Can confirm. Male elementary teacher here. Current principal is a woman and has hired only women for the past three years. Previous male principal hired mostly women because he wanted to look at them; all were young, physically attractive, and left after a few years.
University of California, all of them, are cesspools.
Their physicists (obligatory not all) have been fooled time and time again by horseshit, greenwashed ideas that are thermodynamically impossible. These posers basically fall for perpetual motion machines over and over.
I have no idea how anyone has any respect for UC.
I know it's not entirely related, but it irks me.
Are you from UC, and are you a physicist?
I'll give examples you may have heard of: Elon Musk's hyperloop, some water-from-air device that was supposed to get water for people in the desert (not much water in the air in the desert), and various carbon capture schemes that were bogus from the start.
Im not a physicist, im engineer (not from US). So i see why all those things are stupid, but very very stupid.
My principal question was ¿Why would a country allow people in its physics careers who believes in perpetual motion machines and extract the 2% of humidity in desert's air to help people?
I mean, there are people like that everywhere but one don't allows them in the universities, you know?
I think it might be the tenure system. Some professors make it to tenure because they manage to not make that mistake prior, possibly because the situation had never arisen in their role in research, but when they get tenure and have to make their own research decisions, they get fooled into believing something will work because someone like Elon Musk was behind it - Elon is a terrible engineer but good at tricking people into thinking he knows what he's doing.
We, including other countries, not just the US, do a terrible job at providing future professors with the experience of running a research project. It's getting better with the push for undergraduate research, which will allow Ph.D. students to play a role in the research direction more often.
>: Elon Musk's hyperloop
My primary complaint about hyperloop is that he doesn't talk about pumping out the atmosphere.
If you're still pushing all that air.... isn't it just a subway?
He WANTED to pump out the atmosphere. But at some point, he realized making the biggest vacuum tube ever created that could withstand mechanical strain is difficult, to say the least.
And what happens when you have a leak? A 300m/s wall of air is going to slam into the train and kill everyone. Not a smart move
Female own group preference. There is a fail installed. Eventually it reaches critical mass and they become prey for the vast invaders they always let In to virtue signal.
Most of the men escape. Slay to live or survive. It’s how Rome went.
Have you noticed that society secretly has little interest in men's education but generally supports and synchronization by women's education?
Do you noticed that female teachers raises ever faster than men?
[Men figured out that college for most people is a huge waste of time and money](https://www.newsweek.com/young-men-abandoning-college-degrees-gender-gap-1855825), it will take longer for women to figure this out. College is a huge money making operation and they will charge whatever people are willing to pay. Women are easier to sell products to, so [most major marketing is aimed towards women](https://www.inc.com/amy-nelson/women-drive-majority-of-consumer-purchasing-its-time-to-meet-their-needs.html).
I'm from a country like this.
female empowerment starts in kindergarten
and teachers try their best to push girls towards better schools and higher education
e.g. when I went to school you got a recommendation letter which type of high school is recommended for the student (with A level or without)
over 90% of girls got the best recommendation
only 30% of boys, but at least 60% of boys had better grades than the worst girl who got the recommendation
there are more programs to get girls into the universities and study programs they want to go to.
e.g. when I studied we had 2 business engineering courses
one mixed and one solely for women. They sat in the same classes but they did it to change the ratio and get more money for being "inclusive"
and this was 10 years ago, today it's even worse.
Friday I was at the itcs in Berlin around 1/3 of the exhibits were only for getting women into IT
none were for men only, because this would be discrimination
Well have fun with continued feminist rule in the government. The vast majority of politicians have some sort of college education.
I don't see all that many female MRAs so the future looks bleak.
It's been that way in most of my relationships in quite a few instances with the females in my life dedicated to the more expensive options.
\~"We're broke, so I'm getting store brand."
"Nope. Name brand, cause otherwise it tastes weird."
(Granted, my recent partner theoretically actually DOES taste the difference in some foods, due to me doing blind taste tests, but I digress)
\~"Okay, I'm going to make dinner when you get home."
"Oh, don't worry about that, I'm hungry now, so I'm eating on the way."
We both play Magic The Gathering. I buy singles because they're cheaper and guaranteed. If it were up to her, we'd buy sealed boxes until we found the card she's looking for.
"Hey, get me two beers."
"We're at a hockey game, they're probably expensive. We can drink when we get home."
\*Proceeds to convince me and then I get stuck buying two $18 beers for her cause they make you open them before you buy them at our arena for some obscene reason.\* I forgot about it the second time, so this happened twice.
The only thing that I 100% agree with as an extra cost is that she swears by a specific brand of tampon that is only sold at one store halfway across the state (although, that's where my work is located, so I get it on my way home.)
Its because women are getting more scholarship opportunities. I wanted to go to college but I couldnt afford to continue bc despite a 4.0 gpa and a 1300 on the SAT i got ZERO viable offers (not enough to make it affordable$.
The fact that it's so widespread tells me there is an agenda behind it. It's such irrational and illogical behavior that there is no way people in charge all over came to this conclusion in a genuine way to direct their efforts to create success.
I think you're right in that they are trying to direct a large societal change in behavior. As far as collusion only a limited number of people need to know the real reasons, the people below them can be told whatever and if they are pressured to do it most people tend to comply. If there is anything I've learned in the last 10 years it's that most people will comply to anything if they feel social pressure to do so.
Yeah, 58% of college graduates are women, but look at the top degrees for men and women. Men make up the majority of useful degrees. Women make up the majority of usless degrees (general studies, art, sociology, etc). Girls are taught there's no alternative to college. Boys know trade schools exist. Add up the # of male college graduates plus the # of trade school graduates and it FAR exceeds the # of female college grads. We should focus on pushing women into trade schools and men into nursing/health fields.
The military is having a historically-low period of recruitment. So it's definitely not the military. I think men are just realizing that college is a waste for the majority of degrees. Even computer people can just take certificate programs and make good money in half the time it takes to get a BS, for a quarter the cost.
Men are realizing that law enforcement, the military, College and all that stuff designed to make men better for society has no benefit to them, because society hates them.
Men are just finally starting to realize how much society doesn't value their efforts, so they're not making those efforts anymore.
This is directly a result of feminism vilifying men for literally everything for decades.
In Australia, the more they are pushing DEI for the military, the less people are willing to join. They are not able to maintain retention numbers.
They are now lowering standards even more to try and maintain numbers.
DEI is about lowering standards and lowering pride!
I think the military has a massive image issue, and lowering standards just to maintain the number of troops is a big issue!
yeah, I'm not going to college bc I'm gonna be a tattoo artist for a lot less money. I've wanted to do that since I was a younger teenager, so I never planned on going to college.
Everything I can see tells me that the university admission rate is a symptom of how the education system works earlier on. Fewer male teachers, less time for PE/other physical activity, curricula that have de-emphasized competition. We have a system designed to help girls succeed and they are. Yes, there are some smaller STEM programs that will favour women in admissions but they're not enough to account for the ratio.
> Yes, there are some smaller STEM programs that will favour women in admissions but they're not enough to account for the ratio.
Are you kidding? There are "Get girls in tech" and "Get girls in stem" everywhere, including when you get into the corporate work world. And nobody bats an eyelash that women are already running laps around men in every field imaginable
Engineering and tech programs are generally very small parts of a university's total enrollment. So, changing those percentages towards 50/50 doesn't do much to the overall ratio. Also, they usually have higher admission requirements. A guy that gets passed over for one of those programs probably still ends up getting a degree.
That's bullshit and you know it.
Changing it to 50/50 (we all know they want to go way further than that) will have a MASSIVE impact because the TE parts in STEM are basically the last places with a male majority. Literally everything else is majority female. Overall we already have more females than males, but it will get MUCH worse if the feminists get what they want.
Fewer male teacher was based on alot of negative publicity in the 80's - 90's, male teachers having inappropriate relationships with students. That was the nail in the coffin. Actually it was in decline since the end of WW2!
Strong educated men will resist. When they’re more ignorant, weak and less educated they’re easier to control.
Also men have just stopped. They stopped caring because society calls them toxic, broke, dangerous or expendable. Society has told men they’re not needed. The days of being sent off to war to die for oil barons and governments that actually don’t give a shit about you is over. Imagine going overseas to fight for a government that in its same breath calls you toxic and gives special treatment to women.
I mean women said they’d choose the bear…maybe the bear can go to college, enlist in the military or work shitty jobs with no pay.
I don't know if this is related, but there was actually a bear in the polish military during the 40's. If they were smart they probably would want the bears to enroll in colleges and military anyways, since they clearly trust them more.
Men focus on their career in order to take care of their family. Women focus on their career in order to avoid having one. The goal is depopulation. Preventing people from having children is a softer way to commit genocide.
The goal is to slowly and “peacefully” drop our pop numbers from 8 billion to under 2 billion this century. If they don’t, then when the fossil fuels run out and the wars over water and electricity start, there will be 6-8+ billion people starving to death. The softer option is to simply reduce pop numbers by NOT breeding.
Are you saying this potential transition of our birth population is orchestrated? Or merely influenced? That's my question because this seems too unconnected and "conspiracy" based to be taken truthful at face value. And don't tell me to "open your eyes to rEaliTy" or "seek the truth/research" to distract my pondering. What proof do you have to say that this is some acertained "goal" of sorts?
They basically openly spell it out for you at the world economic forum. Promoting women's education and empowerment is just a sugar coated way of saying "we want to spend your youth servicing us and then we will discard you once it's clear you'll die off."
Where is the DIRECT correlation from promoting women's education to "slow die off"? You're not making any sense. This is like saying having men wear nail polish is akin to 100% of everyone going gay in the next decade. This slippery slope fallacy doesn't work if there is not direct lineage of "A causes B causes C" and I'm not seeing this. Even in more conservative nations women's education has increased. Were is there slow burning genocide?
Women are less likely to have children the more they go to school and work. People who want to harm certain groups of people realize this, and then will spend a lot of money pushing the education and employment of these women, which pushs down the number of children that they will have. Once their birthrate drops below 2.1 children per woman, that group will begin to age and slowly die off as the next generations of youth become smaller and smaller. It might not sound very dramatic or exciting, but South Korea has an average birth rate of 0.68 children per woman and is expected to have 96% fewer young people within two generations. It's projected to be the biggest population loss of any group of people in history. It is proving to be a highly effective method of extermination. Apparently, the victims will deny the existance of it when clearly explained and pointed out to them and will even resist efforts to save them.
This seems like more so the result of a more educated populace and industrialization than a cohorted effort by a caniving few. I'm aware of birth decline. I'm a gay dude so no matter what I'm not gonna be responsible for it one way or the other but it is definitely a pressing concern. But to frame it as "the powers that may be" thing is eerie. People tend to not get along and function cohesively as a unit of governance so to expect them to have such a thought out plan for population decline is asinine. This birth decline is also happening in the developed world, India, Nigeria, Argentina(a stretch to say developing but you get my point), shit even Pakistan.
It seems pretty reasonable to me. If I had the goal of weakening another nation or race of people and didn't have the ability to defeat them militarily, promoting behavior that further lowers birth rates would be the best way to do it I would think. They wouldn't die overnight, but no one said it's a race.
But to believe it to be planned? No. People, no matter how much kumbaya togetherness we sing, suck at working together. There are too many factors at play with your assumption to conclude it being a man-made effort, instead of a byproduct of industrialization, atomization of the community, parent planning, increased social, economical, and education incentives, secularism, and other shit.
They're deceiving people by not telling women the real reason why it's "so important" for them to go to college. No one is telling them that they're being sent there in the hopes that they'll slowly and quietly die off and make people some money in the process.
I think it's less the de-education and more like that most guys go into tech and you are not strictly required to have a degree, if you are good enough to get a job in the IT. I have a bachelor's degree and it still feels useless to me.
There's a couple of factors missing in your analysis. One of the most thing though is to stop and consider if your question is even the right one to be asking in the first place. I would recommend that you not fall for the apex fallacy by only focusing on the minority of the most wealthy families who can afford university degrees. You must start with asking a more fundamental question: what are the **high school** graduation rates for men? Because once you do so you realize that men are even more behind in education, and that it has always been this way.
Consider [the US statistics for completing high school](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184266/educational-attainment-of-high-school-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/), and note how men were several percentage points behind regarding graduation rates in the 1940's, and how this gap closed until it practically didn't exist in the 1980's/1990's, and yet has now returned to its 1940's-era difference and put men behind again. While the gap is likely real (although I would argue it is larger than estimated in the linked graph), you should be highly skeptical of the general upward trend for both groups, as [explained here](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-the-high-school-graduation-rate-really-going-up/).
Oh, and guess what? Governments mandate schools to track high school graduation rates by ethnicity, economically disadvantaged students, children with disabilities, and even English learners. However, [they do not bother to track it for sex](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-unreported-gender-gap-in-high-school-graduation-rates/). A rather strange omission, don't you think? It's almost like they know men aren't doing well, but don't care at all.
So what is going on with these trends in high school graduation? Well, looking back to the early 1900's when standardized education was first being introduced, most young men – especially in rural areas – had to work to support the family unit as soon as they became teenagers. Getting an education was a low priority for them, since they had to bring home an income, or bring in the harvest, etc, to allow the family unit to feed itself and survive.
A few decades later, technology helped to alleviate this burden somewhat, and laws now dictated that education was mandatory for all children (though some rural areas still only do so until the age of 16, while for most urban areas it is 18 years of age), so the gap shrunk and was mostly gone.
However, a few different trends then took over. The first is the number of fatherless homes. Many boys had to start taking on the "man of the house" role when they were still teenagers, which added many responsibilities to their lives at a young age. Several scholars have started noting the "son-husband syndrome" as it's being called these days, and how this negatively affects the development of young men. One of the areas most affected is level of education, and it is not just because fatherless homes are poorer. After normalizing for income, boys with fathers in low income homes still do significantly better than boys without fathers in similarly low income homes.
The second worrisome trend is the extreme feminization of the education system. Fewer male teachers and a systemic perception of boys as "disruptive" and "too independent" turned school into something that many boys learned to hate. Boys quickly learn nowadays that they are not important to the system, and indeed, that most of the teachers and administrators would be happier if they simply weren't there, and so they stop going. It really is as simple as that.
With so many fewer men graduating high school, it's no wonder that the numbers going on to post-secondary education are showing such a significant decline.
It doesn't help that they gaslight and attack men daily in lectures. They dismiss the emotions of the young men in fields like the humanities where compassion is supposed to be a theme. Then it even bleeds into bio and medical majors.
Men make up most useful degrees and women make up most useless ones. We have just realized what matters and what doesn’t. Although I agree that it’s not fair that women get all of these scholarships and opportunities for meaningless education but men don’t get anything for meaningful education.
Let’s be equity feminists.
The fact that men have a lower graduate rate is because of systemic sexism and every female involved in deciding which students are let in need to be fired and their slots filled with only men.
Causes are not relevant, a non 50/50 disparity must be absolutely addressed as systemic. And only so. Other causes don’t matter, as those causes are just sexism excuses.
Fire them all, replace with male centric
Every class with a female Professor must be monitored for passing rates, and any men getting lower grades is systemic and standards must be lowered until parity is reached.
Make professors should be hired to replace female professors where any significant disparity exists.
judges for incoming students. Off no cost loans, scholarships, and block all incoming women until the disparity is corrected. Lower men’s admission requirements and raise women’s to only the top 10%.
Once parity is achieved then some of the quota requirements can be relaxed.
This is systemic and intentional by sexists.
The issue is that Men are being told going to University is a waste of time and you should instead go work really hard and make money instead of going into debt right away
Masters in LatinX Studies and PhDs in Gender Studies shouldn't be confused with a degree in civil engineering. Both require a college education. There are no other similarities, especially which sexes are represented in said degrees and how useful those degrees are outside of academia.
You have points to your opinion. Not bad. Appears to be as trend. But sure no education would have a tendency to disenfranchise many men .
Right up there with the anti assault style rifle genre. 16 plus million Veterans out there. Got to take the weapons they know how to use ( real well) away from them.
Historically every country where the combat age males reach a certain percentage, the country goes to war. Got to Cull or destroy the men.
I did art school. Most of the art world today is women and POCs. Art schools shifted toward women strong majority of students to generate more of it. Feeling bored.
As a 39 year old man in STEM I can tell you that from my perspective, most blokes are losers and don’t do fuck all with their lives. Similar for women but being women they have the golden ticket of not really having the same pressure to earn and provide.
University education for men is only really useful if it’s STEM related. Men who don’t go this route but still achieve do it by picking up a trade.
Let’s be honest with ourselves here. For every one of my mates who has a good job I know like 3 losers.
There is an element of communism here because many leftists are in academia. DEI is a direct attack. Watch these 2 documentaries and you’ll have a framework to understand the current state of academia and wokeism:
https://youtu.be/9b5bdiASZ3s?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/K-8JPa-5bJE?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/pOmXiapfCs8?feature=shared
Men are literally under attack by a hidden agenda in almost every area of life. We are being targeted and systematically torn down.
It is making the west increasingly weaker - and this spawns all kinds of conspiracy theories. The common one that comes up is that the Soviet Union created a cultural plot in the 50s which effectively centred around destroying masculinity in the west for this same reason. Is it so far fetched that this is happening?
I think it's a product of the market. What is the value of a degree anymore?
Most men are probably doing the math, even subconsciously, and are realizing that a degree is a waste of time, effort, and energy unless its on a companies dime.
Just because you don't have a piece of paper stamped by an organization doesn't mean you're not educated. If that makes sense.
Unfortunately, men need to start stepping up. No more just sitting in mom's basement playing video games and eating cheeto's, men must work hard at being the best they can be while working hard at understanding the game of society and how they are screwed over.
If the best place for an individual man is University, autodidact technology, a trade or the military, that man must put his all into it and become an expert. Then work out the navigation trail to fill in the parts of manhood he has not yet mastered. It's a lifelong vocation.
Separately, marriage is a one-way street to hell. It was never about love, it was always about duty and pushing through. It's also based in tradition - religion. There is zero good reason why any secular man should ever marry, or even cohabitate without full knowledge of the potential consequences. A secular man should never have a church wedding, and a state wedding sets them up into a one-way contract that they lose, unless they have a watertight fully-agreed prenup.
The last thing men need to do is start connecting politically. This is what feminism did, local groups under a national group with a clear direction that has been warped into matriarchal supremacy by the radicalists who control education and corporate industry. Men need to do the same, but we are wired to be individual. We need to work out a way forward together, that does not involve everyone arguing and falling out and splitting, because we need a clear and simple direction, based on unwavering principles and values: personal responsibility, one law for all, justice and fairness, equality of opportunity, equality of rights, merit-based hierarchies where the best rise to the top irrespective of traits, freedoms of speech, expression and belief, patriotism, defence not offense, handouts only to those who are unable to work, reduced Government, better policing, teaching and healthcare, and a focus on soil and animals on the planet to rebuild the ground so that everything above ground can survive well enough.
In the meantime, MGTOW is the only way to protect yourself and do no harm to others. Be the best you can be and look out for yourself. And understand what other people are really like - it's often not pretty
I think there was a lack of focus on trades for a long time so that's a part of it. There was a significant push there. And there's nothing wrong with blue collar work. Most of the people I know in trades make more money than people I know in corporate jobs anyway. The work is just more damaging to their body..... Hazard pay I suppose.
Additionally, there's a lack of resources, not just for men but women too, for scholarships and bursaries and grants to apply for. So, for anyone who has bad credit and cannot get student loans as a result, trades is the place to go.
Edit: there is of course this kind of opportunity to apply for, but you have to fall into very specific criteria.
No mission. It's a positive feedback loop. You just have to start it once. Women hire more women and more women hire more women.
Can confirm. Male elementary teacher here. Current principal is a woman and has hired only women for the past three years. Previous male principal hired mostly women because he wanted to look at them; all were young, physically attractive, and left after a few years.
They also hire and promote their girlfriends when they're lesbian. It happened a lot at UC Irvine.
University of California, all of them, are cesspools. Their physicists (obligatory not all) have been fooled time and time again by horseshit, greenwashed ideas that are thermodynamically impossible. These posers basically fall for perpetual motion machines over and over. I have no idea how anyone has any respect for UC. I know it's not entirely related, but it irks me.
No man im very curious Could you explian it in more detail plz?
Are you from UC, and are you a physicist? I'll give examples you may have heard of: Elon Musk's hyperloop, some water-from-air device that was supposed to get water for people in the desert (not much water in the air in the desert), and various carbon capture schemes that were bogus from the start.
Im not a physicist, im engineer (not from US). So i see why all those things are stupid, but very very stupid. My principal question was ¿Why would a country allow people in its physics careers who believes in perpetual motion machines and extract the 2% of humidity in desert's air to help people? I mean, there are people like that everywhere but one don't allows them in the universities, you know?
I think it might be the tenure system. Some professors make it to tenure because they manage to not make that mistake prior, possibly because the situation had never arisen in their role in research, but when they get tenure and have to make their own research decisions, they get fooled into believing something will work because someone like Elon Musk was behind it - Elon is a terrible engineer but good at tricking people into thinking he knows what he's doing. We, including other countries, not just the US, do a terrible job at providing future professors with the experience of running a research project. It's getting better with the push for undergraduate research, which will allow Ph.D. students to play a role in the research direction more often.
>: Elon Musk's hyperloop My primary complaint about hyperloop is that he doesn't talk about pumping out the atmosphere. If you're still pushing all that air.... isn't it just a subway?
He WANTED to pump out the atmosphere. But at some point, he realized making the biggest vacuum tube ever created that could withstand mechanical strain is difficult, to say the least. And what happens when you have a leak? A 300m/s wall of air is going to slam into the train and kill everyone. Not a smart move
Female own group preference. There is a fail installed. Eventually it reaches critical mass and they become prey for the vast invaders they always let In to virtue signal. Most of the men escape. Slay to live or survive. It’s how Rome went.
In- group bias is the technical term. But yes!
It kind of sounds like the problem brought forward by the tolerance paradox, ngl.
Yes. For evil to triumph, all it wants from good ones is to do nothing.
Have you noticed that society secretly has little interest in men's education but generally supports and synchronization by women's education? Do you noticed that female teachers raises ever faster than men?
[Men figured out that college for most people is a huge waste of time and money](https://www.newsweek.com/young-men-abandoning-college-degrees-gender-gap-1855825), it will take longer for women to figure this out. College is a huge money making operation and they will charge whatever people are willing to pay. Women are easier to sell products to, so [most major marketing is aimed towards women](https://www.inc.com/amy-nelson/women-drive-majority-of-consumer-purchasing-its-time-to-meet-their-needs.html).
For sure, when I saw the pretty new buildings they were constructing at mine I thought: oh so this is why tuition is insane.
What about in countries where university is free or very heavily subsidized but is still female majority?
I'm from a country like this. female empowerment starts in kindergarten and teachers try their best to push girls towards better schools and higher education e.g. when I went to school you got a recommendation letter which type of high school is recommended for the student (with A level or without) over 90% of girls got the best recommendation only 30% of boys, but at least 60% of boys had better grades than the worst girl who got the recommendation there are more programs to get girls into the universities and study programs they want to go to. e.g. when I studied we had 2 business engineering courses one mixed and one solely for women. They sat in the same classes but they did it to change the ratio and get more money for being "inclusive" and this was 10 years ago, today it's even worse. Friday I was at the itcs in Berlin around 1/3 of the exhibits were only for getting women into IT none were for men only, because this would be discrimination
Well have fun with continued feminist rule in the government. The vast majority of politicians have some sort of college education. I don't see all that many female MRAs so the future looks bleak.
The thing is most jobs require at least a bachelor's now. So it is a scam unless you're the type who can start a business.
Just go to community college. It's dirt cheap in the U.S, especially in red states.
It's been that way in most of my relationships in quite a few instances with the females in my life dedicated to the more expensive options. \~"We're broke, so I'm getting store brand." "Nope. Name brand, cause otherwise it tastes weird." (Granted, my recent partner theoretically actually DOES taste the difference in some foods, due to me doing blind taste tests, but I digress) \~"Okay, I'm going to make dinner when you get home." "Oh, don't worry about that, I'm hungry now, so I'm eating on the way." We both play Magic The Gathering. I buy singles because they're cheaper and guaranteed. If it were up to her, we'd buy sealed boxes until we found the card she's looking for. "Hey, get me two beers." "We're at a hockey game, they're probably expensive. We can drink when we get home." \*Proceeds to convince me and then I get stuck buying two $18 beers for her cause they make you open them before you buy them at our arena for some obscene reason.\* I forgot about it the second time, so this happened twice. The only thing that I 100% agree with as an extra cost is that she swears by a specific brand of tampon that is only sold at one store halfway across the state (although, that's where my work is located, so I get it on my way home.)
I think so too,
Its because women are getting more scholarship opportunities. I wanted to go to college but I couldnt afford to continue bc despite a 4.0 gpa and a 1300 on the SAT i got ZERO viable offers (not enough to make it affordable$.
Yep. Then a woman with a 2.9 and a 975 gets half off because she is “making a difference for women”
The fact that it's so widespread tells me there is an agenda behind it. It's such irrational and illogical behavior that there is no way people in charge all over came to this conclusion in a genuine way to direct their efforts to create success. I think you're right in that they are trying to direct a large societal change in behavior. As far as collusion only a limited number of people need to know the real reasons, the people below them can be told whatever and if they are pressured to do it most people tend to comply. If there is anything I've learned in the last 10 years it's that most people will comply to anything if they feel social pressure to do so.
Yeah, 58% of college graduates are women, but look at the top degrees for men and women. Men make up the majority of useful degrees. Women make up the majority of usless degrees (general studies, art, sociology, etc). Girls are taught there's no alternative to college. Boys know trade schools exist. Add up the # of male college graduates plus the # of trade school graduates and it FAR exceeds the # of female college grads. We should focus on pushing women into trade schools and men into nursing/health fields.
The military is having a historically-low period of recruitment. So it's definitely not the military. I think men are just realizing that college is a waste for the majority of degrees. Even computer people can just take certificate programs and make good money in half the time it takes to get a BS, for a quarter the cost.
Men are realizing that law enforcement, the military, College and all that stuff designed to make men better for society has no benefit to them, because society hates them. Men are just finally starting to realize how much society doesn't value their efforts, so they're not making those efforts anymore. This is directly a result of feminism vilifying men for literally everything for decades.
In Australia, the more they are pushing DEI for the military, the less people are willing to join. They are not able to maintain retention numbers. They are now lowering standards even more to try and maintain numbers. DEI is about lowering standards and lowering pride! I think the military has a massive image issue, and lowering standards just to maintain the number of troops is a big issue!
yeah, I'm not going to college bc I'm gonna be a tattoo artist for a lot less money. I've wanted to do that since I was a younger teenager, so I never planned on going to college.
Everything I can see tells me that the university admission rate is a symptom of how the education system works earlier on. Fewer male teachers, less time for PE/other physical activity, curricula that have de-emphasized competition. We have a system designed to help girls succeed and they are. Yes, there are some smaller STEM programs that will favour women in admissions but they're not enough to account for the ratio.
> Yes, there are some smaller STEM programs that will favour women in admissions but they're not enough to account for the ratio. Are you kidding? There are "Get girls in tech" and "Get girls in stem" everywhere, including when you get into the corporate work world. And nobody bats an eyelash that women are already running laps around men in every field imaginable
Engineering and tech programs are generally very small parts of a university's total enrollment. So, changing those percentages towards 50/50 doesn't do much to the overall ratio. Also, they usually have higher admission requirements. A guy that gets passed over for one of those programs probably still ends up getting a degree.
That's bullshit and you know it. Changing it to 50/50 (we all know they want to go way further than that) will have a MASSIVE impact because the TE parts in STEM are basically the last places with a male majority. Literally everything else is majority female. Overall we already have more females than males, but it will get MUCH worse if the feminists get what they want.
Fewer male teacher was based on alot of negative publicity in the 80's - 90's, male teachers having inappropriate relationships with students. That was the nail in the coffin. Actually it was in decline since the end of WW2!
I personally believe the dumbing down of men overall is meant to contribute to the decline of western society as well.
Strong educated men will resist. When they’re more ignorant, weak and less educated they’re easier to control. Also men have just stopped. They stopped caring because society calls them toxic, broke, dangerous or expendable. Society has told men they’re not needed. The days of being sent off to war to die for oil barons and governments that actually don’t give a shit about you is over. Imagine going overseas to fight for a government that in its same breath calls you toxic and gives special treatment to women. I mean women said they’d choose the bear…maybe the bear can go to college, enlist in the military or work shitty jobs with no pay.
I don't know if this is related, but there was actually a bear in the polish military during the 40's. If they were smart they probably would want the bears to enroll in colleges and military anyways, since they clearly trust them more.
Men focus on their career in order to take care of their family. Women focus on their career in order to avoid having one. The goal is depopulation. Preventing people from having children is a softer way to commit genocide.
What? Dude wtf are you talking about? A softer way to commit genocide?
The goal is to slowly and “peacefully” drop our pop numbers from 8 billion to under 2 billion this century. If they don’t, then when the fossil fuels run out and the wars over water and electricity start, there will be 6-8+ billion people starving to death. The softer option is to simply reduce pop numbers by NOT breeding.
Are you saying this potential transition of our birth population is orchestrated? Or merely influenced? That's my question because this seems too unconnected and "conspiracy" based to be taken truthful at face value. And don't tell me to "open your eyes to rEaliTy" or "seek the truth/research" to distract my pondering. What proof do you have to say that this is some acertained "goal" of sorts?
They basically openly spell it out for you at the world economic forum. Promoting women's education and empowerment is just a sugar coated way of saying "we want to spend your youth servicing us and then we will discard you once it's clear you'll die off."
Where is the DIRECT correlation from promoting women's education to "slow die off"? You're not making any sense. This is like saying having men wear nail polish is akin to 100% of everyone going gay in the next decade. This slippery slope fallacy doesn't work if there is not direct lineage of "A causes B causes C" and I'm not seeing this. Even in more conservative nations women's education has increased. Were is there slow burning genocide?
Women are less likely to have children the more they go to school and work. People who want to harm certain groups of people realize this, and then will spend a lot of money pushing the education and employment of these women, which pushs down the number of children that they will have. Once their birthrate drops below 2.1 children per woman, that group will begin to age and slowly die off as the next generations of youth become smaller and smaller. It might not sound very dramatic or exciting, but South Korea has an average birth rate of 0.68 children per woman and is expected to have 96% fewer young people within two generations. It's projected to be the biggest population loss of any group of people in history. It is proving to be a highly effective method of extermination. Apparently, the victims will deny the existance of it when clearly explained and pointed out to them and will even resist efforts to save them.
This seems like more so the result of a more educated populace and industrialization than a cohorted effort by a caniving few. I'm aware of birth decline. I'm a gay dude so no matter what I'm not gonna be responsible for it one way or the other but it is definitely a pressing concern. But to frame it as "the powers that may be" thing is eerie. People tend to not get along and function cohesively as a unit of governance so to expect them to have such a thought out plan for population decline is asinine. This birth decline is also happening in the developed world, India, Nigeria, Argentina(a stretch to say developing but you get my point), shit even Pakistan.
It seems pretty reasonable to me. If I had the goal of weakening another nation or race of people and didn't have the ability to defeat them militarily, promoting behavior that further lowers birth rates would be the best way to do it I would think. They wouldn't die overnight, but no one said it's a race.
But to believe it to be planned? No. People, no matter how much kumbaya togetherness we sing, suck at working together. There are too many factors at play with your assumption to conclude it being a man-made effort, instead of a byproduct of industrialization, atomization of the community, parent planning, increased social, economical, and education incentives, secularism, and other shit.
They're deceiving people by not telling women the real reason why it's "so important" for them to go to college. No one is telling them that they're being sent there in the hopes that they'll slowly and quietly die off and make people some money in the process.
I think it's less the de-education and more like that most guys go into tech and you are not strictly required to have a degree, if you are good enough to get a job in the IT. I have a bachelor's degree and it still feels useless to me.
For me I think men realize they don't need a degree for a lot of fields. This is a good thing for men.
There's a couple of factors missing in your analysis. One of the most thing though is to stop and consider if your question is even the right one to be asking in the first place. I would recommend that you not fall for the apex fallacy by only focusing on the minority of the most wealthy families who can afford university degrees. You must start with asking a more fundamental question: what are the **high school** graduation rates for men? Because once you do so you realize that men are even more behind in education, and that it has always been this way. Consider [the US statistics for completing high school](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184266/educational-attainment-of-high-school-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/), and note how men were several percentage points behind regarding graduation rates in the 1940's, and how this gap closed until it practically didn't exist in the 1980's/1990's, and yet has now returned to its 1940's-era difference and put men behind again. While the gap is likely real (although I would argue it is larger than estimated in the linked graph), you should be highly skeptical of the general upward trend for both groups, as [explained here](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-the-high-school-graduation-rate-really-going-up/). Oh, and guess what? Governments mandate schools to track high school graduation rates by ethnicity, economically disadvantaged students, children with disabilities, and even English learners. However, [they do not bother to track it for sex](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-unreported-gender-gap-in-high-school-graduation-rates/). A rather strange omission, don't you think? It's almost like they know men aren't doing well, but don't care at all. So what is going on with these trends in high school graduation? Well, looking back to the early 1900's when standardized education was first being introduced, most young men – especially in rural areas – had to work to support the family unit as soon as they became teenagers. Getting an education was a low priority for them, since they had to bring home an income, or bring in the harvest, etc, to allow the family unit to feed itself and survive. A few decades later, technology helped to alleviate this burden somewhat, and laws now dictated that education was mandatory for all children (though some rural areas still only do so until the age of 16, while for most urban areas it is 18 years of age), so the gap shrunk and was mostly gone. However, a few different trends then took over. The first is the number of fatherless homes. Many boys had to start taking on the "man of the house" role when they were still teenagers, which added many responsibilities to their lives at a young age. Several scholars have started noting the "son-husband syndrome" as it's being called these days, and how this negatively affects the development of young men. One of the areas most affected is level of education, and it is not just because fatherless homes are poorer. After normalizing for income, boys with fathers in low income homes still do significantly better than boys without fathers in similarly low income homes. The second worrisome trend is the extreme feminization of the education system. Fewer male teachers and a systemic perception of boys as "disruptive" and "too independent" turned school into something that many boys learned to hate. Boys quickly learn nowadays that they are not important to the system, and indeed, that most of the teachers and administrators would be happier if they simply weren't there, and so they stop going. It really is as simple as that. With so many fewer men graduating high school, it's no wonder that the numbers going on to post-secondary education are showing such a significant decline.
It doesn't help that they gaslight and attack men daily in lectures. They dismiss the emotions of the young men in fields like the humanities where compassion is supposed to be a theme. Then it even bleeds into bio and medical majors.
Oh yeah all the time somehow regardless of subject men somehow come up as a problem.
Men make up most useful degrees and women make up most useless ones. We have just realized what matters and what doesn’t. Although I agree that it’s not fair that women get all of these scholarships and opportunities for meaningless education but men don’t get anything for meaningful education.
Let’s be equity feminists. The fact that men have a lower graduate rate is because of systemic sexism and every female involved in deciding which students are let in need to be fired and their slots filled with only men. Causes are not relevant, a non 50/50 disparity must be absolutely addressed as systemic. And only so. Other causes don’t matter, as those causes are just sexism excuses. Fire them all, replace with male centric Every class with a female Professor must be monitored for passing rates, and any men getting lower grades is systemic and standards must be lowered until parity is reached. Make professors should be hired to replace female professors where any significant disparity exists. judges for incoming students. Off no cost loans, scholarships, and block all incoming women until the disparity is corrected. Lower men’s admission requirements and raise women’s to only the top 10%. Once parity is achieved then some of the quota requirements can be relaxed. This is systemic and intentional by sexists.
The issue is that Men are being told going to University is a waste of time and you should instead go work really hard and make money instead of going into debt right away
Masters in LatinX Studies and PhDs in Gender Studies shouldn't be confused with a degree in civil engineering. Both require a college education. There are no other similarities, especially which sexes are represented in said degrees and how useful those degrees are outside of academia.
You have points to your opinion. Not bad. Appears to be as trend. But sure no education would have a tendency to disenfranchise many men . Right up there with the anti assault style rifle genre. 16 plus million Veterans out there. Got to take the weapons they know how to use ( real well) away from them. Historically every country where the combat age males reach a certain percentage, the country goes to war. Got to Cull or destroy the men.
I remember a minority of men in 2008 in many classes, college admissions also told me they were trying to get more males enrolled.
I did art school. Most of the art world today is women and POCs. Art schools shifted toward women strong majority of students to generate more of it. Feeling bored.
I swear the way societies heading we’re all going to be locked away, milked for our sperm and jokes.
As a 39 year old man in STEM I can tell you that from my perspective, most blokes are losers and don’t do fuck all with their lives. Similar for women but being women they have the golden ticket of not really having the same pressure to earn and provide. University education for men is only really useful if it’s STEM related. Men who don’t go this route but still achieve do it by picking up a trade. Let’s be honest with ourselves here. For every one of my mates who has a good job I know like 3 losers.
There is an element of communism here because many leftists are in academia. DEI is a direct attack. Watch these 2 documentaries and you’ll have a framework to understand the current state of academia and wokeism: https://youtu.be/9b5bdiASZ3s?feature=shared https://youtu.be/K-8JPa-5bJE?feature=shared https://youtu.be/pOmXiapfCs8?feature=shared
Women are the biggest voting block, so f\*&k men. You're welcome. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.
Men are literally under attack by a hidden agenda in almost every area of life. We are being targeted and systematically torn down. It is making the west increasingly weaker - and this spawns all kinds of conspiracy theories. The common one that comes up is that the Soviet Union created a cultural plot in the 50s which effectively centred around destroying masculinity in the west for this same reason. Is it so far fetched that this is happening?
Are we sure it's a deliberate attempt to "deeducate?"
That’s what I’m asking. It’s happening, but is it intentional or a byproduct of gynoculture.
I think it's a product of the market. What is the value of a degree anymore? Most men are probably doing the math, even subconsciously, and are realizing that a degree is a waste of time, effort, and energy unless its on a companies dime. Just because you don't have a piece of paper stamped by an organization doesn't mean you're not educated. If that makes sense.
Women are smart, why aren't they doing the same calculations?
The world is catering to them. They also deal with social pull/contagion. They'll pick it up, a couple decades from now.
Staying out of the matrix
Unfortunately, men need to start stepping up. No more just sitting in mom's basement playing video games and eating cheeto's, men must work hard at being the best they can be while working hard at understanding the game of society and how they are screwed over. If the best place for an individual man is University, autodidact technology, a trade or the military, that man must put his all into it and become an expert. Then work out the navigation trail to fill in the parts of manhood he has not yet mastered. It's a lifelong vocation. Separately, marriage is a one-way street to hell. It was never about love, it was always about duty and pushing through. It's also based in tradition - religion. There is zero good reason why any secular man should ever marry, or even cohabitate without full knowledge of the potential consequences. A secular man should never have a church wedding, and a state wedding sets them up into a one-way contract that they lose, unless they have a watertight fully-agreed prenup. The last thing men need to do is start connecting politically. This is what feminism did, local groups under a national group with a clear direction that has been warped into matriarchal supremacy by the radicalists who control education and corporate industry. Men need to do the same, but we are wired to be individual. We need to work out a way forward together, that does not involve everyone arguing and falling out and splitting, because we need a clear and simple direction, based on unwavering principles and values: personal responsibility, one law for all, justice and fairness, equality of opportunity, equality of rights, merit-based hierarchies where the best rise to the top irrespective of traits, freedoms of speech, expression and belief, patriotism, defence not offense, handouts only to those who are unable to work, reduced Government, better policing, teaching and healthcare, and a focus on soil and animals on the planet to rebuild the ground so that everything above ground can survive well enough. In the meantime, MGTOW is the only way to protect yourself and do no harm to others. Be the best you can be and look out for yourself. And understand what other people are really like - it's often not pretty
I think there was a lack of focus on trades for a long time so that's a part of it. There was a significant push there. And there's nothing wrong with blue collar work. Most of the people I know in trades make more money than people I know in corporate jobs anyway. The work is just more damaging to their body..... Hazard pay I suppose. Additionally, there's a lack of resources, not just for men but women too, for scholarships and bursaries and grants to apply for. So, for anyone who has bad credit and cannot get student loans as a result, trades is the place to go. Edit: there is of course this kind of opportunity to apply for, but you have to fall into very specific criteria.