Women dominate the ranks of college graduates. What’s the effect on America?

This will be one of the greatest social science experiments ever conducted.  After WWII nations tested free markets vs. government-dominated systems.  Europe, North America, and East Asia using variants of the former.  The red block, Africa, and Latin America using variants of the latter.  The results were clear, and the world changed.

Now we’re testing male-dominated systems vs. female-dominated systems.  The result might change the world, in ways impossible to foresee.   This post provides information about the issue. My thoughts about this appear in A better answer to “why women outperform men in college?”

Links to other posts about America’s education system appear at the end.

Contents

  1. A summary of our situation
  2. Why Do Women Outnumber Men in College?“, Digest of the National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2007
  3. Projections of Education Statistics to 2016“, Department of Education, December 2007
  4. The Natural Superiority of Women, Ashley Montagu (1999)
  5. The Coming American Matriarchy“, Jonathan Rauch, National Journal, 11 January 2008
  6. Brief analysis from around the Internet
  7. For more information

(1)  A summary of our situation

(A) From “Women Now Dominate Higher Education at Every Degree Level; The Female-Male Degree Gap Grows“, Mark Perry (Professor of Economics, U of Michigan), at his blog Carpe Diem, 2 June 2009

20090602-Female-Male-Graduates

(B) From Brenda Turner, Oregon Employment Dept, 20 April 2009:

At age 21, women are more likely to be enrolled in college than men, according to the Bureau of Labor StatisticsNational Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Each year over a 10-year period, this survey interviewed about 9,000 young men and women who were born during the years 1980 to 1984. Respondents were ages 12 to 17 when first interviewed in 1997, and ages 21 to 27 when interviewed for the tenth time in 2006-2007.

During the October when they were age 21, nearly half (46 percent) of women were attending college compared with 36% of men. This difference in college-enrollment rates stems from three factors:

  1. Women were more likely to have graduated from high school;
  2. among high school graduates, women were more likely to attend college; and
  3. once enrolled in college, women were less likely than men to leave college between school years.

(2)  At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust“, New York Times, 9 July 2006 — Excerpt:

A quarter-century after women became the majority on college campuses, men are trailing them in more than just enrollment. Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor’s degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women.

And in two national studies, college men reported that they studied less and socialized more than their female classmates.

Small wonder, then, that at elite institutions like Harvard, small liberal arts colleges like Dickinson, huge public universities like the University of Wisconsin and U.C.L.A. and smaller ones like Florida Atlantic University, women are walking off with a disproportionate share of the honors degrees.  Still, men now make up only 42% of the nation’s college students. And with sex discrimination fading and their job opportunities widening, women are coming on much stronger, often leapfrogging the men to the academic finish.

(3)  Why Do Women Outnumber Men in College?“, Digest of the National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2007 — Excerpt:

It is fairly well known that women today outnumber men in American colleges. In 2003, there were 1.35 females for every male who graduated from a four-year college and 1.3 females for every male undergraduate. That contrasts with 1960, when there were 1.6 males for every female graduating from a U.S. four-year college and 1.55 males for every female undergraduate. How come this switch?  In T”he Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap” (NBER Working Paper No. 12139), authors Claudia Goldin, Lawrence Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko offer some explanations for the change.

… One sign of rising expectations by women is shown in the fact that women earned 45.1% of bachelor’s degrees in business in 1984-5 and 50% by 2001-2, up from only 9.1% in 1970-1. Similar large increases in the female share of BAs also have occurred in the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering since the early 1970s. It also could be that the rise in divorce rates since the 1960s and women’s greater responsibility for children have prompted women to see an investment in college as an insurance policy for their future financial lives.

Another aspect in the reversal of the college gender gap, rather than just its elimination, is the persistence of behavioral and developmental differences between males and females. Boys often mature more slowly than girls. In grades K-12, boys tend to have a higher incidence of behavioral problems (or lower level of non-cognitive skills) than girls. Girls spend more time doing homework than boys. These behavioral factors, after adjusting for family background, test scores, and high school achievement, can explain virtually the entire female advantage in getting into college for the high school graduating class of 1992, the authors figure. It allowed “girls to leapfrog over boys in the race to college.” Similarly, teenage boys, both in the early 1980s and late 1990s, had a higher (self-reported) incidence of arrests and school suspensions than teenage girls.

The “homecoming” in the authors’ title to their paper refers to the fact that by 1980 the gender balance in college had returned to its pre-1930 level in the United States, although the levels of college attendance were almost six times higher in 1980 than in the 1920s for both men and women. The number of male-to-female undergraduates was about at parity from 1900 to 1930. Many females were attending teacher-training colleges in those days.

The highpoint of gender imbalance in college attendance was reached in 1947, after the return of men from World War II then eligible for educational subsidies through the GI bills, when undergraduate men outnumbered women 2.3 to 1. Women’s relative numbers in college have increased ever since the 1950s, with a pause when many men went to college to avoid serving in the Vietnam War.

The decline in the male-to-female ratios of undergraduates in the past 35 years is real, and not primarily due to changes in the ethnic mix of the college-aged population or to the types of post-secondary institutions they attend, the authors assert. The female share of college students has expanded in all 17 member-nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in recent decades, so much so that women now outnumber men in college in almost all rich nations.

(4) Projections of Education Statistics to 2016“, Department of Education, December 2007 — A forecast for 2016; it’s almost certainly too conservative about this trend.

  • 64% of Associates degrees will be awarded to women,
  • 61% of Bachelor’s degrees,
  • 63% of Master’s degrees,
  • 58% of Doctoral degrees,
  • 58% of Professional degrees

(5)  The Natural Superiority of Women, Ashley Montagu (1999) — Publisher’s summary:

Among the central issues of the modern feminist movement, the debate over biology and culture over sex and gender, over genetics and gender roles has certainly been one of the most passionately contested. Making revolutionary arguments upon its first publication in 1953, The Natural Superiority of Women stands as one of the original feminist arguments against biological determinism.

An iconoclast, Montagu wielded his encyclopedic knowledge of physical anthropology in critique of the conventional wisdom of women as the “weaker sex,” showing how women’s biological, genetic, and physical makeup made her not only man’s equal, but his superior. Also a humanist, Montagu points to the emotional and social qualities typically ascribed to and devalued in women as being key to just social life and relationships. Subsequent editions of this book have provided additional support for Montagu’s arguments, examining both biological and social scientific data of the late 20th century. One of the most broadly renowned and read scholars of our century, Montagu brings out this fifth edition with up-to-date statistics and references.

(6) The Coming American Matriarchy“, Jonathan Rauch, National Journal, 11 January 2008 — Excerpt:

A generation from now, the female lawyer with her male assistant will be the cliché. Look for women to outnumber men in many elite professions, and potentially in the political system that the professions feed. (The election of a female president is a question of when, not whether.)  Women’s superior education will increase their earning power relative to men’s, and on average they will be marrying down, educationally speaking. A third of today’s college-bound 12-year-old girls can expect to “settle” for a mate without a university diploma. But women will not stop wanting to be hands-on moms.

For families, this will pose a dilemma. Women will have a comparative advantage at both parenting and breadwinning. Many women will want to take time off for child-rearing, but the cost of keeping a college-educated mom at home while a high-school-educated dad works will be high, often prohibitive.

Look, then, for rising pressure on government to provide new parental subsidies and child care programs, and on employers to provide more flextime and home-office options — among various efforts to help women do it all. Look, too, for a cascading series of psychological and emotional adjustments as American society tilts, for the first time, toward matriarchy. What happens to male self-esteem when men are No. 2 (and not necessarily trying harder)? When more men work for women than the other way around?

… {Men} will not become mothers anytime soon, and they will not stop secreting testosterone. Men’s ambition will ensure ample male representation at the very top of the social order, where CEOs, senators, Nobelists, and software wunderkinds dwell. Women will not rule men.

But they will lead. Think about this: Not only do girls study harder and get better grades than boys; girls now take more high school math and science than do high school boys. If there is a “weaker sex,” it isn’t female.

(7)  Reactions from around the Internet

(A)  The Instapundit, 25 June 2002 — I believe he understates the situation, as this is even more true of grade school.

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN COLLEGE: 57% of degrees are going to women. There’s a lot of hand-wringing about why, but they miss the obvious: over the past 20 years there has been a concerted effort to make colleges male-unfriendly environments, with attacks on fraternities, with anti-male attitudes in many classes, with intrusive sexual-harassment rules that start with the assumption that men are evil predators, and so forth. Now men don’t find college as congenial a place. It’s a hostile environment, quite literally.

How come none of the experts quoted in this article has noticed that?

Update:  He wrote about this in more detail in “Where the Boys Aren’t“, TCS Daily, 27 September 2005 — Excerpt:

{I}t seems to me that there are three possible ways of looking at the growing higher-education gender imbalance.

One would be to treat it the way we treat other “underrepresentation” issues in higher education: By wondering what universities are doing wrong. … The remedy, in this view: Affirmative action for male candidates, re-education for faculty, campus “men’s centers” to match the womens’ centers that were created when women were an underrepresented group on campus (and which still remain today almost everywhere), and efforts to make curricula, dormitories, and recruiting more male-friendly… There seems little doubt that if any other group were suffering similar declines in college attendance, this is precisely the approach we’d be seeing, and some schools have already been trying this to some degree.

The second approach would be to shrug the problem off. Men aren’t going to college as much? Big deal. Maybe it’s because women are smarter, or better suited to such things.

(B) Something else for Margaret Spellings“, blog of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 23 September 2005

A generation of young men is losing out in a very big way. But there is no real outrage as higher education becomes a feminized system. Indeed, the outrage is still running the other way–we hear continually about the marginalization of women in the academy, and the difficulties women students face. The question of why there are so few women in the hard sciences draws impassioned debate, urgent calls for equity, and lots and lots of money. But the question of why young men are disappearing from campus is not even being widely asked. And it certainly isn’t being studied systematically. It should be, and Margaret Spellings has the power to ensure that it is.

(C) The Death of Macho“, Reihan Salam, Foreign Policy, 22 June 2009 — Based on a superfical, even false, analysis of the causes of the financial crisis.  But very PC, very trendy.  Hat tip to Zenpundit.  Excerpt:

Manly men have been running the world forever. But the Great Recession is changing all that, and it will alter the course of history.

For years, the world has been witnessing a quiet but monumental shift of power from men to women. Today, the Great Recession has turned what was an evolutionary shift into a revolutionary one. The consequence will be not only a mortal blow to the macho men’s club called finance capitalism that got the world into the current economic catastrophe; it will be a collective crisis for millions and millions of working men around the globe.

(8)  For more information

(a)  Other articles about this topic:

  1. The Decline of Males: The First Look at an Unexpected New World for Men and Women, Dr. Lionel Tiger (biological anthropologist)
  2. The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, Christina Hoff Sommers
  3. The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell
  4. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Daphne Patai

(b)  Other posts about this on the FM website:

  1. A better answer to “why women outperform men in college?”, 8 July 2009
  2. Update: women on top of men, 27 October 2009
  3. For links to all these articles see the FM reference page Women and gender issues.

(c)  Posts about America’s education system:

  1. College education in America, another broken business model, 3 July 2009
  2. The secret about our universities (seldom even whispered among Professors), 5 July 2009
  3. Women dominating the ranks of college graduates – What’s the effect on America?, 7 July 2009
  4. Is a college education worth a million dollars?, 10 July 2009
  5. What should a student learn from college? Why go to college?, 1 November 2009

72 thoughts on “Women dominate the ranks of college graduates. What’s the effect on America?”

  1. Matriarchy never lasts. See: Human history.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Has there ever been a real matriarchy? Of course, modern tech — esp contraceptives — make it possible now. In theory, at least.

  2. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  3. FM: Nonsense from another person unwilling to look at that data. From reading this you would never know that the source I mentioned was the US government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    .
    .
    Flat-earther indeed. Listen FM, someone is trying to tell you something from the real world, not some cooked government statistics. Goodness, the Soviets used to do the same thing with their gender statistics. That worked out really well didn’t it. And I really could care less “what kind of a site” this is. What supercilious and sanctimonious blather. Go play in your fantasy world. It is obviously not a site for anyone that has to accomplish something in the real world. I could care less what you think, but when America’s leadership comes crashing down in part because of the poor resource allocation of education dollars and the lowering of standards to accomodate this PC nonsense don’t say that you were not warned. You must be an academic, not someone that actually creates wealth and is held accountable for what they create in the marketplace. In the hard sciences and real engineering outside of academia, the vast majority those woman end up cratering. Ten years later they are off the ranch. It is a dirty little secret that no one wants to admit, and it is cleverly buried in these bogus statistics. I am talking about the high end, I am not talking about the mediocre level, if you can possibly understand that. Go have a look at who is producing what, go look at patents, go look at useful science output. It is just a joke. But plod along in your smug obtuseness. See if the world cares.

  4. There has already been a sea-change that I observe at work, in a highly technical company with global operations. In the US sites we have to import skilled labor (Ph.D. level) through the H1-B Visa program. Predominately they are male, either Indian or Chinese. There are very few Americans as exceptions to the rule. The overall ratio of men to women hired is approximately 10:1.

    The net result is social stereotyping, and, a slightly veiled attitude that Americans are dumb. I disagree, but I would like to know where all the smart Americans are going so I can hire some of them. The thread of comments suggests that the smart Americans are being filtered out by the education system. But I include men and women in that category. Thus, as a whole the country suffers from loss of competitive ability.

    Let me say it another way. Regardless of the sex ratio at the institutions of higher learning (filters),the quality of their product and the quantity of their product for the highly technical fields is in decline. Perhaps the change in sex ratio is a factor in this decline, I’m sure there are others.

    Working in a global company I get to observe the quality of Ph.D.’s produced overseas and working overseas in their home countries (the ratio of men to women in these jobs is extremely high). I’m generally underwhelmed by the talent level there; but at least there is not a shortage. The really good ones we steal for the US. Eventually that practice must end as the rest of the world becomes more lucrative for these people. That is when we will really feel the pain of competition.

  5. Eric R. Ashley

    As I understand it, you want likely results of a female-dominated system. Caveat: We’re already there.

    1. Less risk, more stability seeking. This results in less grand scale thefts, and more petty corruption. Both are destabilizing to the system as a whole. I’ll call it a wash.

    2. With China aborting its women, a lot of American high status (I don’t say high achieving) women will marry Chinese jetsetters (the uber alphas of the Chinese nation). This will be similar to the Brit nobles marrying American rich business related types from decades back.

    3. A subset of Women will be irritated by not having enough marry up men to go around. Many of these won’t have enough self-knowledge to realize how they helped cause the problem, and will instead follow the Feminist path of ‘Men Baaaaad!!!’. A lot of bitter spinsters.

    At one time, guys went around to houses, talked to housewives, and sharpened their scissors. Look for a rebirth of male service to women jobs where the older spinsters can hire some reasonably charming male to do some small task for her. The guy will be a Guy, but also not all that ambitious, and a lot of guys would be okay with that. This will ease some of the bitter spinsterness.

    4. Computers are changing so fast some say we race to the Singularity. People all over are weary from the headlong pace. Women in charge will be more weary, and less enthused about the big risks. PC Revolution slows down dramatically, and a lot of people are happy.

    5. Read Proverbs 31, the Prudent Woman, the lady works very hard, and has a lot of responsibility and power. Her husband sits in the gates. This is not quite the ‘layabout’ it sounds, I’ve heard. Sitting in the gates was where the elders met to handle politics. A rebirth of male only areas with substantial influence credited to them. This may be more pose than actuality, but it might become serious.

    6. A rise in Polygamy. The top players are always going to be guys, unless sexist barriers are created. Some women, given the choice between hanging out with a guy of lesser status, and being Wife #2 either by law or in effect are going to choose option #2. The rich and powerful guys will love this. The guys without women will….be truly and deeply irritated to a level that might destabilize the whole system. The women will be unhappy as per the Chinese symbol for ‘chaos??’ is two women under one roof.

    A lot of unhappy people, but the decision makers will be happy. I reccomend reading “Men and Marriage” by George Gilder. It is a lightbulb book, and most helpful to this subject.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: All thought-provoking ideas! I too recommend reading Gilder’s “Men and Marriage.”

  6. The rising civilization is Muslim, the Somalians are the best example. They are fast breeders and taking over neighborhoods all over Europe. The only reason a matriarchy might arise is because European men are either weak, don’t care, or are so stupid they really believe in this equality nonsense.

    The Taliban, Iranians, and Somalians will steamroll over any matriarchy. What man would risk his life to defend it? European armies are filled with funny boys that do not reproduce. The barbarians are at the gates, this is Rome in 400 AD.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I too have wondered about this. Perhaps feminism is a self-correcting oddity, from a sociobiological perspective. No matter how fine, how just, low fertility levels might make it a dead-end — replaced by systems less just (by our standards) encouraging higher fertility levels.

  7. A uniquely male archetype is the “Brooding Genius”. Women excel at multitasking, and are capable of sustained effort even when directed to the mundane, but when you have a really tough intellectual nut to crack, nothing beats a BG. Socially inept, sometimes almost wooden in demeanor, these guys are quickly identified, and often exploited by lugubrious management types. For this reason, BG’s often go it alone, starting their own projects, and largely carrying them on their backs, periodically coughing up AC induction machines (Tesla), Polio vaccines, (Sabin), and Relativity (Einstein). Trust me, you don’t want to live in a world devoid of BG’s. Whatever we do in organizing our society, make sure you provide for the care and feeding of these.

  8. First off Fabius, women are not, if I’m reading the BLS correctly, entering into mechanical engineering, computer programming, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, and other types of jobs considered “nerdy” and filled with “icky” guys who are smart but lack social power and prestige. It’s mostly medicine and other related fields which have relatively high levels of prestige.

    Secondly, the effect is going to be a soft polygamy, with women being hypergamous, unwilling to date/marry downwards with men who are not higher than themselves. This means a few men get most of the women, and most men get none (the usual state of affairs in human history). This also implies a huge distrust between men (fights over women) and lots and lots of violence, that being the great equalizer in power and status. Ask any low level drug dealer making less than a McDonald’s fry cook but deciding who lives and dies.

    As women dominate law, health care, and other “transfer” rather than productive places (energy and resource extraction, agriculture, and manufacturing) the temptation to favor that over actual wealth producing things and activities grows greater. Already Obama’s Welfare Economy has 80% of layoffs men, and most of the stimulus spending has been for female-oriented social workers and the like. Very little shovels and dirt and concrete.

    Family will simply disintegrate, as women become single mothers, with a few (genetic bottleneck) men reproducing as is common, and most men are utterly unconnected to the interests or welfare of women and other men’s children. You’ll see far greater predatory behavior, as there is little reason for men to value women as anything but prey items. Children too. This will not be a light-switch process but rather a steadily accelerating one. As more taboos get broken, the process intensifies. You’ll have the sort of processes like in the Taipeng Rebellion. No one believed the leader was the Younger Brother of Jesus, or later Jesus himself. They just figured he’d overthrow the emperor and they’d get women and gold. Killed 20 million people with muzzle loading muskets in the 1850’s.

    Of course single motherhood produces bad outcomes, boys in jail and girls pregnant in their teens, even accounting for income and status and race.

    The solution to all of this is simply to end AA now. Permanently. In all areas, and eliminate the wealth transference by dumping most of the legal infrastructure, social work, and other things that suck up female employment in non-productive work that has little bearing on social good (as opposed to teaching and health care which most definitely IS a social good). Also as noted, put more men in the classroom. Particularly ex-soldiers and marines. Gear instruction to gender differences, and have different expectations (i.e. boys lagging physically). Look at Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall. Both the same approximate age. Ringwald was far more physically developed than Hall. Boys need more time, critically, at all phases, because they mature slower.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: You are misinterpreting the BLS data. The number of women entering engineering is rapidly increasing, but off a tiny base. This follows the patter of women entering other “male” fields — from small acorns do giant oaks grow. In this case, women oaks.

  9. FM: “ Has there ever been a real matriarchy?

    Yes. They are generally pre-industrial and stay that way (until they get conquered and subjugated by a patriarchal or meritocratic society, at least.)
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Do you have any citations to support this? From Wikipedia, which matches my (limited) understanding of history:

    “While the existence of numerous matrilineal or avuncular societies is undisputed, it has been recognized since the 1970s that there are no societies which are matriarchal in the strong sense that some societies are patriarchal. Joan Bamberger in her 1974 The Myth of Matriarchy argued that the historical record contains no reliable evidence of any society in which women dominated. Anthropologist Donald Brown’s list of “human cultural universals” (i.e. features shared by all current human societies) includes men being the “dominant element” in public political affairs (Brown 1991, p. 137), which he asserts is the contemporary opinion of mainstream anthropology.”

  10. There is a distinct difference between the average male brain and the average female brain which limits the number of women who can perform in math-intensive fields such as engineering, high level computer science, physics, and so forth. Roughly 25% women, no more. “SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE“. If you go higher than that you will have to force unwilling and unqualified women to do the jobs, with very unsatisfactory results.

    Or you can pretend that qualifications are less important than job results, like a number of fire and police departments have done in their promotions. You might not wish to live in those cities, however.

    The US can import its math savvy males from India and China for now. After a few years of Obama, the US economy will not be able to support those imports, and the math dependent corporations and labs will have to move to a more developed country than the US.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: That is one theory, and a contraversial one. It is not proven. To cite just one of the many studies about this: “Sex, Math and Scientific Achievement“, Scientific American, December 2007 –Excerpt:

    Although it has drawn little media coverage, dramatic changes have been occurring among these junior math wizards: the relative number of girls among them has been soaring. The ratio of boys to girls, first observed at 13 to 1 in the 1980s, has been dropping steadily and is now only about 3 to 1.

    Who knows what will be the ratio in 2025? Esp as now girls are taking more advanced math courses than boys (source).

  11. Re soaring numbers of gilrs in math courses: Is this a result of dumbed-down courses – is the level in 2005 the same as in 1980 – or a result of better performance of the female students?

    If I check competitive environments in (German and Austrian) high schools like national and international math olypiades etc. I do not see a significant number of girls, the same for chemistry and physics.

    Another good indicator would be to check the number and impact of scientific publications. Do the female students produce the same out-put as male students during their PhD work and as post-docs ?

  12. I’m surprised no one has mentioned the obvious.

    Men do the physical labor and risky labor of society, and women don’t. Men are the farmers, miners, truckers, railroaders, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, iron workers, masons, mechanics, roofers, longshoreman, operating engineers, soliders, laborers, window washers, fire fighters, policemen, janitors, garbage collectors, bus drivers, and painters, and in a ratio of probably 100 to 1 cumulatively.

    Since women don’t do physical labor jobs, and men do, when women entered the labor force en masse from 1970 onwards, the only options for them were the same old low level jobs they had always held sway over (education, nursing, secretarial work), or to go to college and try to enter the professions or business world.

    Their eventual domination of college as it is a gateway to business and professional work had to be expected so long as they totally avoid manual labor positions. It will be this way either until women enter into manual labor jobs or return to homemaking.

  13. @Andrew
    Your arguments do not work, most of your listed jobs are already done by woman (at least in Europe) with increasing numbers. Here again, better perfomance/better grades of females in the highschool helps them to get the jobs. Only very few professions for which “raw” physical power is still needed (woodchopper) are still domains for men.

  14. No worries: once the coming calamities are upon us, the fundamental need and value of men will quickly re-emerge.

  15. FM: “All professional and technical jobs will not drop in status and income, so that jobs like garbage collection and highway repair become the most desirable jobs in America.

    Nominal income or net income after the payments on your sould crushing burden of student debt required to get those professional jobs? When I graduated with an engineering degree I took a lower starting salary than assembly line workers at GM. Scholarships and generous parents meant I had no debt to service, otherwise garbageman would have rated serious consideration.

    @ the larger topic, I suspect the already fraying link between a degree and social status will sever long before the increase in degreed females will lead to matriarchy.

  16. I believe “It’s the classes …Stupid”

    I am an old guy. My high School had metal and wood shop. We had “horrifically dangerous” cutting tools available to us as teenagers, access to white hot metal forges where we heated up real metal and used hammers to shape the metal until its dull red color faded. I personally liked the electronics class where we could occasionally make sparks fly with high voltage while constructing a radio by hand.

    Male interests are too dangerous for female sensibilities. Therefore they are removed from education and replaced for something more…feminine.

    Young men are pussy whipped. If you are a male and that offends you look in the mirror, you are whipped yourself. Females know this. Today’s males are screwed up trying to be males when everything around them has been feminized through most of their schooling. On top of that men/boys are going through puberty and are half crazy driven by hormones and will accommodate almost anything to be close to a girl.

    Why would a male want to go to a college where feminine studies and other silly things are taught?

    Perhaps it is about time to open up the college of male conquest. We could teach how men established all the countries in the world we see today. Remind them that they are really the power in their countries and the world if they would just take charge. Instruct males how to manipulate women to do the tasks we need them to do. Instruct them that politics, and diplomacy are the slow, uncertain ways to change so why wait for them when we live a shorter life? Especially if we have to listen to female politicians!
    .
    .
    Fabuis Maximus replies: I disagree with much of this. Test your theory! Go to your nearest inner city, find a group of guys, and tell them that they’re pussy whipped. After your discharge from the hospital, report back to us.

    US culture has to a large extent migrated from inner cities to the mainstream. Clearly so in dress and music, but also more broadly. Inner cities have macho men almost totally allientated from families, which are strongly matriarchial. I suspect that is increasingly so in the wider American culture.

    There are other adaptations to the changing role of women in our society. To see this in pure form I suggest listening to the Tom Leykis show (see his website for info).

  17. Ulenspiegel in comment #56

    You are falling victim to distorted statistics where a woman working in a clerical job or supervisory job for a manual labor concern is counted by the government as working in the goods producing industries (construction, mining, farming, transportation, heavy manufacturing).

    Go out on a construction site or visit a train yard or repair garage or truck stop or firehouse or waste transfer station and count the number of women you see doing the manual labor. Its close to zero, even in Europe.

    In the US women dominate Government work (10M of 22.5M), Education and Health Services (15M of 19M), Finance and Insurance (3.75M of6M), Other Services (2.9M of 5.5M), and Leisure Services (7M of 13.3M), are even in Retail Trade (7.5M of 15M), Real Estate (950K of 2M),

  18. @Andrew

    The number of women is still much lower than of men, but this changes. In contrast, do men get the same share in typical women jobs?

    Last year, when my house was build, I had a female construction worker, some of the quality control on the site was done by a lady, who really know her trade and it was not arrogance when she told the famale workers: “Gents, get used to a higher standard, they will be mandatory in a few years!” :-))

    Almost every day I see in the tramway (young) female painter, bricklayer and welder. And in car workshops femals are found in increasing numbers. Employers are intersted in a minimum educational level for these jobs, and here boys stink more than girls.

    And you could check the distributen in the former socialistic countries (take East Germany), they were far ahead with women in typical men jobs, women lost ground after the reunification in the eastern federal states, but were much more flexible and “emigrated” to western states and got good jobs.

    Backbone of the German (and Austrian) economy are medium-sized companies (50-5000 employees), they need well trained/educated worker, so women with higher motivation have a really good chance to get a much larger share in future in jobs that produce national wealth.

  19. you can’t fool Mother Nature

    We know that male attributes have a much wider variance than female attributes. There are many more men at the highest level of IQ, ability for spatial perception, aggression, competitiveness, ability to concieve of and create complex systems, desire to take risk, desire for high achievement, desire to dominante others and the environment etc., there are also more men at the bottom, BUT those who rule come from the high end not the low end. All of these impulses are biologically based even if they may be increased by social conditioning. Would women lock themselves in a room for a month and compose the “Messiah”, or spend a tortured night on the beach discovering what we call Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle or sail into the dangerous and unknown Atlantic Ocean to discover a new world, or venture to the moon ,so on and so on?????

    Of course not, Mother Nature wouldn’t stand for it for obvious reason(survival of the species). Brain research over the last 30 years has begun to show how the male and female brain differ and why men have always played the role of creator and destroyer.

    Although deep down in our genes men create the material culture to make themselves more desirerable to women, i.e., men compete, women choose.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: These are nothing more than statements about biology, facts about the past due to social structures, and fancy guesses about the future. Most such guesses about the future prove to be wrong, for fairly obvious reasons. One rule of nature I know is true: Mother Nature does not give a damn about our theories or hopes.

  20. Is this good for the American economy?

    I can’t help noticing that the economies of more paternal developing countries have picked up considerably (India, China) and the only Western countries that have maintained their status are again more paternalistic – Germany and Switzerland.

    In the meantime the two leading countries in terms of the rise of female emancipation (UK and US) are now basket cases with offshored industries, ‘feminized’ service industries that have nothing to service and huge massive debts that have been building up since the rise of feminism in the 70’s. They are doomed.

    Serveys have shown that up to 90% of women with kids do not want to work over 40 hours a week and only do so grudgingly. My wife has NO interest in going to work while the kids are home.

    MY REAL POINT IS THIS: Therefore any country that is determined to allocate 60% of education resources on the half of the population that would rather work part-time (by their own admission) is heading for trouble – no wonder the US is $12 trillion in debt.

  21. Pingback: A strategist takes on our culture’s gender crisis « The Complete Body

  22. Its funny, did you ever notice that men do all the Warfighting? When we have war next time, I want all womyn Special Forces and all womyn in Rangers and Marines. Guess what, it’s not gonna happen as long as there is a Chimpocracy, They will not be doing the fighting and the war will be here soon, with the way the US is arming itself. Only in a Government made-construct society as ours can womyn rule. Once the Dollar craters, good luck. You think they can outwrestle me for my weapon, Good luck whores! Don’t forget the corporations love women middle management, where Groupthink dominates. They have been cherry picking Elitist whores for 40 years. When, they suffer 50% of all combat casualties, and 50% of all industrial accidents, then they will be equal to men. Until then, they are elitists!

  23. Pingback: Lower Education | The Honest Courtesan

  24. Pingback: Women dominate the ranks of college graduates. What’s the effect on America? | kraigdevlin

  25. Pingback: Educator Roles | Kraig Devlin

  26. Pingback: Girls Shouldn't Be Highly Educated... - Growing Home

  27. Pingback: Girls Shouldn’t Be Highly Educated… – schoolinlyfe

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: