Boys becoming a disadvantaged minority in Higher Education.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11792260/University-gender-gap-growing-warns-admissions-chief.html
What with feminism being 'all about the mens too!!!', I'd have thought the baying mob and the perpetually offended by every unequal distribution would have been all over this, they certainly would be if the statistics were reversed.
Women are now a third more likely to go to University, in some areas of the country it's 50%.
Does this have anything to do with 80% of primary school teachers being female?
Does it have anything to do with female teachers consciously marking boys down despite submitting work of the same standard as girls? http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/
Does it have anything to do with society determining that the only acceptable standard of behaviour is feminine, and that if you're a boy then you are de facto pathological and should be placed on ritalin?
Figures released last week showed prescriptions of Ritalin have quadrupled in the last decade — from 158,000 in 1999 to 661,463 in 2010 — with children as young as three taking the powerful medication.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2141044/ADHD-Ritalin-prescriptions-soaring-experts-warn-effects.html
Don't conform to a feminine standard of behaviour? Here, have some drugs. In the words of on Mother: ‘When he is off Ritalin, he will run around, ride his bike, not sit still,’ she says. ‘But he sleeps and eats better. The drugs keep him wakeful and reduce his appetite.’
Wow. Let's make him sleep, that will make your life easier and let's face it, that's what really matters.
Does it have something to do with the fact the feminists have spent the last 30 years engineering the education system against boys and rather than focusing on exams, hard skills and competition, we're focusing on emotional intelligence, collaboration and coursework.
More to the point, as it's boys, does anyone really give a crap? Nah, didn't think so. We're too busy investing £millions in positive action, like through grants offered exclusively to girls through Brunel University, to encourage yet more girls into STEM professions (apparently they are discriminated against). Yet, when there's an unequal distribution which favours women - primary school teaching, medical students, psychology sector, charity sector, professional service departments at Universities, HR, etc. - no-one blinks an eyelid.
What with feminism being 'all about the mens too!!!', I'd have thought the baying mob and the perpetually offended by every unequal distribution would have been all over this, they certainly would be if the statistics were reversed.
Women are now a third more likely to go to University, in some areas of the country it's 50%.
Does this have anything to do with 80% of primary school teachers being female?
Does it have anything to do with female teachers consciously marking boys down despite submitting work of the same standard as girls? http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/
Does it have anything to do with society determining that the only acceptable standard of behaviour is feminine, and that if you're a boy then you are de facto pathological and should be placed on ritalin?
Figures released last week showed prescriptions of Ritalin have quadrupled in the last decade — from 158,000 in 1999 to 661,463 in 2010 — with children as young as three taking the powerful medication.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2141044/ADHD-Ritalin-prescriptions-soaring-experts-warn-effects.html
Don't conform to a feminine standard of behaviour? Here, have some drugs. In the words of on Mother: ‘When he is off Ritalin, he will run around, ride his bike, not sit still,’ she says. ‘But he sleeps and eats better. The drugs keep him wakeful and reduce his appetite.’
Wow. Let's make him sleep, that will make your life easier and let's face it, that's what really matters.
Does it have something to do with the fact the feminists have spent the last 30 years engineering the education system against boys and rather than focusing on exams, hard skills and competition, we're focusing on emotional intelligence, collaboration and coursework.
More to the point, as it's boys, does anyone really give a crap? Nah, didn't think so. We're too busy investing £millions in positive action, like through grants offered exclusively to girls through Brunel University, to encourage yet more girls into STEM professions (apparently they are discriminated against). Yet, when there's an unequal distribution which favours women - primary school teaching, medical students, psychology sector, charity sector, professional service departments at Universities, HR, etc. - no-one blinks an eyelid.
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TheCitizenAct
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11792260/University-gender-gap-growing-warns-admissions-chief.html
What with feminism being 'all about the mens too!!!', I'd have thought the baying mob and the perpetually offended by unequal distribution would have been all over this, they certainly would be if the statistics were reversed.
Women are now a third more likely to go to University, in some areas of the country it's 50%.
Does this have anything to do with 80% of primary school teachers being female?
Does it have anything to do with female teachers consciously marking boys down despite submitting work of the same standard as girls? http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/
Does it have anything to do with society determining that the only acceptable standard of behaviour is feminine, and that if you're a boy then you are de facto pathological and should be placed on ritalin?
Figures released last week showed prescriptions of Ritalin have quadrupled in the last decade — from 158,000 in 1999 to 661,463 in 2010 — with children as young as three taking the powerful medication.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2141044/ADHD-Ritalin-prescriptions-soaring-experts-warn-effects.html
Don't conform to a feminine standard of behaviour? Here, have some drugs. In the words of on Mother: ‘When he is off Ritalin, he will run around, ride his bike, not sit still,’ she says. ‘But he sleeps and eats better. The drugs keep him wakeful and reduce his appetite.’ Wow. Let's make him sleep, that will make our lives easier.
Does it have something to do with the fact the feminists have spent the last 30 years engineering the education system against boys and rather than focusing on exams, hard skills and competition, we're focusing on emotional intelligence, collaboration and coursework.
More to the point, as it's boys, does anyone really give a crap? Nah, didn't think so. We're too busy investing £millions in positive action, like through grants offered exclusively to girls through Brunel University, to encourage yet more girls into STEM professions (apparently they are discriminated against). Yet, when there's an unequal distribution which favours women - primary school teaching, medical students, psychology sector, charity sector, professional service departments at Universities, HR, etc. - no-one blinks an eyelid.
What with feminism being 'all about the mens too!!!', I'd have thought the baying mob and the perpetually offended by unequal distribution would have been all over this, they certainly would be if the statistics were reversed.
Women are now a third more likely to go to University, in some areas of the country it's 50%.
Does this have anything to do with 80% of primary school teachers being female?
Does it have anything to do with female teachers consciously marking boys down despite submitting work of the same standard as girls? http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/
Does it have anything to do with society determining that the only acceptable standard of behaviour is feminine, and that if you're a boy then you are de facto pathological and should be placed on ritalin?
Figures released last week showed prescriptions of Ritalin have quadrupled in the last decade — from 158,000 in 1999 to 661,463 in 2010 — with children as young as three taking the powerful medication.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2141044/ADHD-Ritalin-prescriptions-soaring-experts-warn-effects.html
Don't conform to a feminine standard of behaviour? Here, have some drugs. In the words of on Mother: ‘When he is off Ritalin, he will run around, ride his bike, not sit still,’ she says. ‘But he sleeps and eats better. The drugs keep him wakeful and reduce his appetite.’ Wow. Let's make him sleep, that will make our lives easier.
Does it have something to do with the fact the feminists have spent the last 30 years engineering the education system against boys and rather than focusing on exams, hard skills and competition, we're focusing on emotional intelligence, collaboration and coursework.
More to the point, as it's boys, does anyone really give a crap? Nah, didn't think so. We're too busy investing £millions in positive action, like through grants offered exclusively to girls through Brunel University, to encourage yet more girls into STEM professions (apparently they are discriminated against). Yet, when there's an unequal distribution which favours women - primary school teaching, medical students, psychology sector, charity sector, professional service departments at Universities, HR, etc. - no-one blinks an eyelid.
source?
dailymail doesn't count.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
What with feminism being 'all about the mens too!!!', I'd have thought the baying mob and the perpetually offended by unequal distribution would have been all over this, they certainly would be if the statistics were reversed.
Women are now a third more likely to go to University, in some areas of the country it's 50%.
Does this have anything to do with 80% of primary school teachers being female?
Does it have anything to do with female teachers consciously marking boys down despite submitting work of the same standard as girls? http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/
Does it have anything to do with society determining that the only acceptable standard of behaviour is feminine, and that if you're a boy then you are de facto pathological and should be placed on ritalin?
Figures released last week showed prescriptions of Ritalin have quadrupled in the last decade — from 158,000 in 1999 to 661,463 in 2010 — with children as young as three taking the powerful medication.
Don't conform to a feminine standard of behaviour? Here, have some drugs.
Does it have something to do with the fact the feminists have spent the last 30 years engineering the education system against boys and rather than focusing on exams, hard skills and competition, we're focusing on emotional intelligence, collaboration and coursework.
More to the point, as it's boys, does anyone really give a crap? Nah, didn't think so. We're too busy investing £millions in positive action, like through grants offered exclusively to girls through Brunel University, to encourage yet more girls into STEM professions (apparently they are discriminated against). Yet, when there's an unequal distribution which favours women - primary school teaching, medical students, psychology sector, charity sector, professional service departments at Universities, HR, etc. - no-one blinks an eyelid.
Women are now a third more likely to go to University, in some areas of the country it's 50%.
Does this have anything to do with 80% of primary school teachers being female?
Does it have anything to do with female teachers consciously marking boys down despite submitting work of the same standard as girls? http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/
Does it have anything to do with society determining that the only acceptable standard of behaviour is feminine, and that if you're a boy then you are de facto pathological and should be placed on ritalin?
Figures released last week showed prescriptions of Ritalin have quadrupled in the last decade — from 158,000 in 1999 to 661,463 in 2010 — with children as young as three taking the powerful medication.
Don't conform to a feminine standard of behaviour? Here, have some drugs.
Does it have something to do with the fact the feminists have spent the last 30 years engineering the education system against boys and rather than focusing on exams, hard skills and competition, we're focusing on emotional intelligence, collaboration and coursework.
More to the point, as it's boys, does anyone really give a crap? Nah, didn't think so. We're too busy investing £millions in positive action, like through grants offered exclusively to girls through Brunel University, to encourage yet more girls into STEM professions (apparently they are discriminated against). Yet, when there's an unequal distribution which favours women - primary school teaching, medical students, psychology sector, charity sector, professional service departments at Universities, HR, etc. - no-one blinks an eyelid.
I agree with a lot with what you've said... Schools and the education system seem to advantage girls.
A lot of school systems are trying to get rid of recess to in favour of more studying, which is absurd to say the least.
It all comes down to how different a boys brain works to a girls.
Original post by dis0rder
source?
dailymail doesn't count.
dailymail doesn't count.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schoolreport/32122554
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-3
Original post by dis0rder
source?
dailymail doesn't count.
dailymail doesn't count.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335413/sfr11_2014_updated_july.pdf
(edited 8 years ago)
I think another point here is in relation to future relationships.
Girls don't marry down in social class, they either marry the same social class as them, or they marry up. Men marry whoever. If there are 32,000 boys missing from Universities every year (and this is getting worse every year), then who the hell is there for women to marry? If you're thinking 'where are all the good men?' now, then have a look at it in 20 years.
Birth rate amongst the resident population is already plummeting, as is the rate of marriage.
Girls don't marry down in social class, they either marry the same social class as them, or they marry up. Men marry whoever. If there are 32,000 boys missing from Universities every year (and this is getting worse every year), then who the hell is there for women to marry? If you're thinking 'where are all the good men?' now, then have a look at it in 20 years.
Birth rate amongst the resident population is already plummeting, as is the rate of marriage.
Original post by offhegoes
Maybe more boys should apply to go to university then?
Equal opportunity is the goal remember, not equal outcome, as you are fond of reminding everyone
Equal opportunity is the goal remember, not equal outcome, as you are fond of reminding everyone
how come you're allowed to say this regarding boys in education, but when it comes to women in the work place and "wage equality" (etc) you probably won't say it's fair? there's a massive **** storm about women not being CEOs or engineers (and others) and, collectively, not getting as much money as men (the notorious wage gap myth~) - but surely this is because they don't apply themselves in the work place?
Original post by offhegoes
Maybe more boys should apply to go to university then?
Equal opportunity is the goal remember, not equal outcome, as you are fond of reminding everyone
Equal opportunity is the goal remember, not equal outcome, as you are fond of reminding everyone
But in this modern society, we clearly don't accept that when it favours men, so why now is NO-ONE talking about it when feminists have engineered the system to such an extent it prompts an ever-growing unequal distribution between men and women and in favour of women?
If I had my way, I would just leave it alone - yes. But they aren't. They can't help themselves. Now the distribution has come the other way round, after they've spent years molesting the process, no-one pays the blindest bit of attention.
They influenced the social engineering and have been engaged in it for the last 40 years, now the distribution favours women rather than men - an engineered distribution - now we just switch off, yes?
That is your version of equality, is it? And you wonder why I have such a problem with feminism. People like you are the reason why only 18% of the population associate with the label 'feminism.'
Original post by flamboy
how come you're allowed to say this regarding boys in education, but when it comes to women in the work place and "wage equality" (etc) you probably won't say it's fair? there's a massive **** storm about women not being CEOs or engineers (and others) and, collectively, not getting as much money as men (the notorious wage gap myth~) - but surely this is because they don't apply themselves in the work place?
Women are lazy at work?
Original post by offhegoes
Women are lazy at work?
sometimes lazier*, and not as aspiring as men in terms of the kinds of and numbers of hours worked and full time/part time distinctions, and time taken off of course
Original post by TheCitizenAct
But in this modern society, we clearly don't accept that when it favours men, so why now is NO-ONE talking about it when feminists have engineered the system to such an extent it prompts an ever-growing unequal distribution between men and women and in favour of women?
If I had my way, I would just leave it alone - yes. But they aren't. They can't help themselves. Now the distribution has come the other way round, after they've spent years molesting the process, no-one pays the blindest bit of attention.
They influenced the social engineering and have been engaged in it for the last 40 years, now the distribution favours women rather than men - an engineered distribution - now we just switch off, yes?
That is your version of equality, is it? And you wonder why I have such a problem with feminism. People like you are the reason why only 18% of the population associate with the label 'feminism.'
If I had my way, I would just leave it alone - yes. But they aren't. They can't help themselves. Now the distribution has come the other way round, after they've spent years molesting the process, no-one pays the blindest bit of attention.
They influenced the social engineering and have been engaged in it for the last 40 years, now the distribution favours women rather than men - an engineered distribution - now we just switch off, yes?
That is your version of equality, is it? And you wonder why I have such a problem with feminism. People like you are the reason why only 18% of the population associate with the label 'feminism.'
Yawn. This is the third time you've quoted this figure towards me. I've already responded to this point twice and you've ignored my response twice.
As for the rest of that bile, do you want equal opportunities or equal outcomes? Can you please make your mind up. And what do you mean no-one is talking about it? The Daily Mail is. The Telegraph is. You've clearly got all the good guys on your side.
And Cornwall Community News is talking about teachers in Belfast marking down boys from rough parts of the city. Which I'm also glad you brought up.
But perhaps all this can be explained just with your typical unbiased summary:
Original post by TheCitizenAct
They cant help themselves.
Original post by flamboy
sometimes lazier*, and not as aspiring as men in terms of the kinds of and numbers of hours worked and full time/part time distinctions, and time taken off of course
Oh okay, just lazier. No-one could possibly be offended by that.
And hold on, but your pal TheCitizenAct is concerned about declining birth rates. How are women supposed to get off their lazier backsides and address this issues without taking time off work? They've already got to deal with the stress of having to be videotaped everytime they have sex with a man, apparently...
Original post by offhegoes
Yawn. This is the third time you've quoted this figure towards me. I've already responded to this point twice and you've ignored my response twice.
As for the rest of that bile, do you want equal opportunities or equal outcomes? Can you please make your mind up. And what do you mean no-one is talking about it? The Daily Mail is. The Telegraph is. You've clearly got all the good guys on your side.
And Cornwall Community News is talking about teachers in Belfast marking down boys from rough parts of the city. Which I'm also glad you brought up.
But perhaps all this can be explained just with your typical unbiased summary:
As for the rest of that bile, do you want equal opportunities or equal outcomes? Can you please make your mind up. And what do you mean no-one is talking about it? The Daily Mail is. The Telegraph is. You've clearly got all the good guys on your side.
And Cornwall Community News is talking about teachers in Belfast marking down boys from rough parts of the city. Which I'm also glad you brought up.
But perhaps all this can be explained just with your typical unbiased summary:
1. All of society has full equality of opportunity.
2. Feminism moans incessantly about an unequal distribution of men and women, as it favours men.
3. Feminism secures preferential treatment for women, in the form of positive discrimination and reform to the education system. Hundreds of thousands of boys are pathologised and placed on ritalin. Competition is removed from schools.
4. Feminism manufactures a new distribution of men and women, which favours women.
5. Feminism no longer cares about the unequal distribution, as it favours women.
6. No-one bothers about the unequal distribution, now that women are 'empowered.'
7. Feminism - which is for the mens too! - accuses those who do bother about it to be 'undermining equality of opportunity': 'which do you want? Make up your mind!?!'
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/05/treat-women-equally-dont-call-it-feminism/
The amount of bigotry and prejudice in this post is actually quite phenomenal. The amount of contextualised morality - it's acceptable in one form but not in any other - is astounding. It's the precise definition of bigotry.
You actually don't give a **** about men or boys. That's fine. That's your entitlement.
With your prejudice so ingrained, and your inability to practice what you preach in one standard in all standards, then I'm clearly not going to dissuade you from your perspective and if I try, you'll merely drag me down to your level. On that basis, there's no point conversing with you or responding to you.
n.b. the source isn't The Telegraph, it's UCAS. The source isn't the Daily Mail, it's NICE and the AEP.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by flamboy
sometimes lazier*, and not as aspiring as men in terms of the kinds of and numbers of hours worked and full time/part time distinctions, and time taken off of course
Well it is kinda obvious,
Feminists want 'equality' with men instead of being better,
that shows a lack of ambition,
and that is the reason men are always better.
Original post by offhegoes
Oh okay, just lazier. No-one could possibly be offended by that.
And hold on, but your pal TheCitizenAct is concerned about declining birth rates. How are women supposed to get off their lazier backsides and address this issues without taking time off work? They've already got to deal with the stress of having to be videotaped everytime they have sex with a man, apparently...
And hold on, but your pal TheCitizenAct is concerned about declining birth rates. How are women supposed to get off their lazier backsides and address this issues without taking time off work? They've already got to deal with the stress of having to be videotaped everytime they have sex with a man, apparently...
I'm not concerned about birthrates though - I think the population is going up too much over time. also, men can stay at home too, can't they? it's not their fault women are simply more willing to do it (culturally), or have a lower paying job than the man (to necessitate them taking the time off instead)
Original post by saeed97
Well it is kinda obvious,
Feminists want 'equality' with men instead of being better,
that shows a lack of ambition,
and that is the reason men are always better.
Feminists want 'equality' with men instead of being better,
that shows a lack of ambition,
and that is the reason men are always better.
feminists *do* want to be better really, though, but they need a government to force it to happen
there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting equality though and I wish feminists *did* want it in its actual legal and individualistic form
Original post by TheCitizenAct
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/05/treat-women-equally-dont-call-it-feminism/
The amount of bigotry and prejudice in this post is actually quite phenomenal. The amount of contextualised morality - it's acceptable in one form but not in any other - is astounding. It's the precise definition of bigotry.
You actually don't give a **** about men or boys. That's fine. That's your entitlement. With your prejudice so ingrained, and your inability to practice what you preach in one standard in all standards, then I'm clearly not going to dissuade you from your perspective. On that basis, there's no point conversing with you or responding to you.
The amount of bigotry and prejudice in this post is actually quite phenomenal. The amount of contextualised morality - it's acceptable in one form but not in any other - is astounding. It's the precise definition of bigotry.
You actually don't give a **** about men or boys. That's fine. That's your entitlement. With your prejudice so ingrained, and your inability to practice what you preach in one standard in all standards, then I'm clearly not going to dissuade you from your perspective. On that basis, there's no point conversing with you or responding to you.
I wasn't asking for a source for the figure. If you'd bother to read either of my responses the last two times I responded to that figure you'd know that. I make a point about what I think that figure means. But nevermind.
If you read back over all my posts, in this thread and others, you'll see I have no interest in expounding the virtues of women over men. I'm not bigoted against men, I just feel the need to respond to cretins such as yourself when you go off on yet another anti-feminist rant. How many such threads have you started?
I'm certainly not biased against men. I believe in gender equality which, according to the dictionary, means I fit exactly in with the definition of a feminist.
Original post by flamboy
feminists *do* want to be better really, though, but they need a government to force it to happen
there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting equality though and I wish feminists *did* want it in its actual legal and individualistic form
there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting equality though and I wish feminists *did* want it in its actual legal and individualistic form
You're 100% right, i was just simply protecting myself from the PC crowd.
Original post by saeed97
Well it is kinda obvious,
Feminists want 'equality' with men instead of being better,
that shows a lack of ambition,
and that is the reason men are always better.
Feminists want 'equality' with men instead of being better,
that shows a lack of ambition,
and that is the reason men are always better.
If this statistic were in favour of men, it'd be all over the MSM, we wouldn't be able to get away from it - they'd be declaring a crisis at the heart of the education system. As far as feminism is concerned, an unequal distribution is the worst thing in the world, until it's engineered and molested in your favour. Then it's 'equality of opportunity.'
The hypocrisy is astounding.
To quote the chief executive of UCAS:
“My concern is in five or ten years’ time young men will be the new disadvantaged group. I remain astounded that there is not more political and societal focus on this."
She clearly doesn't know how feminism works.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- inquiry about resits
- Queen Mary offer
- uk education system
- Is paramedic science diverse?
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 1 (7192/1) - 22nd May [Exam Chat]
- Studying AH statistics & prelim
- Prime Minister
- Should I do my back up plan?
- How do contextual offers work?
- Contextual offer
- I cant accept the fact that I’m not the most intelligent
- Puzzle about Whether to do PGCE and Subject Choose
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- Is it too late?
- What would civilisation look like if the average IQ was 150?
- What do this year’s results mean for university places?
- Why is Uni life so hard?
- Contextual offer debate
- Applying for biochem with aab
- My parents are going to put me into state school for a levels so uni admissions easie
Latest
Last reply 12 minutes ago
How I get an A in A-Level Business StudiesPosted 58 minutes ago
How do I start my email to a college to sit for Alevel as a private candidateLast reply 1 hour ago
Jaguar (JLR) Degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 2 hours ago
Will an IVA cause my Civil Service pre employment check to fail?Last reply 2 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 2 hours ago
My boyfriend left me because he said my breasts and butt were too smallTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
