An NYU professor says fewer men going to college will lead to a 'mating crisis' with the US producing too many 'lone and broke' men (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

This is sort of right up my alley. I've been aware of this since the mid-'90s, when one of my bosses started getting heavily involved with this topic. I used to start topics like these on the main board, before there was a PSF.

At issue are many things, and I don't really feel like having a debate with your average lefty on the board about it because I'll have somebody imply that I was a janitor where I worked and all will be for naught. It's sad, really, because I have a lot of background in this issue and it's not something that gets discussed in polite company, anywhere. There are too many intangibles and people are too wrapped up in their own cultural and political biases to see clearly on the issue.

Looking at facts, test scores, enrollment rates, and other things make it easy to see. Men are falling way behind in obtaining degrees. Leave it at that. Now, when you try and draw conclusions from this or assert that there are causes, look at the grey area you get involved with.

This isn't something to solve on a message board. I'd posit that we not only feminized society, we did so structurally, emotionally, and willfully. This makes it very, very hard to assert anything concrete without it coming off, like somebody pointed out earlier, like an incel arguing about women.

But we know several things are true. Women don't date lower than their own status, which cuts the dating pool for them when men don't attain status. We know that the cognitive elite are pairing off in ways that are actually dangerous to meritocracy. We know that boys are not achieving, outside of STEM, on any level close to women and girls at the collegiate, high school, middle school, or elementary level.

What to do with this has captured the imagination of most Western countries. England, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that have seen the swell of men on their safety nets and the absence of men both in the home and in the workplace have commissioned government agencies and blue-ribbon panels to deal with the issue.

This isn't a Gekko rant. This is simply somebody reporting on something that's been going on since we Revived Ophelia in the school setting. We basically have a system where it's very difficult to earn a living as a worker with a high school degree, we need workers in the trades but we've farmed them out to other countries, and we import immigrants to do that labor. This is just simple fact.

What to do with it, the assumptions behind it, the causes and shocks of it are another matter entirely.

But we have a men shortage. That this isn't coming from a conservative corner of academia is a good thing. Maybe someone will listen.

 

[The Z Machine]

While I disagree a lot with @rockaction in many areas, I agree with him in many, but not all the points above.

This is one of the reasons I'm not opposed to affirmative action, even if it means that those that historically have power are now marginalized, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do things to change the system. 

 

[BladeRunner]

While I disagree a lot with @rockaction in many areas, I agree with him in many, but not all the points above.

This is one of the reasons I'm not opposed to affirmative action, even if it means that those that historically have power are now marginalized, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do things to change the system. 

You can't fight racism with even more racism.  There has to be a better way.

 

[Nugget]

Since a lot of community colleges offer trades, certainly reducing the cost of community colleges could help open up these options to those who could benefit.

Kansas opened this up for 2 year programs at many community colleges - Kansas Promise Scholarship

The state is putting $10 million annually toward helping students who enter certain high-demand fields pay for a community college education. Scholarship recipients are required to work in Kansas for two years after they complete their education.

Examples of eligible programs - 

Automation Engineer Technology, AAS
Computer-Aided Drafting and Design Technology, AAS
Construction Management Technology, AAS
Construction Management Certificate
Electrical Technology, AAS
Electrical Technology Certificate
Electronics Technology, AAS
Electronics Technology Certificate
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Technology AAS
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Technology Certificate
Metal Fabrication/Welding Technology, AAS
Metal Fabrication/Welding Certificate
Plumbing Technology Certificate

An investment in education is great for the state - would love to see more take advantage of this.  

 

[quick-hands]

This is sort of right up my alley. I've been aware of this since the mid-'90s, when one of my bosses started getting heavily involved with this topic. I used to start topics like these on the main board, before there was a PSF.

At issue are many things, and I don't really feel like having a debate with your average lefty on the board about it because I'll have somebody imply that I was a janitor where I worked and all will be for naught. It's sad, really, because I have a lot of background in this issue and it's not something that gets discussed in polite company, anywhere. There are too many intangibles and people are too wrapped up in their own cultural and political biases to see clearly on the issue.

Looking at facts, test scores, enrollment rates, and other things make it easy to see. Men are falling way behind in obtaining degrees. Leave it at that. Now, when you try and draw conclusions from this or assert that there are causes, look at the grey area you get involved with.

This isn't something to solve on a message board. I'd posit that we not only feminized society, we did so structurally, emotionally, and willfully. This makes it very, very hard to assert anything concrete without it coming off, like somebody pointed out earlier, like an incel arguing about women.

But we know several things are true. Women don't date lower than their own status, which cuts the dating pool for them when men don't attain status. We know that the cognitive elite are pairing off in ways that are actually dangerous to meritocracy. We know that boys are not achieving, outside of STEM, on any level close to women and girls at the collegiate, high school, middle school, or elementary level.

What to do with this has captured the imagination of most Western countries. England, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that have seen the swell of men on their safety nets and the absence of men both in the home and in the workplace have commissioned government agencies and blue-ribbon panels to deal with the issue.

This isn't a Gekko rant. This is simply somebody reporting on something that's been going on since we Revived Ophelia in the school setting. We basically have a system where it's very difficult to earn a living as a worker with a high school degree, we need workers in the trades but we've farmed them out to other countries, and we import immigrants to do that labor. This is just simple fact.

What to do with it, the assumptions behind it, the causes and shocks of it are another matter entirely.

But we have a men shortage. That this isn't coming from a conservative corner of academia is a good thing. Maybe someone will listen.

What is the point of a gekko shot?   

 

[rockaction]

What is the point of a gekko shot?   

It was a long post. Gekko's theories are often out there and wildly speculative. There's nothing speculative about men getting degrees at a much lower rate than women and that there's an absence of men on campus.

I didn't want anything to even approach Gekko territory with that undeniable fact. It's too important for some low-grade psychological incel I've-seen-the-world-and-let-me-tell-you #### that Gekko does.

If anything, I'm about as friendly to Gekko on this board as any man that disagrees with him on most things.

Why are your panties in a bunch?

 

[quick-hands]

It was a long post. Gekko's theories are often out there and wildly speculative. There's nothing speculative about men getting degrees at a much lower rate than women and that there's an absence of men on campus.

I didn't want anything to even approach Gekko territory with that undeniable fact. It's too important for some low-grade psychological incel I've-seen-the-world-and-let-me-tell-you #### that Gekko does.

If anything, I'm about as friendly to Gekko on this board as any man that disagrees with him on most things.

Why are your panties in a bunch?

I thought your post was informative  and well thought out.

As far as why my panties are in a bunch.   I just cut the lawn.  We have had a lot of rain and I haven't cut it in 16 days.   I had to cut it twice bagging the second cut.    I'm very sweaty.

 

[GROOT]

So Affirmative action now works the other way now?

 

[rockaction]

I thought your post was informative  and well thought out.

Thanks. My only reason for the Gekko inclusion was length and an attempt to distance myself from any speculation or root cause arguments.

Men are not getting degrees like women. They're not attending university in relation to women at all.

Women do not marry down in status.

The cognitive elite, as Charles Murray predicted in The Bell Curve, is real. Forget the racial implications of that book. His main thesis is coming to fruition, and he long ago knew how dangerous it was for an elite to form that is within a free structure and has characteristics that are largely genetic and are statistical indicia of success in the Western World.

Dangerous. Dangerous. Dangerous. Dangerous.

But at some point, root causes are going to have to be talked about. The politicization of the actual is what I want to avoid.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

But at some point, root causes are going to have to be talked about. The politicization of the actual is what I want to avoid.

I would enjoy this type of conversation because I agree with you. Though maybe for different reasons and I assuredly have different solutions.

 

[rockaction]

I would enjoy this type of conversation because I agree with you. Though maybe for different reasons and I assuredly have different solutions.

This type of conversation is very interesting to me. I've tried to have it many, many times on this board but other people have long had problems with the initial assertions that I make. I'm more than willing to hear people out if they agree to the premises. I know for a fact that certain people that popularized these sentiments have politics that are wildly different than one would expect. They just sided with the people that were willing to keep the premises as true. To wit: That IQ is heritable. That little statement is so incendiary to our current system and our overall thoughts about our system and culture as to render it circumspect to those outside of the psychometrician purview. But IQ experts pretty much all agree on the issue, the only thing up for grabs is the gradient.

Anyway, I'm in a music draft. I think I'm up. I'll come back to this.

 

[Shula-holic]

UW - Madison:  $5600 per semester and another $5 or $6K for dorms that they REQUIRE freshman to stay in.

As someone who owns real estate in college towns this is all to ensure their rooms are used/filled and the cash rolls in.  Sure, living in the dorms is good for some, but this should hardly be a one size fits all policy.  Even if just a quarter of students are better living on their own or in private housing for whatever reason, they should be able to do so.

 

[Shula-holic]

To an extent, but I think dating apps make potential mating choices more varied than those historically available.

I know this is stereotypical, but just in general guys could care less about a woman's education if she's hot enough.  There's that sliding scale that if she's hot enough, she can bag a husband who makes enough money to support her if she's unable to do so herself.  In the other direction though, most times women don't care as much about a guy's looks.  If a guy is successful, has money or power, he has lots of choices.  This doesn't mean every man or woman are this way, but in general if you're a successful man or hot woman, you have lots of options.  So I guess I can see if fewer men are attending college and becoming successful the theory behind it.

 

[Shutout]

As someone who owns real estate in college towns this is all to ensure their rooms are used/filled and the cash rolls in.  Sure, living in the dorms is good for some, but this should hardly be a one size fits all policy.  Even if just a quarter of students are better living on their own or in private housing for whatever reason, they should be able to do so.

As someone who owns real estate in a college town, I disagree to an extent. There has long been supporting data behind the facts that students transitioning from highs school to university life, especially when they are coming form somewhere outside the local community, fare much better  with their grades, finances, and live in a safer atmosphere, by and large, when they establish that first year on campus. Just to state the other side.

 

[Shula-holic]

As someone who owns real estate in a college town, I disagree to an extent. There has long been supporting data behind the facts that students transitioning from highs school to university life, especially when they are coming form somewhere outside the local community, fare much better  with their grades, finances, and live in a safer atmosphere, by and large, when they establish that first year on campus. Just to state the other side.

You could be right that it’s the majority. I lived in an apartment all through college and grad school and never regretted it. It was better for me to have kind of a place to be when I needed to buckle down and study. Maybe for others the needs are different. I just know that for the colleges it’s a financial thing. They don’t truly care beyond the ROI on their housing, which conveniently gets locked in when they mandate students live there. 

 

[The Z Machine]

There's no such thing as "female education" or "male education", but I would say that many girls are socialized to succeed and be rewarded in school for their behavior and many boys are socialized with the opposite effect. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Seems like the answer is just for all of us to become bisexual.

 

[GordonGekko]

Gekko's theories are often out there and wildly speculative.

I'm open to hearing what you find wildly speculative.

Those who speak up should step up.

 

[rockaction]

I'm open to hearing what you find wildly speculative.

Those who speak up should step up.

Those who run their mouths ad nauseum without any citations except to YouTube segments and make wildly speculative claims that can't possibly be corroborated or debated should pretty much just shut up and not expect their quasi-trolling exercises to be met with detailed responses.

Time is finite and fungible and has an opportunity cost to me that you can't possibly understand. I'll pass, thanks.

 

[GordonGekko]

(With Any Citation)

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/800581-an-nyu-professor-says-fewer-men-going-to-college-will-lead-to-a-mating-crisis-with-the-us-producing-too-many-lone-and-broke-men/?do=findComment&comment=23611954

"If anything, I'm about as friendly to Gekko on this board as any man that disagrees with him on most things."

********

Those who run their mouths ad nauseum without any citations except to YouTube segments and make wildly speculative claims that can't possibly be corroborated or debated should pretty much just shut up and not expect their quasi-trolling exercises to be met with detailed responses.

Time is finite and fungible and has an opportunity cost to me that you can't possibly understand. I'll pass, thanks.

The difference between criticism, even constructive criticism, and personal attack is "specificity" with underlying intent.

You want silence from me but you've haven't established why you deserve silence from me.  If you virtue signal then immediately roll on the offensive, it only voluntarily outs you as intellectually dishonest.

No one stuck a gun to your head and forced you to reference me. But you sent Commissioner Gordon the the rooftop and had him light the Bat Signal up. And suddenly you are surprised that the Dark Knight Detective actually showed up?  You obviously have some kind of concern, so here is your opportunity to address it.

Again, I'm open to hearing what you find wildly speculative. But let's specify with some intent here, I'm open to hearing what you find wildly speculative for what I've said in this thread on this topic.

 

[rockaction]

 But you sent Commissioner Gordon the the rooftop and had him light the Bat Signal up. And suddenly you are surprised that the Dark Knight Detective actually showed up?  You obviously have some kind of concern, so here is your opportunity to address it.

ool. I never said anything about what you said here. It's your general posting style, which is to take long diatribes with many assumptions or wild conjectures and pass them off as fact. Everyone knows the game. I'm sorry if that's offensive. If not, perhaps you'd like less conjecture and assumption with your posts.

This wasn't to single you out. It was to prevent people from thinking I was posting really testable or conjectural things that I wanted to debate.

 

[GordonGekko]

This wasn't to single you out. It was to prevent people from thinking I was posting really testable or conjectural things that I wanted to debate.

So you say you are "friendly to me" and then immediately attack me.

Then you say you aren't singling me out when all you've done is passive aggressively single me out because you are worried what other people might think.

What's the message here? Virtue signal as a pathway towards intellectual dishonesty? Lie to people in an obvious manner where the logical inference is that you see them as stupid enough to believe you aren't actually doing it right in their faces? Out yourself as someone who lacks personal agency and craves external validation?

You told me to shut up. I don't tell people to shut up. I don't tell people to not personally attack me. I just put a price tag on it.

( For the young Conservatives who never post but are observing, this is where you will find that "critical juncture" when you can convert low value posting foisted upon you and respond with your own high value posting. Consider this a lesson in how to reshape the narrative in place)

But getting back to the topic on hand, I was actually curious as to what you considered wildly speculative in my previous discussion in this thread. Most of my points related to the difference in qualities sought out by women for casual sex versus qualities sought out by women for a pathway to earning power and thus long term legal commitment.

Men are biologically hardwired to avoid long term commitment, including marriage and including having children, with a woman who openly has had lots of casual sex. How do you know that child is yours? Revulsion by nearly all men ( though done in private) about a prospective mates long history of casual sex is biological imperative. Men are designed to provide and protect for children and ensure their survival. This is why the human race is still around. No one instinctively is going to provide and protect for a child NOT of their own actual genetic legacy and lineage. Do you think cavemen had paternity tests? Consider that human beings are not wired to operate in our current society of material abundance. Survival adaption comes about by trying to endure and reproduce in environments with resource scarcity.

There's a reason why grandmothers used to tell their granddaughters that if you gave the milk away for free, no one would buy the cow. There's a reason why chastity was such a big deal in previous times in human history ( i.e. where marriage was almost the only way to secure property, build alliances, protect wealth, bond by blood and prepare for inevitable war against outsiders)

How much casual sex a woman has and it's known and the general response by nearly all men about it is actually a discussion point in evolutionary biology.

There's a reason why men are not punished for lying about having a low sexual partner count but there are endless reasons why a woman, especially a young woman who is unmarried, would lie to the ends of the Earth if she has had a very high casual sexual partner count.

In the modern Western world, the birth rate and the marriage rate have consistently fallen like a rock. There are more mechanisms like Tinder for casual sex.

Level of education is a factor for long term commitment in the mating ritual in a new age society that clearly shows the erosion of the classical nuclear family, the lack of desire to get married and the lack of desire for younger generations to have kids.

Thus why does level of education matter in modern mating in most scenarios? It's actually a fair question.

Here's where more men in college might make some difference BESIDES earning power.

1) College offers proximity

People talk to and get to know and date and socialize and might even marry and have kids with others they see every day. More men in college offer more women around that age to have more proximity.

2) College offers commonality

You are in an environment where you are around people mostly your age and going through very similar experiences where you are not pressured to earn a full time living and there are multiple mechanisms to socialize and interact.

Why should many young men go to college? There's no locked in guarantee it will help their future earning power ( there clear statistical correlations but much of that also rides to previous generations where the cost structure was different)  And if they have no desire for marriage and having kids and if casual sex is, in some ways, easier to get than ever before, then what does it become other than a pure possibly lifetime mortgage on something that could have close to no real return on the investment.

Men aren't that complicated. They will pick the route that gives them the best chance to access to consistent legal sex via consenting adults. For some, it means casual sex with no commitment. For others, it means risking marriage.

And to be fair, if you only want casual sex with no commitment and no marriage, a young woman's sexual partner history starts to become irrelevant. Except for the knotty issue that the issue is biologically hardwired into us as human beings as a survival adaptation.

I believe I've just unpacked a whole host of possible discussion topics that can dovetail from this main thread topic. But you just want me to shut up.

( For the young Conservatives reading, this is where you shift from narrative building and setup into payoff)

Rock, I've always liked you, even when you've egregiously personally attacked me. I get why you dislike me. I'm a better writer than you. I'm more engaging than you. I can command an audience better than you.  I can take complex discussion points and reset them into layman's terms better than you. And I could care less about "preventing" absolute strangers from thinking ill of me.

You don't hate me, son. I have doubts you even hate my postings, because you could always just scroll past them if you wanted. What you hate is the idea of total strangers not approving of you.

The sad part is, I don't and have never disapproved of you. And I never will.

You spit on the one person for sure in this community who openly accepted you for you.

This won't hurt right when you read it. It will hurt the most two days from now, in some random moment, when it cuts deep to the bone.

You already were given my forgiveness. Whether others will do the same, when seeing the intellectual dishonesty and desperate craving of their approval, is up to them. But what's more important is you forgive yourself.

Forgive yourself. It's not your fault.

 

[Caveman33]

Seems like the answer is just for all of us to become bisexual.

I tried that.  It kind of sucked.

 

[Caveman33]

ool. I never said anything about what you said here. It's your general posting style, which is to take long diatribes with many assumptions or wild conjectures and pass them off as fact. Everyone knows the game. I'm sorry if that's offensive. If not, perhaps you'd like less conjecture and assumption with your posts.

This wasn't to single you out. It was to prevent people from thinking I was posting really testable or conjectural things that I wanted to debate.

I remember the days when people waited with bated breath for a Gekko drop.  His political posts with "headline" and "context" can get dry but I still love his personal stories of dominating business and crushing models.  Maybe I'm in the minority but his commitment to that shtick makes me laugh and I'll bet there's kernels of truth within his claims.

 

[rockaction]

( For the young Conservatives reading, this is where you shift from narrative building and setup into payoff)

This is actually where you wonder what you've done to get here, and what you're going to do next to make sure you get a better syllabus, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The narrative about college and what it means to be successful could use a significant paradigm shift.

College isn't a guaranteed path to success. Cumbersome student loans and unproductive degrees actually decrease chances for success.

The military and the trades are excellent avenues for career training and success. These options should be touted and celebrated just as much as college. 

As for how women date and select partners, admittedly I got nothing on that. 

 

[Mookie]

The big takeaway here is that educated women are going to have to drop their standards or go it alone.  Faced with having to marry what they perceive is a substandard mate and make career sacrifices to have a family with that substandard mate, many will probably choose to go it alone and succeed in their career.  Those decisions are going to have broad societal consequences that are beyond my depth of field. 

it would be interesting to see if the declining numbers of educated males is causing a corresponding increase in the number of males entering the trades.  Anecdotally, that's not happening where I live.   

 

[Mile High]

The big takeaway here is that educated women are going to have to drop their standards or go it alone.  Faced with having to marry what they perceive is a substandard mate and make career sacrifices to have a family with that substandard mate, many will probably choose to go it alone and succeed in their career.  Those decisions are going to have broad societal consequences that are beyond my depth of field. 

it would be interesting to see if the declining numbers of educated males is causing a corresponding increase in the number of males entering the trades.  Anecdotally, that's not happening where I live.   

Just my experience in the house building end of trades. Guys show up in their mid 20s to start working in that trade. Not many right out of high school. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

Will women become more progressive and let their man stay home and raise the kids while they provide?  Just switch roles.  Find a great looking guy who is lower on the totem pole like men have always done.  I have two buddies who married great looking but non educated women.

Then when the kids get a little older their men can hit the gym 4-5 days a week, do some yoga and learn to a  chef and wine expert and stay in great shape.  

 

[the moops]

The narrative about college and what it means to be successful could use a significant paradigm shift.

College isn't a guaranteed path to success. Cumbersome student loans and unproductive degrees actually decrease chances for success. 

What is an unproductive degree in your opinion?

 

[BladeRunner]

The big takeaway here is that educated women are going to have to drop their standards or go it alone.  Faced with having to marry what they perceive is a substandard mate and make career sacrifices to have a family with that substandard mate, many will probably choose to go it alone and succeed in their career.  Those decisions are going to have broad societal consequences that are beyond my depth of field. 

it would be interesting to see if the declining numbers of educated males is causing a corresponding increase in the number of males entering the trades.  Anecdotally, that's not happening where I live.   

Sub standard ?  Wth does that mean?  No college degree means a man is substandard?  That's absurd.

I got some bad news for women: they aren't the prize, men are. Western women should probably be grateful to be living in a first world country that men built.

Nowhere else would they be able to survive it alone.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

What is an unproductive degree in your opinion?

I don't want to call out any major specifically, but a degree that doesn't directly lead to career opportunities is what I would consider unproductive.

 

[Mookie]

Sub standard ?  Wth does that mean?

"what they perceive as a substandard mate", meaning undereducated males.     

 

[BladeRunner]

"what they perceive as a substandard mate", meaning undereducated males.     

Ok okay.  Thanks. 

I was ready to fight back on that. Some of the smartest and succesfull men i know do not have a college degree.

 

[the moops]

I don't want to call out any major specifically, but a degree that doesn't directly lead to career opportunities is what I would consider unproductive.

The simple fact of having a degree, any degree, opens you up to more opportunities though. Sure, a theater major is going to have a tough time gettting their foot in the door at an ad agency, or somewhere in sales, or anyting non arts related. But they are going to have an easier time than someone with no college degree at all.

Is that worth the debt they take on? Maybe not, but not every theater major takes on tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The simple fact of having a degree, any degree, opens you up to more opportunities though. Sure, a theater major is going to have a tough time gettting their foot in the door at an ad agency, or somewhere in sales, or anyting non arts related. But they are going to have an easier time than someone with no college degree at all.

Is that worth the debt they take on? Maybe not, but not every theater major takes on tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

Sure, but the choice of degree and how it relates to career is what helps drive its value. Did the degree help advance a career? I think that's an important factor in determining its worth.

To your point, I do think there's an achievement factor that is (and should be) rewarded in the actual earning of the degree regardless of major. It demonstrates that someone put their effort towards something and saw it through to completion. I also believe that goal accomplishment can be demonstrated in other ways, for example via military service or successful completion of a trade school/apprenticeship. 

 

[belljr]

I paid for my own college and it was worth  every penny, of course I chose a college I could "afford" versus some others I was accepted too.  That's the real issue, yes education costs are beyond stupid but so are the morons who choose to spend 70k a year on a degree that they could have got at. a school for half of that.   I equate it to buying a car.  I would love to but a Ferrari and probably could but realistically I should stick with my lexus 

Eta: I paid for my son's college and plan to do the same for my daughter and the was worth it

 

[Navin Johnson]

I got some bad news for women: they aren't the prize, men are. Western women should probably be grateful to be living in a first world country that men built.

Nowhere else would they be able to survive it alone.

You said the quiet part out loud.

 

[Herb]

This is a really interesting topic that I can't speak much to, but I do know this: in my experience, women are much more likely to marry below their own education/attractiveness level than men are. I am a living example. I know at least a half dozen guys whose spouses make significantly more than them, and most of the wives are quite attractive. I spent a year as a stay-at-home dad several years ago, and a friend of mine is about to retire at 45 to do the same. We all regularly praise our sugar momma's for their beauty, brains, drive, and poor taste in men.

 

[Stealthycat]

what an idiot

you can have 10X more women and still be ok

https://www.sportscasting.com/you-wont-believe-how-many-kids-pro-bowl-running-back-travis-henry-has-fathered/