Women are being indulged in schools and admissions. So you see that impact. Nothing more.

My point is both men and women are equal. There is no point in indulging women in particular areas like STEM because they are underrepresented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can keep going.

How many of the top 100 mathematicians are women?

How many of the top 100 Physicists are women?

Nobel prizes........

Great, glad men at the top are doing well. Mind telling us how the working class men with no degree in America are doing?
I’ll help you with the research: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/26/upshot/census-relative-income.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/26/upshot/census-relative-income.html.

We can discuss men without it being some grandstanding bs about how they build civilizations; it’s seriously tired rhetoric.

You want to tell us about all the women who are on OnlyFans?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

There are systemic issues that affect men too.

Can you give some examples? Please don’t say Girls that code exists. I’m not trolling. I’m genuinely curious. It seems like except in STEM and business, men have an admissions advantage.

Anonymous wrote:We can keep going.

How many of the top 100 mathematicians are women?

How many of the top 100 Physicists are women?

Nobel prizes........

Great, glad men at the top are doing well. Mind telling us how the working class men with no degree in America are doing?
I’ll help you with the research: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/26/upshot/census-relative-income.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/26/upshot/census-relative-income.html.

We can discuss men without it being some grandstanding bs about how they build civilizations; it’s seriously tired rhetoric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

There are many, many disenfranchised men at the bottom of society...people just ignore them.

There are many, many disenfranchised PEOPLE at the bottom of society.

You commented that men hold a majority of wealth, etc. That statistic is meaningless if you are a man at the bottom. (And there are MANY more men at the bottom than wealthy men.) We can look for ways to help those men be more successful. Or we can look for reasons to "justify" discarding them. I would rather help them out.

That’s a class issue. If you’re looking to solve class issues within America, you’re asking the right person, cause I’m in solidarity with that and grew up below the poverty line.

We can keep going.

How many of the top 100 mathematicians are women?

How many of the top 100 Physicists are women?

Nobel prizes........

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

How many of the top 100 companies by market cap did women start?

Two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

The wealth you spek of is a different generation than the problem we are seeing in education now.

Maybe men are disenfranchised now? Why aren't boys doing well in school? Why has there been such a huge disparity in who takes AP classes and who goes to college since the 1980s? We are 45 years into more women than men in college. There were more women in college in 1990 than the number of men in 2021.

The gap is huge and time span is nearing half a decade. Men fell behind in 1980 and never caught up. The answer has to be systemic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236360/undergraduate-enrollment-in-us-by-gender/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

There are many, many disenfranchised men at the bottom of society...people just ignore them.

There are many, many disenfranchised PEOPLE at the bottom of society.

You commented that men hold a majority of wealth, etc. That statistic is meaningless if you are a man at the bottom. (And there are MANY more men at the bottom than wealthy men.) We can look for ways to help those men be more successful. Or we can look for reasons to "justify" discarding them. I would rather help them out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

There are systemic issues that affect men too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

There are many, many disenfranchised men at the bottom of society...people just ignore them.

There are many, many disenfranchised PEOPLE at the bottom of society.

Exactly. Their disenfranchised status isn't them being men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

There are many, many disenfranchised men at the bottom of society...people just ignore them.

There are many, many disenfranchised PEOPLE at the bottom of society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

There are many, many disenfranchised men at the bottom of society...people just ignore them.

Anonymous wrote:We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.

The reason we do that is because we can point to systemic issues that do put those groups behind. Men aren’t “behind.” They still earn more while not getting degrees. They still disproportionately hold a majority of wealth. Maleness isn’t disenfranchised.

We should be trying to figure out what we can change in the environment to help boys be successful. But instead people are eager to say "boys have themselves to blame", "boys just need to be better", etc. That approach won't improve things. We know this. When other groups struggle (women in STEM, URMs), we take a step back, question our assumptions, and ask what we can do differently. That is more effective. We should be doing that with this problem.