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

[King Ming]

... And will lose the War to China and Russia

 

[King Ming]

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

This!

 

[King Ming]

Saw this comment below on the YT video

GMB

"Many of us entering marriage age are from divorced homes and saw our parents get absolutely screwed. My parents split when I was 7 (both working, dad earning roughly 1.5x my mom's salary), and my mom won his pension, full custody and child support, alimony, and 100% of their joint non-retirement portfolio. My mom then moved us over an hour away only 3 years later, so I rarely got to see my dad who gave up so much for us... My dad became depressed due to all of this (as confirmed by his longtime girlfriend after the divorce), ended up retiring at 50 (despite no financial position to do so), and died penniless at 61. So yeah, no marriage for me, or at least not until 1) I'm a lot older and have my own assets that I can keep out of the marriage or 2) they fix the family courts to not absolutely ruin the higher earner or the parent who loses primary custody."

 

[folasade]

Saw this comment below on the YT video

GMB

"Many of us entering marriage age are from divorced homes and saw our parents get absolutely screwed. My parents split when I was 7 (both working, dad earning roughly 1.5x my mom's salary), and my mom won his pension, full custody and child support, alimony, and 100% of their joint non-retirement portfolio. My mom then moved us over an hour away only 3 years later, so I rarely got to see my dad who gave up so much for us... My dad became depressed due to all of this (as confirmed by his longtime girlfriend after the divorce), ended up retiring at 50 (despite no financial position to do so), and died penniless at 61. So yeah, no marriage for me, or at least not until 1) I'm a lot older and have my own assets that I can keep out of the marriage or 2) they fix the family courts to not absolutely ruin the higher earner or the parent who loses primary custody."

Is this supposed to make us feel bad or sympathetic toward him?

 

[ogc163]

 

[Imback]

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.

Insanity.

Sitting back and ridiculing others to be the "educated black" that aligns with white liberalism?

Everything you typed is pure BS. Women have always been the main drivers for the majority of all financial decisions in the majority of all households.


This nikka said women don't drive car sells?


They dont even have majority men in focus groups for cars that men buy at a 80%+ rate.

You masqueraded as a fake capitalist to defend white liberasim.


You're full of it.

 

[KingSol81]

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.

This. The quicker you figure that shyt out the better off you'll be. Don't get it twisted tho, its not a reason to go woman hating incel like the weak often do, just means you gotta work harder and move smarter.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Insanity.

Sitting back and ridiculing others to be the "educated black" that aligns with white liberalism?

I know you're new here, so you don't realize how laughable it is to suggest that I'm a fan of white liberalism.

Everything you typed is pure BS. Women have always been the main drivers for the majority of all financial decisions in the majority of all households.

You seem to be jumping into a conversation midway without understanding what we're talking about. The question was whether there is a conspiracy to get women into the workplace and force men out of the workplace, in order to boost capitalism.

If women have always been the main drivers for all financial decisions in the majority of households, then why would it be necessary to boost their incomes? Your argument goes the exact opposite of his, there would be no need to boost female income over men if they're already making the financial decisions.

This nikka said women don't drive car sells?


They dont even have majority men in focus groups for cars that men buy at a 80%+ rate.

No, what I said is that women spend less on their cars than men do. Men tend to purchase the more expensive cars. Thus, someone who wanted to boost car spending would try to ensure that single men had more money to spend than single women do.

The conversation has nothing to do with "who" makes the decision in two-parent households, that is completely irrelevant because in two-parent households, the income is pooled so it doesn't matter who made it. The conversation is about what decisions are made when the other gender is out of the picture completely.

You masqueraded as a fake capitalist to defend white liberasim.

You're full of it.

What the fukk was pro-capitalism in my response? I hate capitalism.

 

[Wild self]

This. The quicker you figure that shyt out the better off you'll be. Don't get it twisted tho, its not a reason to go woman hating incel like the weak often do, just means you gotta work harder and move smarter.

Its also the reason why school shootings have skyrocketed in recent years

But continue to ignore that fact, and let the self destruction of the education system in America continue.

 

[Imback]

I know you're new here, so you don't realize how laughable it is to suggest that I'm a fan of white liberalism.

Most your posts are a black voice to white liberalism thinking. Your thoughts always end up where they think we should end up.

Havent seen any discourse towards white liberalism? Would you like to share some?

You seem to be jumping into a conversation midway without understanding what we're talking about. The question was whether there is a conspiracy to get women into the workplace and force men out of the workplace, in order to boost capitalism.

If women have always been the main drivers for all financial decisions in the majority of households, then why would it be necessary to boost their incomes? Your argument goes the exact opposite of his, there would be no need to boost female income over men if they're already making the financial decisions.

Bc they used to spend for 5 ppl collectively in the household and now you can get the ones that dont spend for 5 ppl to just spend on themselves.

You realize that women made the primary buying decisions for all ppl within households for decades right?

If kids items are a market, who is the main buyer of that market? Stupidity.

No, what I said is that women spend less on their cars than men do. Men tend to purchase the more expensive cars. Thus, someone who wanted to boost car spending would try to ensure that single men had more money to spend than single women do.

The conversation has nothing to do with "who" makes the decision in two-parent households, that is completely irrelevant because in two-parent households, the income is pooled so it doesn't matter who made it. The conversation is about what decisions are made when the other gender is out of the picture completely.

Men buy cars to impress women.

Thats why women are the majority attendees in focus groups for the most the expensive sports cars. They dont buy, but they like cars. Men buy cars that women like. Welcome to capitalism.

What the fukk was pro-capitalism in my response? I hate capitalism.

What?

The guy that wrote an entire post completely making up a reality where women didnt drive 80% of buying decisions and capitalists wouldnt tailor entire economies towards these buyers..... isnt a capitalist.

I couldnt tell

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Most your posts are a black voice to white liberalism thinking. Your thoughts always end up where they think we should end up.

Havent seen any discourse towards white liberalism? Would you like to share some?

Like these?

No, it's because they failed to deliver to EVERYONE other than their elite. Black, Brown, working-class, young, and leftist voters ALL have felt let down by the last 30 years of neoliberal Democratic politics, which is why a ton of seats that used to be assured are no longer so.

Every minority group in America already knows she [Clinton] would toss absolutely anyone under the bus if it interfered with her political goals.

Gotta walk the line with the majority, that NeoLiberal Agenda ain't gonna vote for itself.

Great exposures of both Obama policy and IMF policy in this thread.

Haven't watched the video, but the obvious thought it that MLK Jr. spoke on this during the civil rights movement. Google MLK and "white moderate".


But right now the environmental collapse issue is the #1 example of this. Moderates (and rich liberals who claim not to be moderates while acting just like them) are just as responsible for this as conservatives are because they have just as little desire to make the necessary changes to stop it from happening.

Scientific model says chance of societal collapse in the next few decades is "sky high"

Chances Of Societal Collapse In Next Few Decades Is Sky High, Modelling Suggests TOM HALE Senior Journalist Earth's civilization has a “very low probability” of surviving the next few decades without facing a catastrophic collapse, according to a study published in the Nature journal...

www.thecoli.com

You are correct that wealthy White liberals are often advantaged by a continuation of the present system. That is why opening our mouths in forceful objection, to the point of (as this man advocates) even economic non-participation, is a worthwhile pursuit. I believe they still have empathy, or at least can be shamed, and that change is possible even for them.

This is our neoliberal nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, an...

So what exactly is neoliberalism, and how is it different from classical liberalism, whose final manifestation came under Keynesianism?

Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of government-provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged.

When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts—in response to demands for reregulation of finance, for instance—that we have to abide by “the rule of law,” this reflects a particular understanding of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms. In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.

One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything—everything—is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings.

No argument, no receipts, just a "NO YOU'RE WRONG" with smileys.

Pro-market, pro-globalization, pro-free trade, continuing to fight for American hegemony....Obama certainly governed as a neoliberal just like the Clintons.

But of course, go ahead and call the GOAT Cornell West ignorant on this issue too.

Pity the sad legacy of Barack Obama | Cornel West

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/neoliberalism-democratic-party-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-barack-obama

The decline and fall of neoliberalism in the Democratic Party

The Collapse of Neoliberalism

Obama's Original Sin

Obama’s neoliberal agenda for education | International Socialist Review

Being in “The Room Where it Happens”: Hamilton, Obama, and Nationalist Neoliberal Multicultural Inclusion

Neoliberal Social Justice: From Ed Brooke to Barack Obama

This is our neoliberal nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and why the market and the wealthy win every time

Obama and Clinton are neoliberal as fukk breh.

Clinton came in and straight up said, "We need to look at market solutions". He then pushed deregulation and pro-market policies as far as he could. Obama came in during the midst of the financial crisis, the best chance for reform we've had, and basically said, "The most important thing is to get these financial institutions up and running again, and we can't afford to punish them for what they did wrong because we need them."

Democrats and neoliberalism


On to enterprise zones, microloans, welfare-to-work, charter schools, and cap-and-trade, you can also add NAFTA, free trade deals across the world, and the refusal to meaningfully regulate Wall Street even after the 2008 collapse.

This is why Wall Street loves Clinton and Obama so much. They continue to support its basic narrative. Establishment Dems pretend to distinguish themselves from far-right Republicans on regulation matters only by pushing a little around the edges, by not being as absolute extremists. But it's the same basic worldview. Just look at how many of the same finance figures (Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner, Jason Furman, Paul Volcker, Ben Bernanke) were doing the same shyt for Obama that they had done for Republicans.

These aren't just pundits - several of these are academic sources explaining exactly how neoliberal ideas attached themselves to Clinton and Obama and their advisers.

Bill Clinton and the Neoliberal Presidency

SAGE Reference - The Neoliberal Origins of the Third Way: How Chicago, Virginia and Bloomington Shaped Clinton and Blair

It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump | Naomi Klein

Hillary Clinton and the Big (Neoliberal) Lie | Mondialisation - Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation

The Rise and Fall of Clintonism

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Let's start right off the top, @Imback. The data I shared on single male versus single female buying decisions has absolutely nothing to do with who makes the decision in a two-parent household. So your entire argument makes no sense from the rip.

Bc they used to spend for 5 ppl collectively in the household and now you can get the ones that dont spend for 5 ppl to just spend on themselves.

You're seriously claiming that not having babies helps capitalism?

I'm pretty damn sure that capitalists prefer to expand both their consumer and worker base and aren't rooting for demographic collapse. Damn near all the fearmongering about "We're not having enough babies!" comes from Elon Musk-style ubercapitalists.

You realize that women made the primary buying decisions for all ppl within households for decades right?

If kids items are a market, who is the main buyer of that market? Stupidity.

It's like you have no fukking clue what is being discussed. It doesn't matter who makes the decisions in two-parent households. The question was whether capitalists would want to take money away from men so that women will spend it instead. If you think that women were already the ones making the decisions, that sabotages the entire argument, because there's zero need to interfere if the women are already in control..

Men buy cars to impress women.

Thats why women are the majority attendees in focus groups for the most the expensive sports cars. They dont buy, but they like cars. Men buy cars that women like. Welcome to capitalism.

It doesn't matter why men buy the cars, the point is that men tend to buy the more expensive cars so capitalists would prefer that men have the money.

WTF does "But they do those things to impress women!" have anything to do with the conversation?




The question was whether capitalists want men to make money, or want women to make money. Arguing, "But women have always made the decisions for two-parent households, and single men spend more because they want to impress women!" is so completely irrelevant to that discussion that I think you need to re-read the thread from the beginning.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The guy that wrote an entire post completely making up a reality where women didnt drive 80% of buying decisions and capitalists wouldnt tailor entire economies towards these buyers..... isnt a capitalist.

I couldnt tell

Breh, I'm one of the most consistent anti-capitalist posters on this board.

Let's just look at posts from the last month:

This shyt goes back to capitalism every time. If your entire system is built around profit motive, then how the fukk are you going to get money out of the equation? Equating money with power ensures that politicians will be bought.

As was Malcolm X. Not to mention Fred Hampton, Bobby Seale, Stokely Carmichael, Angela Davis, Assata Shakur, WEB DuBois, Bayard Rustin, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Ella Baker, James Farmer, Paul Robeson, and literally hundreds of others.

It was at the organizational level too - there were multiple Black Communist groups and even the majority white ones were heavily involved in black rights (the Communist Party USA, for example, are the ones who defended and set up legal representation for the Scottsboro Boys). The Black Panthers were straight up Marxists and he wants to make a stupid claim like saying socialist and communist ideology doesn't have space for race issues?

The communism of the Black Panther Party<!-- --> | <!-- -->Red Flag

The Black Panther Party were revolutionaries, working to create a new mixture of Marxism, Black nationalism, and anticolonialism. As the FBI tried to crush them as quickly as possible, the Panthers were fighting to develop a strategy for revolution in the US, and to build a party that could both...

redflag.org.au

Assata Shakur on capitalism, socialism and anti-communism

"Capitalism meant that rich businessmen owned the wealth, while socialism meant that the people who made the wealth owned it." #antiracism #policebrutality #prisoners'rights

www.liberationnews.org

In the McCarthy Era, to Be Black Was to Be Red - JSTOR Daily

The Marxist sympathies of Black radical leaders like Paul Robeson, Alice Childress, and Lorraine Hansberry made them targets for the FBI.

daily.jstor.org

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194

“A forthright stand”: Communists in the struggle for Black lives

“The people who are afraid to raise their voices and take a forthright stand in the fight for civil rights are only creating a quicker opportunity to have their own heads chopped off.” —W.

cpusa.org

“A forthright stand”: Communists in the struggle for Black lives

“The people who are afraid to raise their voices and take a forthright stand in the fight for civil rights are only creating a quicker opportunity to have their own heads chopped off.” —W.

cpusa.org

Socialists and the civil rights movement | International Socialist Review

IN THE current era of neoliberal assaults, it is heartening to read about another period when the status quo was challenged. The civil rights movement did not emerge in a golden age—after all, it...

isreview.org

Yup. Not just Black figures like MLK either - Helen Keller was a hardcore communist, they'll show her entire childhood movie in schools but refuse to say ONE word about what she did with her actual life because she was so anti-capitalist.

Didn't forget him, I consciously left him and some 20-25 others off, like Claude McKay, Hubert Harrison, Jack O'Dell, etc. If you look at the ones I listed, I consciously chose names that I thought the casuals here would actually recognize.

Yup. Also the Southern Negro Youth Congress, National Negro Congress, and I know at least a couple I'm forgetting.

Capitalism is unsustainable on multiple levels. The constant transfer of wealth to the rich is unsustainable. The constant environmental destruction is unsustainable.

The people with power who perpetuate capitalism know this, but they also know that capitalism provides the best opportunity for them to maintain and even increase their position at the top. So they're at constant war between two impulses - the one impulse to use capitalism to increase their power, and the other impulse to reign in the system so it doesn't cause a collapse.

If they were solely focused on the consequences, without the profit motive and greed diverting them in the opposite direction, they'd work far harder to reign in the system or possibly even abandon it altogether.

Yup. In a capitalist system, people with the most money don't merely get wealthier and wealthier, they get more and more power. Your ability to influence politics is in large part a function of how much money you have. Your ability to navigate the legal system (whether you're defending yourself or suing someone else) is in large part a function of how much money you have. Your ability to access the highest level of health care is in large part a function of how much money you have. The quality of education you can access for yourself and your children is in large part a function of how much money you have. The quality of your housing, your neighborhood, your insurance, fukking everything.

Capitalism doesn't just create wealth disparities. It accentuates disparities in virtually everything.

This is how capitalism works. Justice for the rich is different than justice for everyone else. I mean come on, last year the "Trump Organization" was convicted of 17 counts of tax fraud. Not a person, just the organization, which was then fined about 0.05% of Trump's net worth. Imagine if a random street hood could get away with crimes because the D.A. decided that he didn't do that shyt, it was "The Bloods" who did it.

Until we're willing to divorce the legal and political systems from capitalism, then this will always happen. Money is power, and those with power will rig the game to protect their own.

I've tried to repeat this to the bootlickers over and over. The entire system is built on the idea that people with more money get further and further ahead of people with less money.


This bullshyt about "Well you just need to learn the system and you can win too!" is blind to what the system is. Sure, some people by the right skills or luck can carve out a place. But that will never be true for MOST people in MOST situations, because the system is explicitly designed to not only keep the top people at the top but ensure they accumulate more and more of the total resources while they're there.

The natural progress of capitalism is for the wealthiest people to gain more and more resources and control until there's either a revolution or a huge crash.

Why do you think capitalism breeds innovation?

In my experience on the science side of things, capitalism is just as likely to stifle innovation as to promote it. Most people who profit off of innovation had nothing to do with developing it, they just jumped on the bandwagon afterwards and took credit for it. Look back over history, and the people who invented shyt were rarely the ones who profited off of it. That's why people think Elon Musk is some sort of creative genius, when he just acquired shyt like PayPal and Tesla from other people. (Ironically, the only reason Tesla has succeeded was due to massive government subsidies that overcame "market forces".) Generally, the people who pursue true innovation would do so regardless of capitalist motivation, the capitalists are just parasites who jump in once the idea is already successful.

Another problem is that capitalism puts money into the ideas that make money, not the ideas that help humanity. Car manufacturers make more money selling private vehicles than improving public transportation, so we have billions of dollars put into giant, unnecessary SUVs that were destroying the planet. Electric cars have been around a hundred years, but no finances put into R&D because the oil industry wanted to keep selling oil. Way more money spent advertizing for beef, or promoting junk food made from soy and sugarcane and palm oil plantations that are destroying the rainforest, than is made developing sustainable agriculture. Capitalism means that enormous funding is spent on erectile dysfunction, baldness treatments, fertility treatments, and any diseases like high blood pressure that impact rich people, while preventable diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea, which primarily impact poor people, hardly get any attention at all.

It's most obvious when you think of the arts. Does capitalism actually create better music, or does it simply push people towards derivative bullshyt? Does it make better movies, or does it just mean that the 45th Marvel picture will be coming out soon and that remakes, sequels, and adaptations will always get produced before anything original? The people who make the truly original stuff, the truly interesting stuff, are usually the ones who can just barely scrape together enough funding to get their project together, and often as not by attracting funders who don't expect to make their money back.

And it's why we rushed into social media, smartphones, and now AI, without really examining whether they were good for society or bad for it, because everyone is too afraid of losing the profit advantage and making profit matters more than looking out for the welfare of the entire society.

@DEAD7, I think you severely underestimate how tremendously capitalism has led to the collapse of environmental systems worldwide, and what an existential threat that currently proposes. Or the growing concentration of wealth and power in a more and more powerful elite. The miniscule time frames at which you wish to declare "capitalism works" aren't viable.

How could you pretend to be reading my posts and come to the conclusion I'm a capitalist bootlicker?

 

[Imback]

Breh, I'm one of the most consistent anti-capitalist posters on this board.

Let's just look at posts from the last month:





















How could you pretend to be reading my posts and come to the conclusion I'm a capitalist bootlicker?

I know you know nothing about capitalism, that’s why your post about single women not being a capitalistic driven model was complete bs.

You dk what you’re talking about

 

[Imback]

Let's start right off the top, @Imback. The data I shared on single male versus single female buying decisions has absolutely nothing to do with who makes the decision in a two-parent household. So your entire argument makes no sense from the rip.






You're seriously claiming that not having babies helps capitalism?

I'm pretty damn sure that capitalists prefer to expand both their consumer and worker base and aren't rooting for demographic collapse. Damn near all the fearmongering about "We're not having enough babies!" comes from Elon Musk-style ubercapitalists.

Of course women not having babies improvises capitalism. In America it has.

Our youth rate has increased since 1965 not decreased. So effectively we are adding more children for women to buy for, while also increasing the rate of single women spending money on themselves.

Hyper capitalism dumbass