Posted on 10/22/2015 4:49:19 AM PDT by kristinn
Boys are falling behind. They graduate from high school and attend college at lower rates than girls and are more likely to get in trouble, which can hurt them when they enter the job market. This gender gap exists across the United States, but it is far bigger for poor people and for black people. As society becomes more unequal, it seems, it hurts boys more.
New research from social scientists offers one explanation: Boys are more sensitive than girls to disadvantage. Any disadvantage, like growing up in poverty, in a bad neighborhood or without a father, takes more of a toll on boys than on their sisters. That realization could be a starting point for educators, parents and policy makers who are trying to figure out how to help boys — particularly those from black, Latino and immigrant families.
SNIP
They concluded that boys aren’t born this way. Babies of low-income mothers are less healthy, but the boys are not worse off than the girls.
SNIP
“Boys particularly seem to benefit more from being in a married household or committed household – with the time, attention and income that brings,” Mr. Autor said.
The researchers compared families based on whether the parents were single or coupled, the education level of the mother, income of the neighborhood and quality of the school. They said they could not isolate which variable mattered most, probably because they are all intertwined.
But they said there were clues to why boys are extra sensitive to disadvantage. A big one is that impoverished households are more likely to be led by single mothers, and boys suffer from a lack of male role models.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
War on Boys.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
DEFUND welfare
“Babies of low-income mothers are less healthy”
What kind of LIE is that??? Welfare babies have all of (if not more) opportunity for good food than most others. However, mom sells half of her groceries each month that she bought with welfare money so she could have some “walking around cash.”
Lol! After decades of focusing on “women’s health” and “equal opportunities for women” and “women this and women that.” liberals are just now realizingthat men (and boys) have health and social issues too. I just read an article that said this year’s college freshman class is 70 percent female. More than twice as many women as men entered college! While that may make for better odds at the weekend kegger, it means there’s a hole in our upcoming workforce. If the gender distribution were reversed, you’d hear the dinosaur media howling till the windows rattled.
Everything old is new again.
Yes-—but the purpose of socialism/collectives is to destroy patriarchy and make males and females interchangeable (pure Marxism).
They have to destroy the possibility of mature, masculine males, to collapse the culture. It is easy-—destroy marriage laws and promote promiscuity in TV and schools (Pride in vile behaviors and have no mature, moral role models for males (homosexualize them).
They have to destroy Christianity which elevated the Natural Family and Virtue and created the Age of Reason, Modern Science and the USA.
As the Ancients knew, without Virtue, you can’t have a civil society. All our institutions deliberately destroy Virtue now-—for Fichte and the Germans of the 19th century put in a plan which we adopted (Prussian “education”) to actually destroy Virtue and embed dependency and destroy Christianity in any child who attends our public indoctrination system of operant conditioning (yes, our children are just dogs and will end up acting like dogs when the conditioning is finished).
70% college class is female? I don’t think that number is real. I know that the percentage of females in college is higher around %55. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Yes females have made gains in law and medical but they are at %50 which is were they should be. Hard sciences they have also made gains but they are still way below %50. Accounting and business I believe females are slightly higher in %. The big gains are in the soft majors, feminism, female studies, ancient cultures etc. These studies are overwhelming female which they always have been. What took place in the last few decades is that colleges have expanded these soft science majors and accepted more women. Where these majors didn’t exist decades ago or were regulated as small departments today colleges have greatly expanded them. For example early childhood development was not a major in most universities when I attended college. Now this is a giant major in most colleges. The outcome of this major has not changed the women’s life at all. The career she gains is still a low wage position changing diapers with the caveat of now carrying a heavy college debt.
Because they realized that was a way to make more money, especially since so much of the cost is not being borne immediately by the student.
Iirc, the 70% women figure came from Mike Adams, and referred specifically to the incoming freshman class at UNC-Wilmington.
Because they realized that was a way to make more money, especially since so much of the cost is not being borne immediately by the student.
True and also colleges were mandated to increase female and minority student enrollment. A quick way to increase enrollment is to offer soft majors.
I attended an engineering school which to my utter disappointment was overwhelming male. Females didn’t apply for admissions and were not interested for the most part in the curriculum. In my 2nd year the school developed an interior design engineering major as an offshoot of the architect department.
In my current college class there are 41 students, only 5 of whom are males.
Did it say what these women were studying?
What college? What course of study?
So, unborn children have temperaments? How did that sneak past the Times editor?
The article noted all the things you did, but the fact remains that women are attending college at more than twice the rate men are. That the majority of those women are engaging in worthless majors is actually MORE alarming, since it means that soon the social “sciences”, arts, and media will be dominated by people with a completely different set of values than traditional males. And eventually some of these people will rise to become “leaders,” especially in liberal ranks where competence is less a criterion than class. Witness Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi ...
Mostly crap. But that doesn’t change the fact that in the future, if this trend continues, we will have a class of uneducated serf men and over-educated brainless women. Think Morlocks and Eloi.
Absolutely. This is all part of the marxist new world order, with the weak dominating the strong, the corrupt ruling the virtuous, and the taker triumphant over the giver.
Or Clockwork Orange ...
I'm also thinking that I haven't bought much ammo lately. Proto-morlocks are already a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.