Text
Why aren't we talking about the real reason male college enrollment is dropping? (Celeste Davis, Oct 6 2024)
"White flight is a term that describes how white people move out of neighborhoods when more people of color move in.
White flight is especially common when minority populations become the majority. That neighborhood then declines in value.
Male flight describes a similar phenomenon when large numbers of females enter a profession, group, hobby or industry—the men leave. That industry is then devalued.
Take veterinary school for example:
In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.
By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.
By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%
A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.
But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”
Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.
For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied.
One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition! (…)
Since males had dominated these professions for centuries, you would think they would leave slowly, hesitantly or maybe linger at 40%, 35%, 30%, but that’s not what happens.
Once the tipping point reaches majority female- the men flee. And boy do they flee!
It’s a slippery slope. When the number of women hits 60% the men who are there make a swift exit and other men stop joining.
Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”
Now we’ve reached that 60% point of no return for colleges.
As we’ve seen with teachers, nurses and interior design, once an institution is majority female, the public perception of its value plummets.
Scanning through Reddit and Quora threads, many men seem to be in agreement - college is stupid and unnecessary.
A waste of time and money. You’re much better off going into the trades, a tech boot camp or becoming an entrepreneur. No need for college. (…)
When mostly men went to college? Prestigious. Aspirational. Important.
Now that mostly women go to college? Unnecessary. De-valued. A bad choice. (…)
School is now feminine. College is feminine. And rule #1 if you want to safely navigate this world as a man? Avoid the feminine.
But we don’t seem to want to talk about that."
32K notes
·
View notes
Text
Also, let’s not pretend that the moment an industry becomes female dominated it doesn’t change drastically.
Women make workplaces incredibly hostile for men the second they’re in charge, which usually happens long before they’re the majority.
Women utilize HR at much higher rates than men do, and men and women prefer different things in the workplace.
So I’m sure there actually is some validity to the concept of male flight, but it’s not about the public perception of a profession’s value.
It’s about men not wanting to deal with the drama and hostility that comes with being in the minority under women.
Why aren't we talking about the real reason male college enrollment is dropping? (Celeste Davis, Oct 6 2024)
"White flight is a term that describes how white people move out of neighborhoods when more people of color move in.
White flight is especially common when minority populations become the majority. That neighborhood then declines in value.
Male flight describes a similar phenomenon when large numbers of females enter a profession, group, hobby or industry—the men leave. That industry is then devalued.
Take veterinary school for example:
In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.
By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.
By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%
A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.
But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”
Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.
For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied.
One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition! (…)
Since males had dominated these professions for centuries, you would think they would leave slowly, hesitantly or maybe linger at 40%, 35%, 30%, but that’s not what happens.
Once the tipping point reaches majority female- the men flee. And boy do they flee!
It’s a slippery slope. When the number of women hits 60% the men who are there make a swift exit and other men stop joining.
Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”
Now we’ve reached that 60% point of no return for colleges.
As we’ve seen with teachers, nurses and interior design, once an institution is majority female, the public perception of its value plummets.
Scanning through Reddit and Quora threads, many men seem to be in agreement - college is stupid and unnecessary.
A waste of time and money. You’re much better off going into the trades, a tech boot camp or becoming an entrepreneur. No need for college. (…)
When mostly men went to college? Prestigious. Aspirational. Important.
Now that mostly women go to college? Unnecessary. De-valued. A bad choice. (…)
School is now feminine. College is feminine. And rule #1 if you want to safely navigate this world as a man? Avoid the feminine.
But we don’t seem to want to talk about that."
32K notes
·
View notes
Text
A new set of gender identities won’t ever succeed, at least not in any lasting way, because the existing gender norms weren’t just fabricated by some people sitting around pontificating.
They’ve developed organically over thousands of years of societal interactions, and they are what they are because they describe something real and true about men and women.
Sure, every society has some things unique in its gender norms compared to other societies, but there is a great deal of basically universal overlap that developed independently pretty much everywhere people have ever been.
For whatever it's worth:
In my experience, if you actually go to the trouble of "constructing [gender] identities" for other people to adopt, they love it and it goes amazingly. If you do it with any skill, at least.
Indeed, you could convincingly argue that one of the major tactical mistakes of the recent left-identitarian movement - one of the major causes for its ever-less-deniable failure to secure the kind of cultural traction that it wants - has been its insistence on dissolving existing [gender] identities while stubbornly refusing to construct any real new ones to replace them. "Something kinda androgynous" and "whatever, you do you" were never going to cut it.
45 notes
·
View notes
Text
A much delayed update to this saga:

Nobody gets to dictate what I post on this blog. I make no money off this so I don’t owe any of you anything.
So the shipf*gs are still at it.
I saw this posted under the hashtag "dinluke".
If Anakin wanted grandkids, why the hell would he be pushing for Luke and Din to get it on?
Did nobody teach these children how babies are made?
Gay fetishization is one hell of a drug.
56 notes
·
View notes
Photo
It's amazing they're acting as though they're correcting misunderstandings about these disorders while leaning into the patently false "depression = sad" misconception.
Chronic depression can manifest as sadness or suicidality, but has little to do directly with either
Depression is merely a lowered or "depressed" mood. It is essentially a deficit of any of a number of "positive" moods and traits.
Energy, enthusiasm, motivation, happiness, joy (which is not happiness), love, and many more things are on that list.




What You Say About Mental Illness vs What You Actually Mean.
293K notes
·
View notes
Text
Several of these fail his definition once their batteries run dry.
Also on that first one, who has all that space in their wall just sitting empty? That's a deep ass wall to not even have insulation.
Ch👍
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
Being a Wi-Fi Hotspot doesn't mean you have Internet connection, so it's pretty useless by itself.

this is tougher than it should be given the title
863 notes
·
View notes
Photo
That episode where he held a little girl’s hand while she died was from an episode of Batman Beyond that tied in with Justice League.
I could be wrong because I can't be bothered to look it up, but I'm pretty sure this is backwards.
Pretty sure it's a Justice League episode that hooks in with Batman Beyond.
Also, Batman punches anyone who’s threatening others, including supervillains, mass murderers, and rich people.
He also donates a great deal to charity.
Magneto is a straight up racial supremacist. He has tried to create an ethnostate for der ubermenschen.
It’s ironic that a progressive supports him just because he’s an Angry Minority™.
…Ivy has mind-controlled, enslaved and murdered people.
That’s literally her main shtick.
Previously.
567 notes
·
View notes
Photo
I'm going to have to quibble with the idea that teaching sex in school is necessary.
For most of human history we got by just fine without sex ed.
Even if we agreed that kids should learn certain things about sex before a certain age, why is it necessary for this to happen in the schools?

138K notes
·
View notes
Text
Even if they weren't different, and a lot of them are very similar, the reason there are so many is because Chikfila did such a good job while being hated for being owned by Christians, so a thousand other places decided to try to steal their market slot.
Ok, as an economic idiot, why would we expect capitalism to do a good job allocating scarce goods?
It seems to me that what we would expect from econ 101 is that when the supply of a good is low relative to the demand, the price would increase, thus tending to distribute that good to people who have more wealth, and away from people who have less wealth.
My poor understanding of the market is that what it succeeds at is, when there is a small supply of goods relative to demand, market forces spur the creation of more of the good to meet demand.
But that of course entails that it's actually possible to supply more of the good, i.e. that it is *not* scarce.
In situations where the supply is inherently constrained in some way, wouldn't we expect the price to remain high?
As a concrete example, my Dad's cancer treatment cost him half a million dollars. He does not have half a million dollars. Luckily for us, he has medicare.
If we assume that there is a floor to the cost of cancer treatment, that in some sense the price of his treatment is a rational response to market conditions (in terms of the skilled labor and complicated machines and medicines used to treat it) then why would we expect the cost of that treatment to reach a place where he could afford it out of pocket?
132 notes
·
View notes
Text
The number one problem with Canadians, right there.
Be offensive. Speak the truth. Grow some damn balls.
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
Comparing libraries, for which there is no market demand, with the Internet, for which there is unlimited market demand, is about the stupidest thing I’ve read today.
A…library that runs on taxpayer money and is controlled by the state is “punk”?
Or the ones that exist because powerful capitalists gave away a lot of their money? Like the Rockefellers? Or Andrew Carnagie?
Also, that academia she complains about? Heavily funded by taxpayers and private donations.
Most US college loans are federal.
@ancappunk
It probably won’t surprise anyone to learn that thejennnster has me pre-blocked. Ironic for someone who wants to paint themselves as an edgy rebel. fighting against conformity.
122 notes
·
View notes
Text
“If God were the sort of being most Christians suppose him to be, he would be beside himself with boredom listening to their whinings and flatteries, their redundant requests and admonitions, not to mention the asinine poems set to indifferent tunes which are solemnly addressed to him as hymns.”
— Alan Watts
5K notes
·
View notes
Text
He took away their Look At Me I’m Special badges.
definitely the cruelest thing about Elon’s takeover of Twitter is the constant reminding to everyone who hates him and all changes has been “I can do anything to make this site worse, and you still won’t leave.”
it’s like if Hell not only had an exit, but Satan put blinking lights around it to remind you that you’re here because you won’t go anywhere else.
953 notes
·
View notes
Text
How much you want to bet that same person has several screeds against gerrymandering?
The 10 states with most gun deaths per capita compared to their rank in gun ownership:
Mississippi (28.6) -> 7th, 55.8%
Louisiana (26.3) -> 13th, 53.1%
Wyoming (25.9) -> 2nd, 66.2%
Missouri (23.9) -> 20th, 48.8%
Alabama (23.6) -> 8th, 55.5%
Alaska (23.5) -> 3rd, 64.5%
New Mexico (22.7) -> 25th, 46.2%
Arkansas (22.6) -> 6th, 57.4%
South Carolina (22) -> 17th, 49.4%
Tennessee (21.3) -> 14th, 51.6%
The 10 states with lowest gun deaths per capita compared to their rank in gun ownership:
Hawaii (3.4) -> 47th, 14.9%
Massachusetts (3.7) -> 49th, 14.8%
New Jersey (5) -> 50th, 14.7%
Rhode Island (5.1) -> 49th, 14.8%
New York (5.3) -> 46th, 19.9%
Connecticut (6) -> 45th, 23.6%
California (8.5) -> 43rd, 28.3%
Minnesota (8.9) -> 33rd, 42.8%
New Hampshire (8.9) -> 35th, 41.1%
Nebraska (10.1) -> 27th, 45.2%
The 5 states with the least amount of guns are also the 5 states with the least number of gun deaths. 5 of the top10 states in gun ownership are also in the top10 in gun deaths. While New Mexico and Nebraska are right in the middle of gun ownership but opposite ends of gun deaths, there is still a definite correlation in gun deaths and gun ownership.
None of the 10 states with the most gun deaths require a background check to purchase a firearm, a permit to purchase, or require you to register a firearm
Compared to the 10 states with the lowest gun deaths, 5 of the 10 states require a permit, background check and you have to register firearms. 8 of the 10 require a permit and background check.
Other countries deal with mental health issues, they deal with domestic violence, they deal with criminals, they deal with poverty, they deal with all these things... yet NO FIRST WORLD COUNTRY HAS ANYWHERE NEAR THE MASS SHOOTINGS WE DO. Stop with the bullshit excuses. The answer is simple, the solution is simple.
I'm so fucking over this... this isn't a political debate, this shouldn't be happening. This isn't a matter of opinion, If you are against common sense gun reform laws (background checks, permit to purchase, registering all firearms) then you're either NOT A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN (cuz if you were you'd be able to do all those things) or you're so unbelievably selfish and ignorant that thousands of innocent lives lost is okay to you as long as you dont have to go through a minor inconvenience to buy your guns. Despicable. And if the youre the 2nd one... then go fuck yourself and stop ruining this country, you are despicable.
292 notes
·
View notes
Text
Defining three words invented by communist propagandists seems to me like a pointless effort anyway.

Stuff like this radicalizes me. How is this the best system we have?
80K notes
·
View notes