Plus, female teachers demonstrate a significant grades bias in favour of girls, and since the k-12 system has become overwhelmingly women, this makes said bias systemic and deeply misandric.

This massive over representation of women as educators also means that they frequently pathologize typical boy’s behaviour, and treat them like broken girls, further compounding the loss of confidence that boys have that leads to lower scholastic performance and higher dropout rates.

Finally, this problem becomes a wider societal issue when post-secondary enrollment becomes over two-thirds women.

First, this causes an equity crisis among the institutions as they must now deem men as being the disadvantaged gender that needs equity assistance. This puts these institutions squarely into the crosshairs of female supremacist organizations that deem any benefits for men as being “misogynistic”, deeply heretical, and a justification for social, economic, and political cancellation of whatever institution implements these programs.

And secondly, educated women now face a rapidly-shrinking pool of “economically attractive men” above them, as hypergamy prevents them from considering a massive oversupply of otherwise perfectly appropriate men who have black marks of socially unpopular careers or inadequate (lower) incomes.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

I think the part people are calling red-pill and incel-y from your post is not your sources. Its this section that is all your own opinion and conjecture after your actual backed-up points.

This puts these institutions squarely into the crosshairs of female supremacist organizations that deem any benefits for men as being “misogynistic”, deeply heretical, and a justification for social, economic, and political cancellation of whatever institution implements these programs.

And secondly, educated women now face a rapidly-shrinking pool of “economically attractive men” above them, as hypergamy prevents them from considering a massive oversupply of otherwise perfectly appropriate men who have black marks of socially unpopular careers or inadequate (lower) incomes.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was with you until the red pill type stuff at the end.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

yea it was wierd til he mentioned, "why wont woman date "less attractive and POOR men that looks reasonable according to incel logic". yea because the woman doesnt want to be one paying for the mans livelyhood, and it also goes both ways.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Holy redpill incel batman.

I guess Lemmy will swallow Xtra strength red pills if coated in articulate and sciency sounding jargon.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Acknowledging differences in children's learning abilities and habits is not inherently a bad thing. We aren't asking the system to start favouring boys, we just want it to be as equal as possible by providing a variety of education techniques and opportunities to all students.

One potential change could be having a male and female teacher grade all major assignments to account for the allegeded girl favouritism in OP's comments. I know myself I failed an essay in high school because i had an english teacher refuse to accept that metal music and hard rock could express more emotions than just anger. I can't say that was a gendered problem, probably more of a beliefs problem, but it certainly wasn't fair marking.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think that is the key issue.

Boys just aren't interested in school at an early age because it isn't really geared to them. Then they fall back, and can't catch up.

Boys are marketed things like cars, guns, and motorcycles from a very early age. If the boy doesn't have a teacher that has any knowledge of these things, they just aren't that interested. I doubt that many female grade 6 teachers could tell a young boy the different between a V4, I4, and flat 4 engine. Or even fain an interested in discussing things like how a jet ski works vs. a regular propeller driven motor boat.

I think that the solution is that schools should have a specialist math/physics teacher starting in grade 6. Just like a regular classroom teacher can't really teach music, a regular classroom teacher can't really teach things like math/physics properly. These are specialty disciplines.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't even need to be the "manly man" stuff you listed. Many boys would enjoy catching and counting frogs or bugs for a school project. And a lot of them prefer a more hands on environment when learning. Instead of drawing chemical structures in science they may prefer building them with 3d modeling toys.

Also just having more opportunities to burn off some energy can help them stay focused. Even in college if i started getting too fidgety and losing focus a couple laps walking around the building would help me regain my focus.

Every child is different. There may be some girls who have similar interests or struggles just as there may be some boys who would prefer to spend recesses nose deep in a book instead of on the sports field.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think that there is much of a biological difference between girls not being fidgety and boys being fidgety. That line of argument tends to degenerate quickly into pseudo-science eugenics. I believe by grade 6, the heavy amount of gender marketing just means boys and girls have different interests.

I really don't think that many female grade 6 teachers have any knowledge or interest in guns/cars/planes/programming and can't even answer the most basic questions that a young male child might have.

I think that the solution is starting from grade 6, schools should have a specialized math/physics teacher. This would help both girls and boys. To teach physics properly you really need to be very well versed in it, that same with mathematics if not more. So many students fail to gain an interest in math because of a bad teacher, a teacher that was typically just winging it in math lessons.

Without shop classes schools have really suffered. They were a good way to get kids to learn to measure properly, and do applied mathematics. From that you had a natural way of teaching classical Greek geometry, then into sine tables.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I dont know.

Im interested in what yoy said earlier, how school isnt geared for boys.

I have a son in middle school, albeit, in special edu. I have watched these teachers bend backwards to "gear things to his interests". Everything from working his favorite book series "Wings of Fire" into math work, rewards for doing the boring stuff. My son has turned down all the books from the book list, and they let him chose his own and aproved it on the side because what he chose was higher than grade level. Art class.. they were to pick something simple to draw, and my son for some reason chose a sports car, then got upset it was hard. The art teacher did extra work to help "gear it to his interest" and it failed. That one was funny to me, I explained why he should have just chosen the baseball and rolled with it. But, my sons teachers, bend backwards to "gear to his interests" I dont know how else it could be done. Hes had both male and female teachers, like what else?

noting not all schools are the same, but I think its more than this, what exactly, I dont know, but. When I told my son he needed math to be a carpenter (what he, at the moment, wants to do when hes older) he started to pay better attention.

Math is math, science is science, I dont remember any school work being "geared to my interests" as a lady any morw than you know, picking your own book from the list. My son has had so much more choice than I ever had in school, I dont know what more could be done.

My guess, wild guess, would be boys are ignored by their parents more often than girls. When I was pregnant people were constantly telling me, "boys are easier (to raise)". They are not, I think a lot of parents let thier sons slip through the cracks and are neglected emotionally and socially.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 days ago

Holy redpill incel batman.

We're doing name-calling again?

I guess Lemmy will swallow Xtra strength red pills if coated in articulate and sciency sounding jargon.

I don't see where you're challenging the facts that led to the conclusions you seem to be responding to. I hope that's coming, and I'll watch the thread for it.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Holy redpill incel batman.

If by that you are saying, “I am being faced with objective truths that make me upset and which I cannot handle”, then yes, absolutely.

(Nice ad hominem, BTW; it’s a great way of conceding that you have absolutely nothing of value to counter with.)

But that’s the beauty of facts - they don’t give a single shit about your feelings. They’re reality.

And personally, I tend to be rather obsessed with reality. It ends up being a far better framework than Ideological fantasies.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Reality", like equating a bunch of research done on American education systems (which vary by state too) to the Canadian education system, and then shitting out a conclusion you clearly already had determined.

Damn, are you trying to replace Charlie Kirk? By how you fooled so many here you obviously got a strong potential there. Thought people here would be a little more immune to being manipulated by random facts that seem to be related but are not, and would know correlation doesn't equal causation.

I didn't address this initially because it should be pretty damn obvious once called out for people to realize the bullshit you spout. But in hindsight this comment pointing out the gigantic red flaw in your whole "work backwards from a conclusion" is probably necessary.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That's a strong opinion.

The other commenter backed up their opinion. Do you plan to do the same?

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

The other commenter said they stated facts, not opinion. You calling it an opinion already proves a good deal of my point.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

And are these "female supremacist organisations" in the room with us now?

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Delicious ironing

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

sorry, what does that mean?

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

That the ironing is very tasty

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago

in the us, i believe women overwhelming have higher degree in men for BIO, like 60%, often they are attracted to nursing, but thier ratio in volunteer lab is about the same 60% women mostly, and the male PI prefers them over men too. although men still dominate the PHD levels though. and then biotech employers prefer women as well over men. they are slowly getting there though with other stem jobs.