6 ms·

I wonder what's driving this phenomena.

anonu 5y ago
I don't think there's any one reason: its a confluence of societal, economic and cultural shifts and perceptions about higher education. Many men don't feel they need more education. Costs of education are too high and some men prefer to get going to support themselves and their families.
- notfromhere 5y ago
  Let's be honest, too many men think education is an effeminate pursuit. Lots of anti-intellectualism running around
langitbiru 5y ago
We had a lively discussion about this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28436836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28436836
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
I would hypothesize that modern education and careers put specific male traits at a disadvantage. Some specific examples: men are diagnosed with ADHD at 3-4 times the rate of women. There is a clear (and hopefully obvious) association with testosterone levels and aggression. While these traits can be advantageous in some situations, modern education often requires sitting still and focusing for hours.
- goto11 5y ago
  > modern education often requires sitting still and focusing for hours. Is that a modern phenomenon? At what point in history didn't college level and higher education require sitting still and focusing?
  - ouid 5y ago
    the modern phenomenon being proposed, i assume, is that of more jobs requiring more education.
    - goto11 5y ago
      So it isn't modern education that is putting men at a disadvantage, it is the demands of the modern workplace?
      - hnfong 5y ago
        I guess you can say that apprenticeships were an accepted form of education before the modern times...
      - phil21 5y ago
        Not sure if my barber needs to sit through a year or two of school to be effective, for one random example in many places. Sure, modern education can be seen somewhat as a proxy for modern jobs. But it also is used as gatekeeping for jobs that have no business requiring prior education and which did not just a few decades prior. Even when jobs don't "technically" require a degree these days - those holding them raises the bar on everyone else. If you can hire all college educated baristas for your coffee shop, you likely don't get down to the 18 year old kid who just wants to work hard on something meaningful and directly in front of him - even if they would make better employees in the end. No reason to take any chances if you can get pre-vetted mediocracy. I'd argue the gates are being raised now in tech as well - many entry level positions in IT that you once could talk your way into and learn on the job are now credentialed. Interesting times.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  Or the fact many companies have quotas that disproportionately hurt male participants. There’s no nursing quota against females, yet theirs a quota against males in most enterprises.
- belorn 5y ago
  > There is a clear (and hopefully obvious) association with testosterone levels and aggression. Which is been rather strongly been debunked in the last 20-30 years of modern research. Testosterone does not cause aggression, nor does it causes poor concentration. One of the few surviving theories on what testosterone actually do is that it amplify cultural defined behavior associated with social status and sex, primarily during encounters where status might be lost. Abnormal levels of either low or high testosterone is associated with irritability, mood swings, poor concentration, and even delusions. Those findings are quite similar to studies on estrogen and progestogen.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Can you point me to some overviews on this research? I know this is just one example, but I remember the pretty fascinating study linked below quite well, where mens' testosterone levels were the determining factor in seeing how they reacted to their dogs' loss in an agility competition: men with high levels of testosterone punished their dogs by yelling and hitting them, men with lower levels of testosterone supported, petted and praised their animals. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to see how the "high testosterone response" would have been a status benefit to the man in question in the not-too-distant past, but now is much more likely to be a liability. https://news.utexas.edu/2006/09/19/research-reveals-connections-between-owners-testosterone-levels-and-pets-stress/ https://news.utexas.edu/2006/09/19/research-reveals-connecti... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16784746 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16784746
    - belorn 5y ago
      Missed that you replied, but he is some directions in case you see this. The first is a meta study done on testosterone by Robert Sapolsky. An other (which is referenced in that one) is a theory called the challenge hypothesis as it applies to humans, which makes predictions that testosterone rise along social status (as it apply to sexual reproduction), and it boost protective behavior in the case that status is challenged. One famous experiment was a version of the game theory experiment called the ultimatum game. If the experiment is carefully constructed in a way where social status is maintained by cooperation, and status is lost by aggression that rewards personal gain, people injected with testosterone behave more cooperative and less aggressive. A noticeable finding was that if participants was told they got injected by testosterone, but it was in reality a placebo, the participant then acted more aggressively and less cooperative, displaying contrast between the effect and the cultural perception. Testosterone has a few other effects, among those is that they disrupt receptors for female hormones that promote maternal behavior and bonding. Dog-human interaction promotes excretion of that female hormone in both humans (men and women) and dogs, a finding that itself has made some news. In modern time, social status still play a huge role. High status for men is highly correlated with successful reproductive success, better health and longer life. The benefit of having testosterone rise after gains in social status is a biological balance act, boosting protective behavior at a time where the potential risk from a loss in social status is at their peak. It also illustrate why testosterone levels goes down after a partner has given birth, as at that time the cost of lower social status is significant less and the benefit of improved bonding capabilities is a reproductive advantage.
icare_1er 5y ago
Systemic discriminations against men.
- dijit 5y ago
  I suspect there will be an emotional reaction to a message posted naked like this, but assuming you're not trolling or trying to farm for downvotes: You're not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a correlation between education being focused on female success (a combination of predominantly female teaching staff and optimising for traits generally held by women such as agreeableness) and the trends we've been seeing for 30 years now. Unfortunately this is not the popular narrative, but it does need to be discussed. EDIT: I, unlike the parent, am not trolling, so if you're going to downvote I would prefer a rebuttal. Citation 1 (agreeableness as a direct consequence of academic success): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608021001187 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104160802... Citation 2 (women on average are more agreeable than men): https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178 Citation 3 (Gender distribution of academic success over the last few decades): https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb2015/pxweb/en/STAT/STAT__30-GE__04-EducatAndcommunicat/005_en_GEECGraduates_r.px/ https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb2015/pxweb/en/STAT/STAT__30-GE__04... Citation 4 (Gender distribution of teachers in the USA): https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr Citation 5 (Gender of teacher affecting academic performance of same gender): https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/696203 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/696203 So we have direct correlation with a personality trait, it being attributed to a sex and a seeming consequence. I could be wrong, but while correlation does not equal causation: this does seem to be a very strong correlation.
  - goto11 5y ago
    None of this shows systemic discrimination against men.
    - dijit 5y ago
      Systematic Discrimination is not an intent, it is a consequence. As defined: “Systematic discrimination, also called institutionalized discrimination, refers to a method of discrimination which occurs regularly in the workplace as an inherent part of the company through interactions and processes creating a disadvantage for people with common set characteristics such as race, gender and disability over a long period of time. Systematic discrimination is not apparent at first sight but is actually systematic in its application of policies and practices.” Similar evidence is presented commonly to explain why the executives are predominantly male, I'm not sure why the circumstances must be different here.
torginus 5y ago
From my anecdotal experiences, women tend to focus on their careers much more early on, since they realize that once they have children in their late 20s/early 30s they wont be able to focus their energy as much on their work, and will not participate in the labor market at full strength for at least 5 years. So if they want to make it/continue their careers after having children, they need to take themselves much more seriously in their 20s.

I don't think there's any one reason: its a confluence of societal, economic and cultural shifts and perceptions about higher education. Many men don't feel they need more education. Costs of education are too high and some men prefer to get going to support themselves and their families.

notfromhere 5y ago
Let's be honest, too many men think education is an effeminate pursuit. Lots of anti-intellectualism running around

langitbiru 5y ago

We had a lively discussion about this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28436836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28436836

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

I would hypothesize that modern education and careers put specific male traits at a disadvantage. Some specific examples: men are diagnosed with ADHD at 3-4 times the rate of women. There is a clear (and hopefully obvious) association with testosterone levels and aggression. While these traits can be advantageous in some situations, modern education often requires sitting still and focusing for hours.

goto11 5y ago
> modern education often requires sitting still and focusing for hours. Is that a modern phenomenon? At what point in history didn't college level and higher education require sitting still and focusing?
- ouid 5y ago
  the modern phenomenon being proposed, i assume, is that of more jobs requiring more education.
  - goto11 5y ago
    So it isn't modern education that is putting men at a disadvantage, it is the demands of the modern workplace?
    - hnfong 5y ago
      I guess you can say that apprenticeships were an accepted form of education before the modern times...
    - phil21 5y ago
      Not sure if my barber needs to sit through a year or two of school to be effective, for one random example in many places. Sure, modern education can be seen somewhat as a proxy for modern jobs. But it also is used as gatekeeping for jobs that have no business requiring prior education and which did not just a few decades prior. Even when jobs don't "technically" require a degree these days - those holding them raises the bar on everyone else. If you can hire all college educated baristas for your coffee shop, you likely don't get down to the 18 year old kid who just wants to work hard on something meaningful and directly in front of him - even if they would make better employees in the end. No reason to take any chances if you can get pre-vetted mediocracy. I'd argue the gates are being raised now in tech as well - many entry level positions in IT that you once could talk your way into and learn on the job are now credentialed. Interesting times.
bushbaba 5y ago
Or the fact many companies have quotas that disproportionately hurt male participants. There’s no nursing quota against females, yet theirs a quota against males in most enterprises.
belorn 5y ago
> There is a clear (and hopefully obvious) association with testosterone levels and aggression. Which is been rather strongly been debunked in the last 20-30 years of modern research. Testosterone does not cause aggression, nor does it causes poor concentration. One of the few surviving theories on what testosterone actually do is that it amplify cultural defined behavior associated with social status and sex, primarily during encounters where status might be lost. Abnormal levels of either low or high testosterone is associated with irritability, mood swings, poor concentration, and even delusions. Those findings are quite similar to studies on estrogen and progestogen.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Can you point me to some overviews on this research? I know this is just one example, but I remember the pretty fascinating study linked below quite well, where mens' testosterone levels were the determining factor in seeing how they reacted to their dogs' loss in an agility competition: men with high levels of testosterone punished their dogs by yelling and hitting them, men with lower levels of testosterone supported, petted and praised their animals. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to see how the "high testosterone response" would have been a status benefit to the man in question in the not-too-distant past, but now is much more likely to be a liability. https://news.utexas.edu/2006/09/19/research-reveals-connections-between-owners-testosterone-levels-and-pets-stress/ https://news.utexas.edu/2006/09/19/research-reveals-connecti... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16784746 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16784746
  - belorn 5y ago
    Missed that you replied, but he is some directions in case you see this. The first is a meta study done on testosterone by Robert Sapolsky. An other (which is referenced in that one) is a theory called the challenge hypothesis as it applies to humans, which makes predictions that testosterone rise along social status (as it apply to sexual reproduction), and it boost protective behavior in the case that status is challenged. One famous experiment was a version of the game theory experiment called the ultimatum game. If the experiment is carefully constructed in a way where social status is maintained by cooperation, and status is lost by aggression that rewards personal gain, people injected with testosterone behave more cooperative and less aggressive. A noticeable finding was that if participants was told they got injected by testosterone, but it was in reality a placebo, the participant then acted more aggressively and less cooperative, displaying contrast between the effect and the cultural perception. Testosterone has a few other effects, among those is that they disrupt receptors for female hormones that promote maternal behavior and bonding. Dog-human interaction promotes excretion of that female hormone in both humans (men and women) and dogs, a finding that itself has made some news. In modern time, social status still play a huge role. High status for men is highly correlated with successful reproductive success, better health and longer life. The benefit of having testosterone rise after gains in social status is a biological balance act, boosting protective behavior at a time where the potential risk from a loss in social status is at their peak. It also illustrate why testosterone levels goes down after a partner has given birth, as at that time the cost of lower social status is significant less and the benefit of improved bonding capabilities is a reproductive advantage.

icare_1er 5y ago

Systemic discriminations against men.

dijit 5y ago
I suspect there will be an emotional reaction to a message posted naked like this, but assuming you're not trolling or trying to farm for downvotes: You're not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a correlation between education being focused on female success (a combination of predominantly female teaching staff and optimising for traits generally held by women such as agreeableness) and the trends we've been seeing for 30 years now. Unfortunately this is not the popular narrative, but it does need to be discussed. EDIT: I, unlike the parent, am not trolling, so if you're going to downvote I would prefer a rebuttal. Citation 1 (agreeableness as a direct consequence of academic success): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608021001187 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104160802... Citation 2 (women on average are more agreeable than men): https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178 Citation 3 (Gender distribution of academic success over the last few decades): https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb2015/pxweb/en/STAT/STAT__30-GE__04-EducatAndcommunicat/005_en_GEECGraduates_r.px/ https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb2015/pxweb/en/STAT/STAT__30-GE__04... Citation 4 (Gender distribution of teachers in the USA): https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr Citation 5 (Gender of teacher affecting academic performance of same gender): https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/696203 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/696203 So we have direct correlation with a personality trait, it being attributed to a sex and a seeming consequence. I could be wrong, but while correlation does not equal causation: this does seem to be a very strong correlation.
- goto11 5y ago
  None of this shows systemic discrimination against men.
  - dijit 5y ago
    Systematic Discrimination is not an intent, it is a consequence. As defined: “Systematic discrimination, also called institutionalized discrimination, refers to a method of discrimination which occurs regularly in the workplace as an inherent part of the company through interactions and processes creating a disadvantage for people with common set characteristics such as race, gender and disability over a long period of time. Systematic discrimination is not apparent at first sight but is actually systematic in its application of policies and practices.” Similar evidence is presented commonly to explain why the executives are predominantly male, I'm not sure why the circumstances must be different here.

torginus 5y ago

From my anecdotal experiences, women tend to focus on their careers much more early on, since they realize that once they have children in their late 20s/early 30s they wont be able to focus their energy as much on their work, and will not participate in the labor market at full strength for at least 5 years. So if they want to make it/continue their careers after having children, they need to take themselves much more seriously in their 20s.