11 ms·

“Young men get little help, in part, because schools are focused on encouraging historically underrepresented students. Jerlando Jackson, department chair, Educ

by zepto 5y ago

“Young men get little help, in part, because schools are focused on encouraging historically underrepresented students. Jerlando Jackson, department chair, Education Leadership and Policy Analysis, at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Education, said few campuses have been willing to spend limited funds on male underachievement that would also benefit white men, risking criticism for assisting those who have historically held the biggest educational advantages.” So this is a direct result of the move away from color blind policies, to race based policies. > Keith E. Smith, a mental-health counselor and men’s outreach coordinator at the University of Vermont, said that when he started working at the school in 2006 he found that men were much more likely to face consequences for the trouble they caused under the influence of drugs and alcohol. This is exactly what black students report as racism in school. Seems like evidence that race based policies are just racist. > In 2008, Mr. Smith proposed a men’s center to help male students succeed. The proposal drew criticism from women who asked, “Why would you give more resources to the most privileged group on campus,” he said. Funding wasn’t appropriated, he said, and the center was never built. Obviously white men are not in fact privileged on university campuses. “Female students in the U.S. benefit from a support system established decades ago, spanning a period when women struggled to gain a foothold on college campuses. There are more than 500 women’s centers at schools nationwide. Most centers host clubs and organizations that work to help female students succeed.” Men are failing because it is the policy not to support them.

chakkepolja 5y ago
Men don't complain. It's not the male biological imperative. Consider modern "feminists" and their obesity-is-fine propaganda. No man complains about male underwear models being very fit and handsome. If anything, men want to become like them.
- btreecat 5y ago
  How is that a biological imperative and not just another form of social conditioning?
  - chakkepolja 5y ago
    Men are the competitive gender. In past, only 40% of men survived to reproduce whereas 80% of women did. Not in absolute terms, but imagine if more competitive men survive with higher probability in each generation, there's a good chance males will be more competitive and females will be more cooperative in next generations. Now this theory is fringe. But not as nonsense as "Both genders are same, everything is social conditioning" bullshit we hear every day.
    - btreecat 5y ago
      So given that gender specifically is a social concept, there is historical but not necessarily biological causation at play.
wasmburger 5y ago
I also wonder about those in Silicon Valley telling young men "don't go to college" and the mostly male fascination with entrepreneurship and crytocurrency. The entire meme stock and "apes together are strong" seems like a young male flex. Could it be that college is just seen as "gay"? Are Academics Disproportionately Gay? A new analysis suggests that's the case, and that academic work -- at once solitary and social in nature -- makes it particularly attractive to those who are not straight. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/26/study-suggests-faculty-members-are-disproportionately-likely-be-gay https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/26/study-suggest...
teawrecks 5y ago
After a few hundred years of race/gender based policies working in favor of whites/males, I don't know what else we would expect from a deliberate effort to reverse it. You can't expect to play a game, give one team an advantage for the first half, give neither team an advantage in the second half, and call it a fair game at the end. Yeah, it sucks for individuals in the meantime, but we were simply never going to achieve an equal opportunity society without taking from the group who was unfairly advantaged. If it stays this way for an extended period of time, then yeah, we will end up creating the inverse problem, but for now I don't know what else anyone expected. We just need to keep an eye on it, use science, don't hide any data, and have a well informed plan on how to ease back affirmative action as we determine that we have succeeded in undoing centuries of unfairness.
- zepto 5y ago
  > You can't expect to play a game, give one team an advantage for the first half, give neither team an advantage in the second half, and call it a fair game at the end. The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. I.e. you are simply assuming that racism is forever and that the only fairness comes dividing people by race and then balancing resources according to racial groups. This is just more racism. It’s not the only solution. We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted. However if we apply that support through racialized policies, we will never solve the problem. For example, we can see that black people historically are disproportionately impacted by policies that have prevented wealth building, such as redlining. Of course so have groups of low class white people been denied access to assets, just to a lesser extent. A racist solution would be to give advantages to black people. A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. This will still disproportionately benefit black people but will be self-balancing and won’t perpetuate racism or permanently embed it into our political and legal systems.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    > The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. No, you're arguing against an artifact the analogy instead of acting in good faith to understand the meaning. Consider a game where all players are independent, but the "referee" arbitrarily chose half of the players to get an advantage. Let that be team 1, and everyone else be team 2. We got a new referee in the 2nd half, and that ref wants it to be a fair game; would it be unfair for them to acknowledging and try to correct for the 1st ref's team choices? (Now if you argue that there is no "referee" in real life, I'm going to assume you are being willingly obstinate.) > A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards. But take note that you'll then have minorities who were forced to work 10x harder than their white peers say, "wtf?! I put in all that extra work to pull myself up by my bootstraps, and now you're just going to hand out success to everyone? I feel disenfranchised!" In a "fair" race, that person who worked 10x harder than their peers should be appreciably further along in the "game". The only way to make that correction is to acknowledge the divide already drawn by the first "referee".
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> Men are failing because it is the policy not to support them. And because men need the support. I suspect that a lot fewer men needed support in, say, 1950. Why do more men need support than did in 1950? I think the first reason may be because of education. Our education system is failing in a way that it wasn't in 1950. (This may be too harsh. If, say, 10% of high school graduates went to college in 1950, and 50% do now, then that means that the top 10% then were more prepared for college than the top 50% are now. But apples-to-apples would be to ask whether the top 10% then were better prepared than the top 10% are now. I don't have a good feel for the answer to that question.)
- II2II 5y ago
  The other thing add that it is okay to support men who need that support. This was exactly what the Ontario Ministry of Education was encouraging men to get into teaching a decade ago. They had data that showed boys attainment of literacy was declining and viewed more male role models as a potential solution. It is also worth noting that providing supports for men does not mean removing supports for other under represented groups.
- zepto 5y ago
  > And because men need the support. I suspect that a lot fewer men needed support in, say, 1950. > Why do more men need support than did in 1950? My answer is that when men were the vast majority consumers of higher education the system was built to support them. This accords with what the social justice people would say, and I think they are right about that. What they are wrong about is that men today should be denied support that other groups have today because men in the 1950s had support that other groups in the 1950s did not have.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Fair point. But my impression (only that) is that college in 1950 was much less hand-holding and "supportive" in general than it is in 2021. What there was, however, was almost certainly tuned for males (and in fact white males). I totally agree with your last paragraph.
fennecfoxy 5y ago
>assisting those who have historically held the biggest educational advantages History is just that: history. A white male going to uni _right now_ hasn't really enjoyed those historical advantages; they were before their time. Yes there are other advantages in the modern world to being a white male, but there are also equivalent disadvantages, too. Easier to get power...but if you're male nobody is there to defend you or help you. Help yourself, defend yourself _and_ others, be the breadwinner (otherwise you're useless) "man up".
- happythen 5y ago
  Breaking news: life is hard for everyone. You actually have it easier, but not easy. Figure it out, don't man up. Shocking fact, caring about others might help fix yourself.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Can you explain how this relates to the comment you are replying to? It’s not clear how it follows.
    - happythen 5y ago
      yea it's a basic situation everyone deals with, this person just thinks it pertains to males.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - zepto 5y ago
        That doesn’t explain your reply. Are you claiming there is no difference in how society treats males vs females? Why do you assume the commenter is talking about themselves? Do you understand what masculinity is? How about toxic masculinity? Are you male?
        5y ago
happythen 5y ago
I hear you, this is alarming. No support! We deserve it, right? Being a young white male is probably the hardest thing to be in the world. Getting profiled... by twitter. And then, not to mention, all the dirty looks we get when we lock our doors, protect our families from this new wave of white hate. I proclaim we change this, but it won't be easy. We'll need to wear some hoods... ... Or just stop being a sad boi, join society and have some fun? Don't be a jerk? Like actively try to make others lives better? Might just get, actually it will, get better for you.

by zepto 5y ago

chakkepolja 5y ago

Men don't complain. It's not the male biological imperative. Consider modern "feminists" and their obesity-is-fine propaganda. No man complains about male underwear models being very fit and handsome. If anything, men want to become like them.

btreecat 5y ago
How is that a biological imperative and not just another form of social conditioning?
- chakkepolja 5y ago
  Men are the competitive gender. In past, only 40% of men survived to reproduce whereas 80% of women did. Not in absolute terms, but imagine if more competitive men survive with higher probability in each generation, there's a good chance males will be more competitive and females will be more cooperative in next generations. Now this theory is fringe. But not as nonsense as "Both genders are same, everything is social conditioning" bullshit we hear every day.
  - btreecat 5y ago
    So given that gender specifically is a social concept, there is historical but not necessarily biological causation at play.

wasmburger 5y ago

I also wonder about those in Silicon Valley telling young men "don't go to college" and the mostly male fascination with entrepreneurship and crytocurrency. The entire meme stock and "apes together are strong" seems like a young male flex. Could it be that college is just seen as "gay"? Are Academics Disproportionately Gay? A new analysis suggests that's the case, and that academic work -- at once solitary and social in nature -- makes it particularly attractive to those who are not straight. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/26/study-suggests-faculty-members-are-disproportionately-likely-be-gay https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/26/study-suggest...

teawrecks 5y ago

After a few hundred years of race/gender based policies working in favor of whites/males, I don't know what else we would expect from a deliberate effort to reverse it. You can't expect to play a game, give one team an advantage for the first half, give neither team an advantage in the second half, and call it a fair game at the end. Yeah, it sucks for individuals in the meantime, but we were simply never going to achieve an equal opportunity society without taking from the group who was unfairly advantaged. If it stays this way for an extended period of time, then yeah, we will end up creating the inverse problem, but for now I don't know what else anyone expected. We just need to keep an eye on it, use science, don't hide any data, and have a well informed plan on how to ease back affirmative action as we determine that we have succeeded in undoing centuries of unfairness.

zepto 5y ago
> You can't expect to play a game, give one team an advantage for the first half, give neither team an advantage in the second half, and call it a fair game at the end. The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. I.e. you are simply assuming that racism is forever and that the only fairness comes dividing people by race and then balancing resources according to racial groups. This is just more racism. It’s not the only solution. We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted. However if we apply that support through racialized policies, we will never solve the problem. For example, we can see that black people historically are disproportionately impacted by policies that have prevented wealth building, such as redlining. Of course so have groups of low class white people been denied access to assets, just to a lesser extent. A racist solution would be to give advantages to black people. A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. This will still disproportionately benefit black people but will be self-balancing and won’t perpetuate racism or permanently embed it into our political and legal systems.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  > The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. No, you're arguing against an artifact the analogy instead of acting in good faith to understand the meaning. Consider a game where all players are independent, but the "referee" arbitrarily chose half of the players to get an advantage. Let that be team 1, and everyone else be team 2. We got a new referee in the 2nd half, and that ref wants it to be a fair game; would it be unfair for them to acknowledging and try to correct for the 1st ref's team choices? (Now if you argue that there is no "referee" in real life, I'm going to assume you are being willingly obstinate.) > A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards. But take note that you'll then have minorities who were forced to work 10x harder than their white peers say, "wtf?! I put in all that extra work to pull myself up by my bootstraps, and now you're just going to hand out success to everyone? I feel disenfranchised!" In a "fair" race, that person who worked 10x harder than their peers should be appreciably further along in the "game". The only way to make that correction is to acknowledge the divide already drawn by the first "referee".

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

> Men are failing because it is the policy not to support them. And because men need the support. I suspect that a lot fewer men needed support in, say, 1950. Why do more men need support than did in 1950? I think the first reason may be because of education. Our education system is failing in a way that it wasn't in 1950. (This may be too harsh. If, say, 10% of high school graduates went to college in 1950, and 50% do now, then that means that the top 10% then were more prepared for college than the top 50% are now. But apples-to-apples would be to ask whether the top 10% then were better prepared than the top 10% are now. I don't have a good feel for the answer to that question.)

II2II 5y ago
The other thing add that it is okay to support men who need that support. This was exactly what the Ontario Ministry of Education was encouraging men to get into teaching a decade ago. They had data that showed boys attainment of literacy was declining and viewed more male role models as a potential solution. It is also worth noting that providing supports for men does not mean removing supports for other under represented groups.
zepto 5y ago
> And because men need the support. I suspect that a lot fewer men needed support in, say, 1950. > Why do more men need support than did in 1950? My answer is that when men were the vast majority consumers of higher education the system was built to support them. This accords with what the social justice people would say, and I think they are right about that. What they are wrong about is that men today should be denied support that other groups have today because men in the 1950s had support that other groups in the 1950s did not have.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Fair point. But my impression (only that) is that college in 1950 was much less hand-holding and "supportive" in general than it is in 2021. What there was, however, was almost certainly tuned for males (and in fact white males). I totally agree with your last paragraph.

fennecfoxy 5y ago

>assisting those who have historically held the biggest educational advantages History is just that: history. A white male going to uni _right now_ hasn't really enjoyed those historical advantages; they were before their time. Yes there are other advantages in the modern world to being a white male, but there are also equivalent disadvantages, too. Easier to get power...but if you're male nobody is there to defend you or help you. Help yourself, defend yourself _and_ others, be the breadwinner (otherwise you're useless) "man up".

happythen 5y ago
Breaking news: life is hard for everyone. You actually have it easier, but not easy. Figure it out, don't man up. Shocking fact, caring about others might help fix yourself.
- zepto 5y ago
  Can you explain how this relates to the comment you are replying to? It’s not clear how it follows.
  - happythen 5y ago
    yea it's a basic situation everyone deals with, this person just thinks it pertains to males.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zepto 5y ago
      That doesn’t explain your reply. Are you claiming there is no difference in how society treats males vs females? Why do you assume the commenter is talking about themselves? Do you understand what masculinity is? How about toxic masculinity? Are you male?
      - 5y ago

happythen 5y ago

I hear you, this is alarming. No support! We deserve it, right? Being a young white male is probably the hardest thing to be in the world. Getting profiled... by twitter. And then, not to mention, all the dirty looks we get when we lock our doors, protect our families from this new wave of white hate. I proclaim we change this, but it won't be easy. We'll need to wear some hoods... ... Or just stop being a sad boi, join society and have some fun? Don't be a jerk? Like actively try to make others lives better? Might just get, actually it will, get better for you.