here...they are recognized even if they don't score or win the big trophy but are hardworking, collaborative team player; boys in general face higher expectation to have to win gold and be the future MLB/NBA/NHL/NFL start since age 4. All these ES and unrealistic expectations also mean kids (both genders) have multiple opportunities each day to feel bad about themselves that make them crave emotional outlets.

3) This takes us to the addiction to social media, video games, online influencers...boys often dive a lot deeper into these escapes and addictions; some get so lost and disillusioned they can't climb back up from the deep hole. So many of these teen boys are not sleeping even 5-6 hours a night, let alone build the kind of school and EC portfolios and do SAT preps to get into these colleges OP is touring.

This was how education has worked essentially since the 1700s and it used to be much worse. Teachers would literally smack kids in the head who didn't sit still and follow orders...yet boys seemed to do just fine in the 1950s or all the previous eras that were much worse than today.

Let's stop blaming a disciplined classroom for anything...because again, it used to be much, much worse yet we never worried about boys back in the day.

It's not true that education is the way it always has been. In another thread that I cannot remember now, someone mentioned it is not just the sitting and learning part that is harder for boy, but the way things are taught now, with a lot more group projects and collaboration. This person said her boy did much better in a Catholic school that just had direct instruction and clear expectations, even though there was a lot of sitting.

But also recesses are shorter now, and there are way less male teachers. Those are also huge factors.

Guess what...the Catholic school definitely expects the boys to sit still and follow orders and do hours of homework. So which is it...boys are falling behind because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework...or boys are great because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework.

As I said, it is a combo of things. Recess is shorter, so there is more sitting. Add to that the method of schooling nowadays requires more executive functioning (vs direct instruction). Add to that more less male teachers to connect with and female teachers perhaps preferring/understanding girls better, and you get not great results for boys. But all of this is just one piece of it. There are many other contributing factors I'm sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a known issue. Much talked about. I have both a boy and girl. There are a lot less boys with their shit together in high school, especially since freshman year. And many cultural factors at play which have been widely discussed in media.

For all of our daughters, we should care about this. You can call it DEI or generally have a who cares about figuring out what is going on with men take. And also, who is your daughter going to date. Most college-educated women want to have a family with a college-educated male. The ratios are not on their side in the aggregate.

And if she wants to date/marry a college educated man that is successful enough to support her if she doesn’t want or can’t work for a period of time, stats are even more depressing

[Anonymous]

My daughter chose a school with slightly more men than women (VT). She had no desire to go to a school where there are far more women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a mother of boys in a STEM career.

My eldest, for a few years, was convinced by YouTube channels that he could live like a king in India (or another LCOL country) day trading. College is for suckers, etc. Who needs education when you can just follow an attractive, well dressed random dude’s advice?! It has been *hard* to make him realize this is not a good Plan A (and he lost a lot of money too). He’s got 2 parents but loads on social media & his friends repeating this message.

So, now that he’s gotten on board with education (even just an AA for a trade), I started to look around for opportunities in his interests: engineering/building things & business. Except 80% of the opportunities near us are solely for girls: STEM events, entrepreneurship camps, etc. Now, I don’t begrudge these opportunities for girls bc I remember how awkward it can be to be the only girl in the room & a bit of a sisterhood can be helpful to encourage girls into these careers. But, but having so many girls-only events, I’ve found there’s little to inspire my son for higher ed.

Now, I’m under no illusion that any of this is a “hardship” but I do think that some boys (maybe many?) aren’t being exposed to the benefits of higher ed while being repeated exposed to ideas that you need little after high school. I do not think girls are getting these messages in the same volume.

I do think there’s a loneliness epidemic with boys & men. Remember when so many video games were multiplayer in one location? Color me surprised when I suggested my son invite friends over to play only to be told for multiplayer, they needed to be on their own devices. Just an example, along with more women choosing to be single, etc.

Nothing good ever comes from a large population isolated, undereducated, lonely men.

I don’t believe you. A majority of STEM camps are majority male. Our boy is easily able to go to any of these camps and find many boys like him. Our daughter, meanwhile, is consistently one of few women in the physics and math competitions she goes to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD has gone on several tours where the gender ratio is almost 2/3 female to male (BU was a recent one that our tour guide said was close to that). What is going on? Why aren't colleges at least trying to balance things a bit? My daughter feels like it will be a weird atmosphere for her when it's so female-heavy. She doesn't just want to go to school with guys who got in through recruited sports. She wants to go to college with smart, goal-oriented men.

In middle/high schools (high performing) girls tend to follow instructions wholeheartedly , do homework religiously and keep at it methodically….
In US high schools - where you are not really tested for deeper expertise- it pays off tremendously.

But it’s in colleges - esp the high end (academically) - where brilliant men restore the time honored lead..

[Anonymous]

I will toss this into the ring as a factor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/07/opinion/men-fiction-novels.html

With the rise of the youth sports industrial complex and the often bro-y, toxic atmosphere this can involve (yes I have a son who does it), are fewer men engaging in the arts and liberal arts generally and what does that mean for them and for society? Many more boys want to major in STEM or business or finance. This could also be tied to men feeling pressure to be breadwinners and realizing these creative fields may not be ultimately lucrative.

[Anonymous]

Does this really matter if the schools are so large? I'm just wondering if you have a school that is over say 5000 students per grade, does it matter that much if your major has a decent cohort and there are plenty of people to meet of both sexes? Can you just find your people? Is this really an issue for small schools?

I have a boy with straight As, varsity athlete who is interested in college but obviously not doing all that work and spending money for AI to just take over the field. Our family doesn't have money to throw away on education that isn't useful. I want him to have guy and girl friends at college.

I'm a little concerned about several issues related to college including lopsided genders and political divides and finding a school that meets academic needs, financial needs now and in the future with an occupation, and social needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many complex factors contribute to this. To over simplify and scratch just the surface, we have...

1) An education system that rewards young kids who sit still, can follow orders, take standardized tests since age 4-7, do hours of homework since 5th grade. All of these favor girls who mature sooner, are under greater gender pressure to be compliant. This education hamster wheel is enough to burn any kids out and turn them off school by college age, esp for boys.

2) At the same time, the last two generations of kids (after Gen X who are left to roam wild by themselves) are over-programmed to an inch of their lives for schools, sports, music and other ECs that require unreal level of executive functioning. Girls again fare better here...they are recognized even if they don't score or win the big trophy but are hardworking, collaborative team player; boys in general face higher expectation to have to win gold and be the future MLB/NBA/NHL/NFL start since age 4. All these ES and unrealistic expectations also mean kids (both genders) have multiple opportunities each day to feel bad about themselves that make them crave emotional outlets.

3) This takes us to the addiction to social media, video games, online influencers...boys often dive a lot deeper into these escapes and addictions; some get so lost and disillusioned they can't climb back up from the deep hole. So many of these teen boys are not sleeping even 5-6 hours a night, let alone build the kind of school and EC portfolios and do SAT preps to get into these colleges OP is touring.

This was how education has worked essentially since the 1700s and it used to be much worse. Teachers would literally smack kids in the head who didn't sit still and follow orders...yet boys seemed to do just fine in the 1950s or all the previous eras that were much worse than today.

Let's stop blaming a disciplined classroom for anything...because again, it used to be much, much worse yet we never worried about boys back in the day.

It's not true that education is the way it always has been. In another thread that I cannot remember now, someone mentioned it is not just the sitting and learning part that is harder for boy, but the way things are taught now, with a lot more group projects and collaboration. This person said her boy did much better in a Catholic school that just had direct instruction and clear expectations, even though there was a lot of sitting.

But also recesses are shorter now, and there are way less male teachers. Those are also huge factors.

Guess what...the Catholic school definitely expects the boys to sit still and follow orders and do hours of homework. So which is it...boys are falling behind because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework...or boys are great because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework.

As I said, it is a combo of things. Recess is shorter, so there is more sitting. Add to that the method of schooling nowadays requires more executive functioning (vs direct instruction). Add to that more less male teachers to connect with and female teachers perhaps preferring/understanding girls better, and you get not great results for boys. But all of this is just one piece of it. There are many other contributing factors I'm sure.

Disagree. School requires less executive function now. Kids hardly even get homework until high school. Most things are done and submitted electronically- they don’t even have to remember to bring on their homework. There are no papers to lose or keep track of, few things to ever print, quizlets and study guides pre-made for them. But computers have fried their brains and many kids have a hard time with most basic organization and tasks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll get slammed for this, but as a society we’ve abandoned our boys. They don’t have role models to look up to. We disparage men in general and white men in particular. We cater to those who claim victimhood.

Maybe give some thought to the qualities that your culture lauds as being exemplary, or successful. I’m thinking people like Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, DOGE. How many of these wealthy, influential white men finished college? How many of them proudly discuss their college experiences as being foundational in their success? So, I wouldn’t slam you for your viewpoint, although I do encourage you to take a deeper look at who you are openly valuing as role models. What many of you actually value is DOGE: Very young white men — with limited education, lots of power, and extravagantly generous paychecks.

Lol: You do get that you’re claiming “ victimhood” for “white men in particular “ — right? Tell the truth, do you REALLY wish that your “boys” had the opportunities that get offered to people who are not white males? You wish that your kid was a target for ICE?

The only person on that list that I might even consider a worthy role model for a young man would have been Charlie Kirk, primarily for his way of speaking with people who disagreed with him. Do you consider the rest of them people our boys should admire or emulate? That to me is a sign of a sick culture.

Can you provide some examples of this? I have never seen him speak with those who disagreed with him in any way that I would find admirable.

This is a really sad video. “I think you exhibit sinful behavior and you shouldn’t tell people who you are, but WELCOME! Just don’t bring up being gay (Kirk brings up being Christian constantly) and we’ll get along.

Why are you lying? Did you think no one would call you out? He in NO WAY said any of the bolded. He said he didn’t think *anyone* should lead with what sexuality they are - it’s irrelevant and he pointed out that the young man was a complete person, which he is. Then he said from a Christian perspective, he doesn’t agree with a gay lifestyle, but that in NO way should what we do in the bedroom be a relevant talking point. And then he welcomed him to the conservative movement.

Honestly, why are liberals such liars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll get slammed for this, but as a society we’ve abandoned our boys. They don’t have role models to look up to. We disparage men in general and white men in particular. We cater to those who claim victimhood.

Maybe give some thought to the qualities that your culture lauds as being exemplary, or successful. I’m thinking people like Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, DOGE. How many of these wealthy, influential white men finished college? How many of them proudly discuss their college experiences as being foundational in their success? So, I wouldn’t slam you for your viewpoint, although I do encourage you to take a deeper look at who you are openly valuing as role models. What many of you actually value is DOGE: Very young white men — with limited education, lots of power, and extravagantly generous paychecks.

Lol: You do get that you’re claiming “ victimhood” for “white men in particular “ — right? Tell the truth, do you REALLY wish that your “boys” had the opportunities that get offered to people who are not white males? You wish that your kid was a target for ICE?

The only person on that list that I might even consider a worthy role model for a young man would have been Charlie Kirk, primarily for his way of speaking with people who disagreed with him. Do you consider the rest of them people our boys should admire or emulate? That to me is a sign of a sick culture.

Can you provide some examples of this? I have never seen him speak with those who disagreed with him in any way that I would find admirable.

This is a really sad video. “I think you exhibit sinful behavior and you shouldn’t tell people who you are, but WELCOME! Just don’t bring up being gay (Kirk brings up being Christian constantly) and we’ll get along.

That’s not what he said. He said to not lead with your sexuality. Who you sleep with should be the least interesting thing about you.

exactly- no-one straight leads with this as if who you are attracted to is your whole personality. Your romantic/sex life shouldn't be that important part of your identity honestly, human beings have a lot more to their identity than that and the hyper focus on this is bad for people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll get slammed for this, but as a society we’ve abandoned our boys. They don’t have role models to look up to. We disparage men in general and white men in particular. We cater to those who claim victimhood.

Maybe give some thought to the qualities that your culture lauds as being exemplary, or successful. I’m thinking people like Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, DOGE. How many of these wealthy, influential white men finished college? How many of them proudly discuss their college experiences as being foundational in their success? So, I wouldn’t slam you for your viewpoint, although I do encourage you to take a deeper look at who you are openly valuing as role models. What many of you actually value is DOGE: Very young white men — with limited education, lots of power, and extravagantly generous paychecks.

Lol: You do get that you’re claiming “ victimhood” for “white men in particular “ — right? Tell the truth, do you REALLY wish that your “boys” had the opportunities that get offered to people who are not white males? You wish that your kid was a target for ICE?

The only person on that list that I might even consider a worthy role model for a young man would have been Charlie Kirk, primarily for his way of speaking with people who disagreed with him. Do you consider the rest of them people our boys should admire or emulate? That to me is a sign of a sick culture.

Can you provide some examples of this? I have never seen him speak with those who disagreed with him in any way that I would find admirable.

This is a really sad video. “I think you exhibit sinful behavior and you shouldn’t tell people who you are, but WELCOME! Just don’t bring up being gay (Kirk brings up being Christian constantly) and we’ll get along.

That’s not what he said. He said to not lead with your sexuality. Who you sleep with should be the least interesting thing about you.

exactly- no-one straight leads with this as if who you are attracted to is your whole personality. Your romantic/sex life shouldn't be that important part of your identity honestly, human beings have a lot more to their identity than that and the hyper focus on this is bad for people.

But the whole point was to seek advice for gay conservatives? Conservatives spend a lot of time trashing queer people and making them out to be predators. You’re gonna need more advice than just “hide it” if you want to connect with like-minded people who think you’re a predator.

It’s like you’re purposefully missing the point.

[Anonymous]

Phones and technology have messed these kids up but I think the ways they have messed girls up is different than boys and the answer lies somewhere there.

[Anonymous]

I think it's a combination of education setup disfavoring boys, delayed brain development, and most important of all, easy online escapism. Boys/men all have some sort of hero complex. You see this early on with the littlest boys trying to play superhero and fighting monsters, getting bad guys to save the day. They quickly realize as they enter school that school is a lot of drudgery and they are usually behind the girls. There are fewer opportunities for them to spontaneously rough play or imaginative play with other boys in the neighborhood without close parental supervision. They have no outlet for all that need to be a superhero. And then enter the internet and games, which are programmed to hit all the pleasure centers of a boy's brain, offering him a sense of purpose, achievement, heroism. OR they go down the political radicalization rabbit hole and find their heroism there by villainizing the "other." Whatever real life is not providing them, they can find online. And so they choose to live their lives and find their meanings online because it is so much easier, and then in comparison, real life will never measure up because real life and real people are messy and complicated and the boys are not equipped to deal with any of that. This is really Jonathan Haidt's main point about boys in Anxious Generation, the escapism. So parents need to keep their boys OFFLINE. Teach them to find their quests and adventures in real life.

Jonathan Haidt writes about the boy problem here: https://www.afterbabel.com/p/boy-crisis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll get slammed for this, but as a society we’ve abandoned our boys. They don’t have role models to look up to. We disparage men in general and white men in particular. We cater to those who claim victimhood.

I really don’t get it. American society is still very much ruled by men. From top government leadership, to Congress, to the vast majority of boardrooms. Educational leadership, be it K-12 or higher ed, tends to be split about 50/50. So who exactly is abandoning the boys?

I don’t get the obsession with men right now, and I’m a men. Women are literally letting men play them by taking in this BS indoctrination that men are being oppressed to the highest extent, because now women go to school at higher rates (a trend that’s been going on for decades).

Boys are being coddled to the extreme. It is seen as wrong these days to point out the obvious issue of male violence and repeated behavioral disruption. I see this come up all the time with mothers excusing their boys for excessive violence against other students. If your oppression comes from the fact that you can’t sit down for class…you are gonna have a rough life. I see the same things with dads telling their boys that college is a waste of money, useless, etc. We’re priming them to be unsuccessful.

You don't sound like you're actually "a men".