Fannie's Room
Now this is interesting.
As you point out, this affirmative action for boys is being taken even though there is no real-world consequences of this gender imbalance.
Make me suspicious of the motives.
I am the father of a girl who was a scholar and a boy who is a slacker.
He could use all the help he can get, but I would quite upset if a girl as studious as my daughter lost out to slacker like him.
John,
I too am a bit suspicious of the motives and of the general idea that there's a "war on boys." I've read a bit about this alleged war, from different perspectives. My personal opinion is that this "war on boys" is something that grew out of a backlash to feminism. Further, as this article discusses, rather than there being some sort of crisis that effects all boys, it has more to do with race and ethnicity, rather than gender:
"It becomes clear that if there is a crisis, it's among inner-city and rural boys. White suburban boys aren't significantly touched by it. On average, they are not dropping out of school, avoiding college or lacking in verbal skills. Although we have been hearing that boys are virtually disappearing from college classrooms, the truth is that among whites, the gender composition of colleges is pretty balanced: 51 percent female and 49 percent male, according to the National Education Association. In Ivy League colleges, men still outnumber women."
We should be addressing the disparities related to race/ethnicity rather than blanketly granting privileges to boys as a class (especially white suburban boys) who aren't actually harmed.
That was a very insightful article, and quite consistent with what I see in my suburban school district.
I think, Fannie, that your missing what the true motives of the universities are. They are not trying to address some past grievance or give disadvantaged boys a "leg up", but rather equalize their matriculation statistics. In other words, they're not trying to help boys, but rather help themselves.
Colleges believe (rightfully) that academics thrive in areas with great socioeconomic, racial, sexual, etc. diversity. They also want to be able to appeal to the broadest demographics possible for the purposes of getting not only applicants, but also financial support. As the article you cited claims, "[colleges are] ensuring that the freshman class is not 70-30 female, because that makes the school less attractive to male and female applicants alike."
I don't think this is a "women's lower earning potential be damned, we have to help OUR BOYS!" scenario. I think it's merely universities addressing their own interests. Perhaps you believe that the need for women in higher political and professional positions trumps the universities' desire for a gender-diverse student body, and that's a fair position. But I don't think that the solution is in increasing female enrollment, nor that there is a danger in increasing male enrollment. An education defines at least some factor of an individual's earning potential to be sure, but I think the biggest problem is the deeply held, archaic point of view of both men and women that women are simply "incapable" of doing what men can do.
That may be a more metaphysical problem to try to address than college admissions statistics, but I don't read "gender war" in the colleges' decisions. They merely want as many applicants and donations as possible.
That all having been said, I am offended by the notion that reducing pastel colors and increasing Xbox tournaments will draw males to colleges. If that's really what appeals to boys, maybe we should stop letting them go to college after all.
Brian,
I agree, they're not trying to address past grievances, as there are no past grievances to address when it comes to boys as a class and education. Now that I think about it again, it does seem like the article sort of focused on how the university was more interested in helping itself more than anything. Colleges want relatively equal numbers of men and women attending because it looks "bad" if the numbers are too skewed. The article didn't really delve into whether colleges in general are concerned about the alleged boy crisis-- but it is certainly something that men's rights are concerned with.
And, even if the intent of the universities is relatively benign, I think my larger point is that it would have a greater harmful impact on women in the long run (in part because of what you talk about with respect to the belief that women can't do men's jobs).
Anyway, I too thought the Xbox bit was weird. I mean, are kids going to summer camp or college? And I can see why men would be offended by that- it's sort of like "we better dumb down college so boys will like it."
In countries like Finland the disparity is real. In 2000 there were 147 women to 100 men graduating through their "high-school" system (which is different from ours in that it is more academic, and there are vocational school alternatives, albeit those provide less chances for higher education).
In student count of the university level there were 116 women for 100 men. Out of actual university graduates, there were 150 women to every 100 men.
(in Finnish
http://spektri.oph.fi/page.asp?
p...0,644,651,18454
Considering that country has a very tiny racial or ethnic minority component, I think it is worth studying on what is causing boys to drop out early. If for no other reason then just to prevent the same from occurring here.
This is surprising and strange. I wonder how many of the champions of the "men are generally more science- and math-minded than women" school of thought would stand behind the idea of lower admission standards from men, since this would be like me giving a running buddy a "needed" head start in a 5K and then proceeding like an assmunch to fall even further behind once I get going myself.
If their ideas about a math/science gap are correct, well, it's not shining through in testing or at least in grade-point averages (not that math and science constitute the whole of students' academic records, but still). And if their ideas are wrong, then maybe the people shouting them down have a point. Either way, something is amiss.
As for Vox Day, he doesn't really rise to the level of "misogynist" because such a simple designation is drowned out by his startling panoply of other noisome deficits in character and reasoning. He's a borderline sociopath or a sociopath-wannabe who would rather be hated than ignored, hence the conspicuous overreaching in his "columns"; and although this is perhaps not altogether germane, he sports one fucked-up excuse for a haircut.
Markos, what is the effect of Finland's disparity?
In what way is this damaging to men, women or Finnish society?
Markus,
Welp, too bad I don't speak Finnish 
I wonder if it's the case that more boys are graduating from vocational schools rather than the regular high schools.
Kemibe,
I've been casually observing the Vox Day character and I think your analysis is pretty accurate. It's my personal opinion that he's in the asinine-for-attention club (giving women the vote has caused all of our problems, really? Gimme a break). Anyway, his haircut is germane insofar as one can point out the irony of a misogynist wearing a vagina on his head.
Commenting by HaloScan
