Posted on 03/06/2011 10:08:04 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Where did all the men go?
Once the vast majority, they now make up just over 40 percent of the nation's college students. And it’s not just college.
Women dominate high school honor rolls and make up more than 70 percent of class valedictorians.
And where are the men going?
[snip]
Experts used to explain away the college gender imbalance by noting that men had plenty of high-paying job opportunities to them in manufacturing and construction, but then came the last recession.
The numbers are staggering: 78 percent of the jobs lost since 2007 were held by men, leaving one out of every five working age men out of work.
[snip]
In the last 10 years, 2 million more women than men graduated from college in the United States. That’s an achievement gap that is having profound consequences on the economy.
[snip]
In the nation's elementary schools, where many young men first start to fall behind, there's a growing sense that many boys need a more hands-on approach.
“By school age, three-quarters of the boys in the class are more physically active, more developmentally immature, more impulsive than girls of the same age,” Thompson said. “Boys like competition, they like teamwork, they like to produce a product. Boys tend on average to not like to sit quietly with a page of writing in front of them.”
Because girls develop verbal skills sooner, some schools are experimenting with single-sex classrooms.
Others, like Hackberry Hill Elementary, just outside Denver, have come up with a whole new take on the Three Rs: reading, writing, and recess.
Jumping jacks and stretching exercises break up reading lessons and combat boys’ short attention spans.
Among the fastest-growing jobs of the next decade, only two, janitorial work and computer engineering, are expected to be dominated by men.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Look at the jail population and it spikes around 26-27 yrs old. The boys are trained by our new society to avoid responsibility because girls are the advantaged sex and then stay home, drink beer, smoke pot and play video games. Eventually the cops zero in on them, bust them and send them to jail.
Jails are HUGE money generators. Jails are big business.
Take a 1,000 man jail. The state would pay $100/day for each inmate out of taxes you and I pay. $100/day x 365 days = $36,500 per inmate per year. Times 1,000 inmates and it equals $36,500,000. That's 36 and a half million dollars per year the state pays the prison! BI G BUSINESS and who cares about the "lost" young men anyhow.
When the local and state governments want to build a jail or prison, they always say there will be good paying jobs. Sure, good paying union police and corrections jobs.
We allow the encarcerated young men to pay for union jobs.
Once these guys get into the jail system in their early twenties, the court system is rigged against them so they're almost guaranteed to be in jail for most of their adult lives.
I think a lot of it has to do with Fathers not being around to help bring up their kids. Women (Mom’s) tend to make endless excuses for (and coddle) failure. Men are much more blunt. The other component is that the transition to adulthood takes longer and longer. Many kids today live in adolesence through their 20s, even early 30s. At least women have their ticking Biological Clock to motivate them. Men have no eqivalent.
What kind of jobs are the women getting? I’ll bet there aren’t that many getting executive and professional jobs they hoped to have after college. They’re probably working as sales clerks or waitresses.
Sorry, but I think this is all bogus. Fact is, there are no jobs. Men and women — everyone, no matter their education level, are out of work.
Another thing, I was told once by a MAN, who said his goal was to marry a woman who knew how to work, then he did not have to, and she still had to do all the other chores as well to make HIM happy. I think many (not all), men have that same mindset.
Woman can work, bring home the bacon, fry it up and say proudly, "We are Woman", looks like the plan worked.
Requires degree.
Really? I feel sad that this is the case. Yeah, it’s tough out there, but I want to get a good job so I can support a wife and kids.
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2 ‘07 New York Observer
With Hillary Clinton still the leading Democrat in the race for president, a lot of news stories over the next year will discuss women voting patterns. Some women may well vote for Mrs. Clinton, even if they disagree with her policies, simply because she is a woman. Terms like “historic” will be thrown around a lot, but Mrs. Clinton’s run really just represents a continuation of a trend that started about a hundred years ago, when women started voting in large numbers.
In fact, if you believe all the academic research that voters do a very good job of putting into office the right politicians who represent their interests, Mrs. Clinton’s specific election is really besides the point.
Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn’t go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.
For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women’s vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004.
The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures.
Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women’s average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands’ relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women’s support for high taxes understandably declines.
Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor.
The more certain a woman is that she doesn’t risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers.
Has it always been this way? Can women’s suffrage in the late 19th and early 20th century thus help explain the growth of government? While the timing of the two events is suggestive, other changes during this time could have played a role. For example, some argue that Americans became more supportive of bigger government due to the success of widespread economic regulations imposed during World War I.
A good way to analyze the direct effect of women’s suffrage on the growth of government is to study how each of the 48 state governments expanded after women obtained the right to vote. Women’s suffrage was first granted in western states with relatively few women — Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893) and Idaho (1896). Women could vote in 29 states before women’s suffrage was achieved nationwide in 1920 with the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
If women’s suffrage increased government, our analysis should show a few definite indicators. First, women’s suffrage would have a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. And secondly, the size of government in western states should steadily expand as women comprise an increasing share of their population.
Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women’s suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling. Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting.”
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
This phenomenon is the result of the Communist-orchestrated “Women’s Lib” movement, and the very effective Madison Ave and Hollywood propaganda that foisted it on both the men and women of this nation.
They have been very effective at undermining our society, and this is one of the key results.
If he's at all mechanically inclined there's mechanic [or carpenter, and I mean carpenter in the master-worker-with-wood rather than the nail-wood-frames-together sense].
Trade school, or if he’s business-minded (deal-maker type), stock-broker.
This system won’t survive. Eventually it will implode when there are too many idle or under-utilized males. They will become violent and then organize under the most vulgar leader. Look at the black community. Listen to how hip-hop/rap treats women. Either we turn in a different direction, or the entire US will fall to the lowest common denominator.
Women should dominate. They should control everybody and run everything.
"Equal right" was never about equal rights.
It was about using the legal system to overcome the natural limitations of the sexes and impose a new world order with lesbian alpha-bitches at the top.
Father Knows Best Nothing.
Shuddup idiot...
“What do you think the best job areas are for a non-University-bound, not-particularly-academically-gifted male?”
First of all, does HE care about what he wants to be, or are YOU forcing the issue? Without his cooperation, all you’re going to get out of him is, “I don’t know...I don’t know...”
If he’s behind this push, then send him to a career counsellor who can give him some tests to see where his interests lie. OR - hit the library for a few books that can show you both the same.
Find out what his passions are, and then do some brainstorming to see how those passions can he turned into cash. :)
I sure wish more young adults would do this. There are SO many people not working in their ‘right livelihood’ which just makes everyone miserable; employers and employees, both.
I’m paraphrasing here, but there’s a quote out there about how everything on the planet KNOWS what it is born to do (animals, bugs, plants, etc.) and Man is the only one who has a huge say in the matter, and yet he does relatively nothing in the Big Scheme of Things, LOL!
Ok but one might also argue “The Mommy Factor” skews these stats. Even if the college numbers are true, can’t the “78% of jobs lost belonged to men” be a reflection that after it’s all said and done, males still dominate the workplace?
Look at the websites for doctors, law firms, CEOs/CFOs, etc. . you get my drift. Still male-dominated. Military? No question? Trades and crafts? How many females do we know who got licensed as CPAs or lawyers, etc. and dropped out or went part time in order to have a family? I know LOTS of them and I know CPA firms that seasonally hire Moms to do tax work because the kids are in school, mom can make some extra money or keep her skills sharp, and the firm doesn’t have to employ them full-time, pay benefits, maybe not even provide a cubicle as they can tele-commute.
I don’t doubt some of the trends mentioned or implied here. But to suggest women are (or might be) taking over it just flat out wrong. Occupations still pretty much keep their gender dominations, whether it’s the professions, trades, flight attendants, nurses, teachers, etc. I don’t see that changing much.
Part of it is that women are the socialists of our society. They are subsidized though college to go into fields like social work, teaching and nursing, which are in turn subsidized by the state. Hey, I should write a book on this.
My previous post has a lot of merit to it, as I have seen this with many I know. The women are just plain tired all the time, with having to carry the whole load. God had a plan for the family, as a consequences of disobeying that plan, we have seen the results with this messed up society. May GOD richly bless you and your family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.