Why American boys are failing at school—and men are losing in life

[Reality]

I honestly think we're never going back in terms of boys/men's ambition unless marriage & fatherhood regain their appeal. Males used to aspire to husbandry & fatherhood, but that's a hard sell these days.

We don't have the same consumer appetite as women, generally speaking, so there's less incentive to seek out stable careers that provide decent earnings once you've written off being a husband or father. Which I believe a large portion of Gen Z boys and men have done.

I'm not sure how you can have an honest discussion about men failing without also calling into question modern consumerist feminism. What conservatives do have right is that decades of calling men worthless doesn't go without harm to both men and women.

There are ways to have men more emotionally & psychologically prepared to deal with today's realities (encouraging male friendship, cultivating your own individual interests vs. interests that are associated with economic productivity), but I'm not sure that will "fix" anything when it comes to men being higher achievers. If anything, it would just help avoid future violence. But having men as economic engines (which is what I think these articles really concern themselves with) in the same way in 2030 as they were in 1970s is a ship that's set sail.

Maybe a controversial opinion, but I'm not sure that you can have a peaceful society when those with the most sexual access (women) are also the highest achievers/earners & also don't have to worry about the quality of their sexual partners (due to contraception). Men's chemistry would need to change.

 

[Wild self]

I honestly think we're never going back in terms of boys/men's ambition unless marriage & fatherhood regain their appeal. Males used to aspire to husbandry & fatherhood, but that's a hard sell these days.

We don't have the same consumer appetite as women, generally speaking, so there's less incentive to seek out stable careers that provide decent earnings once you've written off being a husband or father. Which I believe a large portion of Gen Z boys and men have done.

I'm not sure how you can have an honest discussion about men failing without also calling into question modern consumerist feminism. What conservatives do have right is that decades of calling men worthless doesn't go without harm to both men and women.

There are ways to have men more emotionally & psychologically prepared to deal with today's realities (encouraging male friendship, cultivating your own individual interests vs. interests that are associated with economic productivity), but I'm not sure that will "fix" anything when it comes to men being higher achievers. If anything, it would just help avoid future violence. But having men as economic engines (which is what I think these articles really concern themselves with) in the same way in 2030 as they were in 1970s is a ship that's set sail.

Maybe a controversial opinion, but I'm not sure that you can have a peaceful society when those with the most sexual access (women) are also the highest achievers/earners & also don't have to worry about the quality of their sexual partners (due to contraception). Men's chemistry would need to change.

Sad, but true.

Men are being set back because they dont consume products as much as women and men are tired of being the support system of ungrateful people. Classrooms on that military nonsense and complete verbal abusive authority are not the way of the 21st century. No more critical thinking and more drill quizzes and surprise tests will lead to violent outbursts, seen in recent years.

 

[OfTheCross]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I blame capitalism. America values the dollar and know women are loyal spenders compared to men. That's why the last few decades there has been a strong push for women in education, careers, self-empowerment, and the list goes on and on. Right now this country doesn't have a platform for male development and could care less. They are even letting girls join boyscouts now. As long as institutions are getting paid, they could care less about the impact.

First off, this is simply false and built on ridiculous stereotypes. In reality, men spend more on cars, entertainment, and food than women do. Women spend more on clothes and consumer goods. Men invest in the stock market more, women are more likely to save for a down-payment on a home. Women put a higher % of their pre-tax income into retirement plans.


If there was some sort of nebulous national Illuminati conspiracy to elevate women over men due to their spending habits, then you'd have to believe that the world was run by the clothing and consumer goods industries, who were able to fukk over the automobile, entertainment and food industries as well as Wall Street. That's.....a hell of a reach.

On top of that, you'd have to believe that a bunch of powerful men had made this plan, but would not see the fruits of their plan for 30-40 years in the future, at which point they couldn't possibly benefit from it....so the world's most powerful men are involved in a giant overreaching conspiracy to fukk over boys and advantage girls even though it would be of no benefit to themselves just so they can help out an industry 40 years down the road that won't even be run by them?

You're basically saying that Sears, JCPenny, and Toys 'R Us fukked over the country so that, in the future, Amazon could benefit.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

We don't have the same consumer appetite as women, generally speaking, so there's less incentive to seek out stable careers that provide decent earnings once you've written off being a husband or father.

I'm not sure how you can have an honest discussion about men failing without also calling into question modern consumerist feminism. What conservatives do have right is that decades of calling men worthless doesn't go without harm to both men and women.

Ironic screenname because none of these talking points are rooted in reality.

Men in general have massive appetites for cars, entertainment, food, expensive collecting (cards/sneakers/guns/etc.), gambling, and even just plain "winning" financially whether that means playing the stock market or flipping houses or being able to call yourself a six-figure guy. There are plenty of very masculine reasons to want an income stream and the idea that women put money back into the economy at a significantly higher rate than men isn't even true.

And I'm over 40 and have somehow gone my entire life without feeling that society had "written off men as worthless". You'd have to be out on the far fringe of society before finding anywhere where that was even plausible.

Maybe a controversial opinion, but I'm not sure that you can have a peaceful society when those with the most sexual access (women) are also the highest achievers/earners & also don't have to worry about the quality of their sexual partners (due to contraception). Men's chemistry would need to change.

Yeah, I'd say for certain that "men are so fukked up that we can't have a peaceful society if women are high achievers" is a pretty disturbing opinion to have. It sounds like you have an incredibly low opinion of men.

Men are being set back because they dont consume products as much as women and men are tired of being the support system of ungrateful people.

The fact that you used the phrase "the support system of ungrateful people" in reference to men is fukking wild.

You really need to get off the internet or hang out different people because there are waaaaay more families where that describes women than it describes men. I mean, even in saying it you're showing who the "ungrateful" one is.

 

[Geek Nasty]

Long story short, nobody actually gives a fukk about men. You’re on your own to figure the shyt out. Obviously it trickles down to the boys.

I started watching this news segment on this issue. Of course the panel was mostly women, and the one placating man on the panel said something like "well I don't have much sympathy for men since a lot of unqualified men have had an unfair advantage for decades."

And THAT's the issue. You younger dudes I don't think appreciate how anti-man culture is getting. Shoot me for reading lately, but there was some huge recommended thread on "hey ladies what would you do if there were no men for a day?" Of course shyt like "I'd walk home from the bars in a miniskirt" or "I'd go hiking naked!" getting all the upvotes.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I started watching this news segment on this issue. Of course the panel was mostly women, and the one placating man on the panel said something like "well I don't have much sympathy for men since a lot of unqualified men have had an unfair advantage for decades."

And THAT's the issue. You younger dudes I don't think appreciate how anti-man culture is getting. Shoot me for reading lately, but there was some huge recommended thread on "hey ladies what would you do if there were no men for a day?" Of course shyt like "I'd walk home from the bars in a miniskirt" or "I'd go hiking naked!" getting all the upvotes.

There have been literally hundreds of threads on here that said waaaaaay worse things about women than that.

In my real life not even 5 women in 100 is angrily anti-man.

 

[Geek Nasty]

There have been literally hundreds of threads on here that said waaaaaay worse things about women than that.

I don't equate Coli babble on the level of a nationally televised CNN segment. I also watched a TYT segment on teh same issue yesterday; they started out with blaming toxic masculinity and I changed the channel.

 

[WIA20XX]

The focus is on average suburban white boys, which means this is really a problem for us .

But the things he's talking about Black men have dealt with since the 70's.

Tony Brown once said that if the white community wants to see it's future, look at the black community.

I think the causes he mentions (female teachers, system geared for female brains, etc) are on point, but incomplete. What to do with average guys is a problem globally and historically.

And I think he is missing some of the social/cultural factors that lead to lack of family formation.

As for solutions, just holding boys back a year, doesn't address a flawed educational system not to mention a really different economy.

Capital buys STEM people and JDs and MBAs to put regular people out of work on top of creating the "need" to consume.
The overall society around the globe is moving towards stem, heal, and automation.

Even if we reach post scarcity, the ownership framework doesn't stop

 

[Gritsngravy]

The focus is on average suburban white boys, which means this is really a problem for us .

But the things he's talking about Black men have dealt with since the 70's.

Tony Brown once said that if the white community wants to see it's future, look at the black community.

I think the causes he mentions (female teachers, system geared for female brains, etc) are on point, but incomplete. What to do with average guys is a problem globally and historically.

And I think he is missing some of the social/cultural factors that lead to lack of family formation.

As for solutions, just holding boys back a year, doesn't address a flawed educational system not to mention a really different economy.

Capital buys STEM people and JDs and MBAs to put regular people out of work on top of creating the "need" to consume.
The overall society around the globe is moving towards stem, heal, and automation.

Even if we reach post scarcity, the ownership framework doesn't stop

Black people are lab rats for society

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

I don't equate Coli babble on the level of a nationally televised CNN segment. I also watched a TYT segment on teh same issue yesterday; they started out with blaming toxic masculinity and I changed the channel.

If you're referring to the segment they had where they interviewed Vaush then you completely missed the point of the segment and it was actually a pretty honest discussion about the topic. The whole premise was about them addressing blind spots in progressive idealogy that allows the grifters and red pillers who genuinely don't give two shyts about men, but will exploit their pain and powerlessness more than any woman could ever hope to do, to thrive so well when courting their clicks and dollars.

 

[Consigliere]

I don't equate Coli babble on the level of a nationally televised CNN segment. I also watched a TYT segment on teh same issue yesterday; they started out with blaming toxic masculinity and I changed the channel.

It was actually a good segment.

Ana has been starting to push this. Wouldn’t be surprised if she posts or lurks here… or has an intern who does.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I don't equate Coli babble on the level of a nationally televised CNN segment. I also watched a TYT segment on teh same issue yesterday; they started out with blaming toxic masculinity and I changed the channel.

I was referring to you talking about some random thread you saw. Which is the exact equivalent of Coli babble and all sorts i of similar babble you can find all over the internet. Look at how popular Andrew Tate was or how mainstream "intellectual" Jordan Peterson got at one point.

In terms of the CNN segment, you didn't say anything wild about it at all, just that one random guy said one offhand comment about unqualified guys. CNN has all sorts of people on panels including Trump supporters, I'm not going to be offended at one man saying something that was quite literally true even if it is unhelpful in the moment. And other people are telling you that the TYT segment was good but you made assumptions.

 

[Reality]

Ironic screenname because none of these talking points are rooted in reality.

1. Men in general have massive appetites for cars, entertainment, food, expensive collecting (cards/sneakers/guns/etc.), gambling, and even just plain "winning" financially whether that means playing the stock market or flipping houses or being able to call yourself a six-figure guy. There are plenty of very masculine reasons to want an income stream and the idea that women put money back into the economy at a significantly higher rate than men isn't even true.

2. And I'm over 40 and have somehow gone my entire life without feeling that society had "written off men as worthless". You'd have to be out on the far fringe of society before finding anywhere where that was even plausible.





3. Yeah, I'd say for certain that "men are so fukked up that we can't have a peaceful society if women are high achievers" is a pretty disturbing opinion to have. It sounds like you have an incredibly low opinion of men.

1. Men, Women & Money - How the Sexes Differ With Their Finances

Men and women differ not just in how they shop, but also in what they like to shop for. A 2015-2016 Consumer Expenditure Survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics highlights several differences in spending choices between single women and single men. Here’s how the sexes stack up in different areas:

• Total Spending: Single men spent slightly more than single women overall – $35,018 as opposed to $33,786. However, the men earned roughly $10,000 more per year than the women. Both sexes ended up spending more than their after-tax income, but the women were over budget by a greater amount.
• Food: Single men spent more on food than single women. Their annual food bill was $4,173, as opposed to $3,680 for the ladies. They also spent much more on alcoholic beverages – $537 per year compared to the women’s $234.
• Clothing: Not surprisingly, women spent more on “apparel and services” than men. Their annual cost came to $1,140, while the men spent only $813. Women also spent $595 a year on personal care products and services like skin and hair care – more than twice as much as the men’s $233 per year.
• Cars: Men spent more than women on personal transportation – a total of $5,507 per year as opposed to $4,273. Nearly all of that difference was for car-related expenses, such as vehicle purchases, gas, and maintenance. For public transportation, the two sexes spent about the same.
• Entertainment: Men and women spent roughly the same amount each year on entertainment. However, they split up their entertainment budget in different ways. Men spent an average of $835 on “audio and visual equipment and services” but only $206 caring for pets. Women, by contrast, spent $725 on their home theaters and $488 on their pets.

2. Obviously men have value...but the online popular discourse, especially with women these days, is that men are useless. And outside of a Gilette ad here or there, you will hardly see any mainstream media campaigns celebrating men's value whereas this is certainly the case with women. Women say it explicitly and the culture says it implicitly.

I suspect age is a facto here too. You're 40. You're not talking to younger 30-something women or 20-something women. There is absolutely a narrative of "men are trash" or "men are worthless." Hop on a dating app if you want...you'll see it right there in their profiles, which is kind of mind-blowing.

3. Is a bad faith restatement of what I said. If women are out-achieving men, and the pool of men that can substantially IMPROVE the lives of women economically while also checking romantic & sexual boxes shrink, this is definitely going to lead to violence as long as men still have linear expectations around achievement & romance. Most dudes aren't that well-adjusted breh.


I respect your posts & knowledge drops elsewhere, but this is one of those things where I think age matters a great deal in terms of understanding what's going on. I look at how my younger cousins & friends are increasingly talking about women, and I think you're missing how destabilizing it is to have women increasingly finding dating & relationships w/ the average or median male unattractive.

Women develop legitimate support systems via their friends...they can cuddle each other, express platonic love openly, etc. etc., and not have any stigma around being gay or unwomanly. Lonely men don't have the same out at the moment. And that lack of connection or any reason to aspire to anything IS dangerous.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

1. Men, Women & Money - How the Sexes Differ With Their Finances

That agrees with literally everything I said except for entertainment, and an update on the entertainment shows that men spend more there too:

Single men outspent single women on entertainment in 2019–20, but single women spent more on pets : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2019–20, single men spent 33.5 percent more on entertainment, on average, than single women ($2,106 versus $1,577). Single men also spent more than single women on four out of five entertainment categories. Only on pets did single women outspend men. Single women spent an average of $504 on...

www.bls.gov

In 2019–20, single men spent 33.5 percent more on entertainment, on average, than single women ($2,106 versus $1,577). Single men also spent more than single women on four out of five entertainment categories. Only on pets did single women outspend men. Single women spent an average of $504 on pets, while single men spent an average of $381. Single women spent 32.0 percent of their entertainment budget on pets, compared with 18.1 percent for single men.

You completely skipped this part of your link too, which shows that women save a HIGHER proportion of their paychecks then men, they just don't make as much. Why the fukk would the Illuminati try and boost up the people who were saving a higher % of their checks and spend less time in the workforce?

But this doesn’t mean that women aren’t squirreling away as much of their paychecks as men. On the contrary, a 2017 study by Fidelity found that women save a slightly larger percentage of their income than men do, both in workplace retirement accounts and in outside accounts like IRAs. Similarly, a 2017 Vanguard survey found that women are more likely to take part in workplace retirement plans, such as 401k and 403b plans, than men earning the same level of income. Women also put more of their pretax earnings into these plans: between 2% and 8% more than their male coworkers.

The problem is that, while women are saving a larger share of their earnings, those earnings are smaller than men’s. If a woman making $30,000 saves 10% of her salary, while her male coworker with a $40,000 salary saves only 8%, he’ll still end up with $200 more in his account each year. That’s not a huge difference, but thanks to the power of compound interest, it will add up to much bigger savings over time – especially if he continues to earn more and save more than she does year after year.

Adding to the problem is the fact that women are more likely than men to take time off from work while their children are young. Even if they’re only away from the workplace for a few years, that’s a few years during which their salaries – and their savings – drop to zero. By the time they return to work, they lag behind their male peers in both income and retirement savings, making it difficult to catch up.

And you skipped this part of your link too, which shows that men take on more debt than women and for dumber reasons:

Amount of Debt​

Men tend to carry more debt than women, though sources disagree over just how much more. A 2016 analysis by Experian shows that women carry an average of 3.7% less debt than men overall, and their average mortgage loan is 7.9% smaller. The Vanguard report found that men had borrowed an average of $10,424 to women’s $8,755, a difference of about 16%. And a 2017 study by GoBankingRates found that men had an average of $95,057 in debt compared to $31,037 for women – more than three times as much.

However, this isn’t true for all types of debt. For instance, Credit Sesame reports that women have more student loan debt than men, and they take longer to pay it off. Women are more likely to go to college, so they’re more likely to have student loans, but they also get paid less, so they have a harder time paying off those loans after they graduate.

Men and women also have different reasons for borrowing money. A 2018 study at American University found that men are more inclined than women to borrow money for luxury goods they wouldn’t be able to afford otherwise. Women, by contrast, tend to use debt to “smooth consumption” – that is, to make ends meet when they’re going through a rough patch. They’re much more reluctant to borrow money for nonessentials.

Paying Off Debt​

Women are also a bit more diligent about paying off debt than men. According to the Experian study, women are about 8% less likely to fall behind on their mortgage payments than men. Women also have slightly higher credit scores, averaging five points more than men.

Even though men are more likely to run into problems with debt, they’re less likely to seek help in dealing with them. Credit counselors interviewed by Bankrate say the majority of their clients – about two out of three – are female. Men are more likely to put off seeking help with credit until “just before the creditors showed up at the door,” according to one certified credit counselor.

Men and women also have different approaches to paying off debt. The experts in the Bankrate article say women usually look for ways to cut expenses in the household budget, while men tend to focus on trying to increase their income. (The best approach, according to experts, is a combination of the two.)

And you neglected to post the rest of your link, which further kills your argument:

Cost Consciousness​

Studies suggest that women tend to be more price-conscious shoppers than men. For example:

• Outlet Shopping. A 2008 study by New Zealand’s Massey University found that women were more likely than men to shop at outlet stores, which offer name-brand goods at lower prices. Men prefer to shop at traditional department stores, which charge full price but have a wider selection.
• Shopping Sales. Women are more likely to look for sales when shopping online. According to an infographic by PaymentSense, 71% of women say the last item they bought online was on sale, compared to only 57% of men.
• Buying Store Brands. A 2015 Nielsen study indicates that women are more willing than men to switch to store brands and other less expensive grocery brands. Over 40% of women said that they had changed to cheaper grocery brands to save money, while only 30% of men had done the same.

So the Illuminati own all the cheap brands, but the name brands are getting fukked over?

https://www.moneycrashers.com/men-women-money-sexes-differ-finances/


Breh, your OWN LINK killed your argument. According to your own link women spend less money, buy cheaper brands, spend less on big purchases like cars and entertainment and luxury goods, save a higher % of their paycheck, go into less debt, and make less impulsive financial decisions.....but and your argument is that corporations are somehow juicing up women's prospects through magical thinking because they're wasteful big spenders?

The only part of the entire essay that supported you at all was that women spend somewhat more relative to their paycheck, but your own link showed that was because they make way less and have higher college loan debt thus have to spend a higher % of what they make just to get by. The claim that they are more forceful or wasteful spenders was total bullshyt.