Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to teach men that discipline was necessary for a quality life and successful career. Now people complain of it being “anti-male” to discipline boys rightfully for erratic behavior. I do think more boys would benefit from an all male environment, since girls are socialized to be more disciplined and still than men.

Counterpoint, for generations we kept women out of academics when they are far capable both there and in any thing that requires time management and executive function. The guys will experience discipline in their gigs driving for Amazon and Doordash.

Yes, this. I don't think it's "anti-male" to acknowledge this and say to them "sorry, if you don't have the grades and ability to take up a spot in XXX college, then you shouldn't." Especially since they are at least being judged on their merits instead of arbitrarily excluded like women were for generations.

By what metrics are women being judged on their merits? You need to move past the patriarchy is bad drivel. Girls do slighlty better on grades and slightly worse on standardized testing like the SAT. Definitely not what you'd expect from the admission percentages quoted earlier.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

If boys and girls do about the same in high school, it is legitimate to ask why the university enrollment doesnt reflect that.

Why though? No one asked, or more to the point cared, when college enrollment didn't have enough women?

Here, men and boys are already given more consideration than women ever did. Yet somehow we are supposed to all of a sudden be concerned. As well as blame "inherently male" characteristics, blame female teachers, blame all sorts of things. So fine - ask. But don't expect some of us to care all that much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Males are also risk takers. Many of the tech giants left college before completion and went onto huge success. Other than Elizabeth Holmes (sorry truly awful example), I can't think of another woman that left college early to launch a tech company/start up. It could be that women feel the degree (or actually need it) due to inherent biases in vc and silicon valley--not sure.

Sure but that risk is stupid as hell for 99% of people, even people at the ivies.

And also much of that risk…really isn’t risk. They dropped out with profitable companies, not just ideas of an industry. Not many people can run a company and do college coursework.

Huh? None of the famous dropouts had profitable companies when they dropped out. Most didn't even have any VC funding when they dropped out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Males are also risk takers. Many of the tech giants left college before completion and went onto huge success. Other than Elizabeth Holmes (sorry truly awful example), I can't think of another woman that left college early to launch a tech company/start up. It could be that women feel the degree (or actually need it) due to inherent biases in vc and silicon valley--not sure.

Most of these people who dropped out to start companies came from wealthy, professional families. You need some family wealth to mitigate the risk walking away from your degree at a good school. Most of these entrepreneurs did have family wealth to fall back on if their idea was a flop (eg. Musk, Holmes, Gates, etc.). You don't see middle class or poor (either males or females) taking that kind of risk and walking away from a year or more of tuition as often.

The Musk myth isn't true. He actually didn't come from any $$$s. Holmes' dad worked at Enron and lost most of his money in the Enron collapse.

Jeff Bezos made a bunch of money at a hedge fund before starting Amazon, but didn't come from much (his mom gave birth to him in HS and eventually married a mid-level IT guy). Zuckerberg's dad is a dentist..sure, UMC but his parents weren't thrilled when he dropped out. Larry Ellison came from nothing...Harold Hamm came from abject poverty (not SV).

I actually don't really buy your thesis because SV has lots of kids that either drop out or don't even attempt to go to college from the start, working at many companies. If you drop-out of college and get VC funding for a start-up, that is a badge of honor. Nobody cares that you didn't get your degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Males are also risk takers. Many of the tech giants left college before completion and went onto huge success. Other than Elizabeth Holmes (sorry truly awful example), I can't think of another woman that left college early to launch a tech company/start up. It could be that women feel the degree (or actually need it) due to inherent biases in vc and silicon valley--not sure.

Sure but that risk is stupid as hell for 99% of people, even people at the ivies.

And also much of that risk…really isn’t risk. They dropped out with profitable companies, not just ideas of an industry. Not many people can run a company and do college coursework.

Anonymous wrote:Males are also risk takers. Many of the tech giants left college before completion and went onto huge success. Other than Elizabeth Holmes (sorry truly awful example), I can't think of another woman that left college early to launch a tech company/start up. It could be that women feel the degree (or actually need it) due to inherent biases in vc and silicon valley--not sure.

Most of these people who dropped out to start companies came from wealthy, professional families. You need some family wealth to mitigate the risk walking away from your degree at a good school. Most of these entrepreneurs did have family wealth to fall back on if their idea was a flop (eg. Musk, Holmes, Gates, etc.). You don't see middle class or poor (either males or females) taking that kind of risk and walking away from a year or more of tuition as often.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Males are also risk takers. Many of the tech giants left college before completion and went onto huge success. Other than Elizabeth Holmes (sorry truly awful example), I can't think of another woman that left college early to launch a tech company/start up. It could be that women feel the degree (or actually need it) due to inherent biases in vc and silicon valley--not sure.

Sure but that risk is stupid as hell for 99% of people, even people at the ivies.

'

Some actors have done it too Matt Damon, Reese Witherspoon, a bunch more.

Yeah really takes some balls. I was always too careful. Always took the safe route in everything. Always listened to my parents (who would have had a conniption if we didn't attend and finish college). lol

Anonymous wrote:Males are also risk takers. Many of the tech giants left college before completion and went onto huge success. Other than Elizabeth Holmes (sorry truly awful example), I can't think of another woman that left college early to launch a tech company/start up. It could be that women feel the degree (or actually need it) due to inherent biases in vc and silicon valley--not sure.

Sure but that risk is stupid as hell for 99% of people, even people at the ivies.

^ biases against women

Males are also risk takers. Many of the tech giants left college before completion and went onto huge success. Other than Elizabeth Holmes (sorry truly awful example), I can't think of another woman that left college early to launch a tech company/start up. It could be that women feel the degree (or actually need it) due to inherent biases in vc and silicon valley--not sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

I agree somewhat with this. I don't have sons but we are on our daughters constantly. If we did have a son, to be truthful, I imagine that we would not be as strict on him. I think that there's this perception (conscious or unconscious) that boys will be okay (especially white boys) for the most part; and that girls need to work extra hard to be successful.

Nope. I have all sons. My parents treated my brother and sisters/self identically. We all were told to go to school and get jobs to FULLY SUPPORT OURSELVES. My parents expressly taught us we should never rely on anyone else fully --always have a source of income (both the girls and the boys). My parents also showed a very egalitarian marriage. Both worked and both did chores around the house--not femal or or male but girls mowed lawns too and boys set the table, etc and vice versa. Out of the kids, I was the only one that went into a STEM field like my dad (before that term was even coined).

My parents were hardest on my brother, frankly. He was the one that was the most wild, got in trouble. They were on him constantly.

I am teaching my sons to support themselves, be good people, good citizens, respect for all, giving back, etc., etc. They value women.

We are definitely on the strict side of parents in comparison to neighbors friends that have both genders or just girls, etc.

^ I will add the only inherent differences I saw in the way my parents treated us is that my dad was much more worried for the safety of my sister and I---walking alone at night, no running in the dark on isolated trails, watching our drinks--declining open containers, etc. He raised some bad *sses in that aspect. We also were both college athletes like our brother and my dad coached our travel teams too.

I do see the worry that parents have over daughters would eclipse males --driving alone at night, walking after dark-more so than males. I recognize that and once my sons 'grew up' and reached the age they look like men--I didn't worry about the predatory aspect of it. I likely feel safer with them on college campuses too---they have been taught 'no means no', and all the other things to respect women, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

I agree somewhat with this. I don't have sons but we are on our daughters constantly. If we did have a son, to be truthful, I imagine that we would not be as strict on him. I think that there's this perception (conscious or unconscious) that boys will be okay (especially white boys) for the most part; and that girls need to work extra hard to be successful.

Nope. I have all sons. My parents treated my brother and sisters/self identically. We all were told to go to school and get jobs to FULLY SUPPORT OURSELVES. My parents expressly taught us we should never rely on anyone else fully --always have a source of income (both the girls and the boys). My parents also showed a very egalitarian marriage. Both worked and both did chores around the house--not femal or or male but girls mowed lawns too and boys set the table, etc and vice versa. Out of the kids, I was the only one that went into a STEM field like my dad (before that term was even coined).

My parents were hardest on my brother, frankly. He was the one that was the most wild, got in trouble. They were on him constantly.

I am teaching my sons to support themselves, be good people, good citizens, respect for all, giving back, etc., etc. They value women.

We are definitely on the strict side of parents in comparison to neighbors friends that have both genders or just girls, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to teach men that discipline was necessary for a quality life and successful career. Now people complain of it being “anti-male” to discipline boys rightfully for erratic behavior. I do think more boys would benefit from an all male environment, since girls are socialized to be more disciplined and still than men.

Counterpoint, for generations we kept women out of academics when they are far capable both there and in any thing that requires time management and executive function. The guys will experience discipline in their gigs driving for Amazon and Doordash.

As this comment illustrates, many people don't care about boys at all. That's the real problem.

Not really, truth is this is nothing new, kids who can't get it together have always been expendable.

Until we’re talking about your kid, who can’t possibly be expandable, because you’ve done an awesome job as a parent. Or can’t have difficulty finding a partner to start a family because again you’ve proofed their life for any kind of setback.

The point is males seem to have difficulty enrolling in higher education and getting degrees, regardless of what their grandfathers did. I think it’s worth looking on the causes instead of just chucking it to video games and being lazy.

We want people in our society to be successful regardless of gender, not settle some score.

Instead of looking at their grandfathers, look at their grandparents. In that calculation your going to see about as many if not more kids today completing college. If women have displaced some men, that's what competition looks like.

I think this hits at it.

College attendance is way up across the board compared to 2-3 generations ago. Most middle class and wealthier parents expect their kids to go to a 4 year college and freak out if they don't want to or refuse to. But truthfully the kids are smarter than the adults on this one -- not everyone is cut out for college or the kinds of careers college prepares you for. There should be no shame in going into a trade or working entry level work until you can maybe move into middle management or start a small business. For boys or girls. That's a normal career path. We should stop shutting down kid who want to pursue it.

But I think women have to fight more for respect in the workforce and so for them, a degree is a useful way of "proving" they are capable. So even in fields like retail or childcare that traditionally hire more women, there is greater benefit to women to have some kind of degree in terms of moving up and earning more as their career progresses. It is crazy how much these fields have become obsessed with credentials for management positions. In childcare even many entry level positions are now pushing for educational credentials. I'd actually like to see this reversed because I think it's ultimately bad for women. There should be more career paths for women straight out of high school.

But you don't see the same thing in male-dominated fields like construction or the trades. And trade schools exist explicitly to help people gain entry to these fields while bypassing college. You don't see the same systems for women. Some women do take advantage of these career paths and are moving into male-dominated trades (just as some men are moving into fields like teaching and nursing) but they face discrimination in these environments, unfortunately. We need to do a better job as a society of not gendering jobs. It hurts everyone. Women should be able to become plumbers and men should be able to become school teachers and it shouldn't even be an issue. People have different strengths and it does not break down along gender lines the way so many seem to think.

As long as men are entering the workforce and earning enough to support themselves and contribute to a family budget (no reason in 2024 for them to be able to support a family on one salary but they need to make enough and have a stable enough job to make family finances work however that is worked out between a couple) I don't think it matters if boys are going to college. If you truly believe in the dignity of work and value the contributions of all kinds jobs then this really isn't a problem.

So many of the comments on this thread amount to "I would like us to reconfigure academic career paths to make them easier and more appealing to my kid with a specific learning style [who in this case is a boy]" but really we as parents need to accept that kids like this, whether boys or girls, don't all want or need to go to college and that should be fine. We are buying into elitist attitudes about worth that aren't necessary and it holds all our kids back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

+1

Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre.

Wtf? Not in my family. I actually see in my wealthy neighborhood it's the girls that get the leeway--esp. if pretty. The moms still are looking at Mrs degrees for them so they can stay home like they did.

We’re not talking about your neighborhood or your family here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of going to college when they can’t get a job?
DS did his degree in microbiology. Hasn’t found a job in his field even though he applied to 100’s of positions.
The same is true with his classmates. There are those who went to grad school. The others are working minimum wage jobs that don’t require any degree.
DS is now attending a trade school to make decent money.

How is this possible? Is he trying to get a job in remote Alaska? There are so many unfilled jobs out there.

There aren't that many open jobs in the sciences, especially for white and Asian males who have to stand behind less qualified women and DEI hires when applying.

That’s utter BS. As a bench scientist who graduated from undergrad 25 years ago, the job market in biological sciences for people with only undergrad degrees has *always* been crappy. Some find jobs in industry, but the vast majority go on to grad school, advanced degrees in medicine, nursing, etc., or take on very low-paid jobs for a few years to prepare for getting a graduate degree. Getting a biology or microbiology degree has never been the path to an easy career and to get through college without realizing is really naive- you’d have to have never talked to a single advisor or professor to not realize how few “S” jobs are out there for people with only a STEM undergrad degree.

100%%%%%

I was making 18k a year with my Biology B.S. in the 90s. A lab that did work for the NIH. I couldn't get hire anywhere. The Feds either. I had to go to graduate school and was then able to find work after that. Luckily, I had my graduate degree paid by a teaching stipend.

Strict biological sciences or undergrad marine bio, etc. is very hard to find work.

Yes, agree with the above two posters. I was making $21k/year in a lab at NIH. Also went to graduate school (fully funded thankfully through training grants) and am now a principle investigator. There have never been high-paying jobs for biologists with just a B.S. unless the candidate had years of experience and unique expertise. If the original poster's son is applying to 100s of jobs, he's either applying for jobs that he's wildly unqualified for, or he's applying for 100s of entry-level positions meant for those that are working for 1-2 years before heading to graduate school. If it is the latter and he isn't being offered any positions, I will bet real money that the problem is him and not DEI.

Anonymous wrote:In this thread you know the posters are sexist if you replace males with females and you’d have second thoughts about expressing that in public.

There’s no problem if more women graduate college than men, but we see in a supposedly egalitarian society some different outcomes and we have to take a look and evaluate if there are some practices today, not in the 50s, that disadvantage men.

I can think of numerous announcements at my kids school for girls only, I strongly disagree with those. Without exception all of the books they read in English center on a female perspective. A log of teachers value social compliance more knowledge when grading.

But when your default thinking of gender issues is patriarchy, it shows that there’s not much room nuance and depth.

No, not really. I have heard people diss women’s opinions and ability in public, and no one was fuming about it. At some point, we have to acknowledge that men DO have various reasons, but often do just laze around, don’t develop, and then complain the world is out to get them, and this is coming from a man. Applying yourself isn’t sexism.