nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why are men dropping out of society? - mod note in 1st post

maregal

I'd like this thread to discuss the reasons why men are dropping out of society and foregoing women rather than discuss whether it's a good or bad thing. Last time a poster espoused the merits of the MGTOW movement the angry feminists brigaded the forum and forced the thread closure. It's amusing how offended they get as a group when one single man declares he's not interested in them.

To keep the OP brief I'll list off some oft-suggested reasons and hopefully we can expand on them in the discussion.

Marriage is seen as a temporary arrangement these days rather than permanent. Men always lose out in the divorce. Look what the alimony payments did to Robin Williams.

A good job is hard to find. Everything is an internship, short contract or a dead end McJob. Employment quotas favour women and minorities.

Pornography making men docile?

Education system favours the female brain. Universities are packed with more females than males. SJW and politically correct dogma is shoved down your throat at these institutions.

Men being demonized. Grown man holding hands with his child in the public park = pedophile. Have consensual sex with a girl but she changes her mind the next day = rapist. Men are constantly fighting back their natural urge to rape and commit violence apparently.

I've a few more hypotheses but that should be enough to get the ball rolling.

Mod note:

To lessen the impact of troublesome rereg posters, we ask posters with fewer than 10 posts or who have been registered for fewer than 3 days not to post in this thread.

It is likely that newly registered users who post in contravention of the above request will be a troll or a rereg, who will be removed along with their posts and replies to them.

We ask other users to report any issues which may arise in this regard.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wanderer78

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can't say I have much sympathy. The under-achieving boys in my sons schools are a complete pack of savages, you'd have to issue the teachers tasers to get any work out of them.

could be complex issues at play such as autism or adhd etc. as a psychologist once told me, our schools are factories, whereby one size fits all!

L1011

Wanderer78 wrote: »

could be complex issues at play such as autism or adhd etc. as a psychologist once told me, our schools are factories, whereby one size fits all!

Our education system is not fit for purpose for adolescents. Not that a lot of countries are, though.

Remember that what we have is basically a bodge of what existed in the 1960s when an education minister went on a solo run to provide free education without figuring out how first. The existing system was extended to all when it clearly wasn't suitable for many already in it let alone everyone. That said, had he taken another year to figure out, it may not have happened - he died.

Wanderer78

L1011 wrote: »

Our education system is not fit for purpose for adolescents. Not that a lot of countries are, though.

completely agree, its in bad need of a total overhaul but sure that probably wont ever happen. it is improving though for those with complex issues as described earlier

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Ah I'm only asking.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So should we make the school day more energetic or have different classes for children who are less inclined to sitting still?

Potatoeman wrote:

Was the curriculum previously changed to address girls scoring lower than boys?

No idea. When I think about history that portrays schools and children, there was always a lot of sitting and punishment for being disruptive.

I presume the contents of the curriculum is always changing for one reason or another

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So should we make the school day more energetic or have different classes for children who are less inclined to sitting still?

thats a good start

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote:

thats a good start

Which? Or both? And what if the new energetic approach doesn't suit some other subset of children? (I imagine most children would love it by the way).

Should we suit every child's learning style or just make sure we improve it for men?

Colser

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Should we suit every child's learning style or just make sure we improve it for men?

Just let them run around and play football ect. during their breaks..doesn't have to be compulsory .

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Which? Or both? And what if the new energetic approach doesn't suit some other subset of children? (I imagine most children would love it by the way).

Should we suit every child's learning style or just make sure we improve it for men?

a more flexible system would be a good idea, rather than our current 'one size fits all'. our current system fails some very badly and id go as far as to say, it fails many. the dropout rate of new students in third level is very high, a special needs tutor told me a couple of years ago, she sees it all the time, and believes its due to a major failings in our educational system particularly at secondary level. id have to completely agree.

improve it for all of course.

Icemancometh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Which? Or both? And what if the new energetic approach doesn't suit some other subset of children? (I imagine most children would love it by the way).

Should we suit every child's learning style or just make sure we improve it for men?

It's boys not men actually. Young boys who are being left behind in their droves, and who are already struggling before they are even teenagers.

Wanderer78

Icemancometh wrote: »

It's boys not men actually. Young boys who are being left behind in their droves, and who are already struggling before they are even teenagers.

some girls are being left behind in all fairness as well, but good point

L1011

We had (now) notable people pointing out basically the same problems with the education system a century ago - Pearse being one.

I do suspect it disproportionally affects boys but that is not by design. Girls are not immune to this.

An awful lot of work needs to be put in to aptitude rather than academic based entry requirements, different forms of education rather than one single academic based one (we've actually got worse in this since the 60s). Stopping teachers treating you as if you're 12 until the day you leave school is a critical factor.

eviltwin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

could be complex issues at play such as autism or adhd etc. as a psychologist once told me, our schools are factories, whereby one size fits all!

Definitely agree. Sensory issues affect far more boys than girls. Schools are hard work for any child with an issue. Both mine have autism, one has adhd...luckily we have a fantastic school but when the younger one started he was the typical disruptive child. Only for the great school I can't imagine where he would be. These issues are still quite new and our education system is still adapting so hopefully the gap will lessen in time.

Wanderer78

eviltwin wrote: »

Definitely agree. Sensory issues affect far more boys than girls. Schools are hard work for any child with an issue. Both mine have autism, one has adhd...luckily we have a fantastic school but when the younger one started he was the typical disruptive child. Only for the great school I can't imagine where he would be. These issues are still quite new and our education system is still adapting so hopefully the gap will lessen in time.

im actually dyslexic myself, only diagnosed a couple of years ago after spending almost 30 years of my life studying within our system. id class that as a system failure and i suspect im not alone. i suspect theres many my age out there undiagnosed and struggling. i also suspect i may be slightly autistic. its great to see our system slowly improving to accommodate kids with these issues but of course more must be done. i can now see that the kids i went to school with that were disruptive where more than likely autistic with possible adhd etc, many of these are probably struggling in life due to these facts.

Colser

Wanderer78 wrote:

im actually dyslexic myself, only diagnosed a couple of years ago after spending almost 30 years of my life studying within our system. id class that as a system failure and i suspect im not alone. i suspect theres many my age out there undiagnosed and struggling. i also suspect i may be slightly autistic. its great to see our system slowly improving to accommodate kids with these issues but of course more must be done. i can now see that the kids i went to school with that were disruptive where more than likely autistic with possible adhd etc, many of these are probably struggling in life due to these facts.

When I think back to national school and the belting a few of the boys got(we got it to a lesser extent) it's heartbreaking ...they were obviously struggling with conditions that were not diagnosed at the time.Thankfully things have improved since then.

Wanderer78

Colser wrote: »

When I think back to national school and the belting a few of the boys got(we got it to a lesser extent) it's heartbreaking ...they were obviously struggling with conditions that were not diagnosed at the time.Thankfully things have improved since then.

the psychologist that diagnosed me was almost apologetic at the time of detection. she said they knew there were issues with a certain group of students when i was younger and passing through primary and secondary level, but were unsure what exactly it was. im just glad they have a much better understanding of these issues now and are dealing with them accordingly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FloatingVoter

The whole STEM approach is a joke. Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths. Where is Picasso or Chanel in that ? Laughing at the lack of imagination is where. And dead at the sight of it.
It produces at best bored and useless drones who do pass the exams and wind up in the mediocre little tech jobs (going nowhere because the dirty little secret is they have no interest in it). Check on the jobs thread - to be really successful in IT you need to have a passion for it...i.e this is what you do on the weekends in the shed as well as happily get paid for it. Just the same as to be really good at being a rock star you gotta be willing to do it for free.
Maybe passionate burger-flippers make for better women chasers. If I was nailed to a grill 10 hours a day, every blonde would be Princess Grace and every brunette an Audrey Hepburn if only to make the clock tick faster.

I do know this - "what do you do for a living ?" is not the sign of a conversation going well.

El_Duderino 09

Colser wrote:

Just let them run around and play football ect. during their breaks..doesn't have to be compulsory.
improve it for all of course.

What if energetic sport is no good for other children? Do we keep dividing children by learning preference and cater for everyone?

Wanderer78 wrote:

a more flexible system would be a good idea, rather than our current 'one size fits all'. our current system fails some very badly and id go as far as to say, it fails many. the dropout rate of new students in third level is very high,

More flexibility sounds great but I don't really know what you mean. Would it be very expensive? And would you need to upskill the teachers? It's hard enough to squeeze a few bob out of the department without needing to strike.

Icemancometh wrote:

It's boys not men actually. Young boys who are being left behind in their droves, and who are already struggling before they are even teenagers.

I was asking whether we should only cater to gender or learning types more specifically. What to you think?

Wanderer78 wrote:

some girls are being left behind in all fairness as well, but good point

Girls and boys are very broad groups. They have some differences in learning styles but not as different as someone with autism, dyslexia or any of the dozens of learning difficulties. Gender is a fairly blunt instrument.

Colser

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

What if energetic sport is no good for other children? Do we keep dividing children by learning preference and cater for everyone?

What would you suggest?My kids aren't allowed to run at all in school,it's a joke.Break times should allow them to enjoy themselves whether that's kicking a ball or something sedate.

El_Duderino 09

Colser wrote:

What would you suggest?My kids aren't allowed to run at all in school,it's a joke.Break times should allow them to enjoy themselves whether that's kicking a ball or something sedate.

I haven't a clue. I didn't raise it as an issue.m though I imagibe it would suit lots of children to go blow off steam a few times a day.

I doubt gender us the heat way to divide children. Learning styles would be much more useful.

As far as I know the Germanic countries do much more education through play. They don't learn to read and write until much older than Ireland (5 or 6 I think).

You won't get far into that discussion about trying to reach all children before the word 'snowflake' is mentioned -but now they it's an issue that would help boys and men... Well see.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Girls and boys are very broad groups. They have some differences in learning styles but not as different as someone with autism, dyslexia or any of the dozens of learning difficulties. Gender is a fairly blunt instrument.

less blunt that ignoring gender.:pac:

kunst nugget

I do think some Irish parents also need to start pushing their sons a bit more when it comes to education as well. I'm speaking anecdotally of course but I've seen parents that would push their daughters quite hard when it comes to school but are more willing to give their sons more of a free pass with an 'Ah, well… he doesn't really like school anyway' excuse. Definitely seen it with some of the people I worked with. If you're not that pushed about your child's education, they're hardly going to be either. Obviously not talking about all parents here.

Carlos Orange

Colser wrote: »

My kids aren't allowed to run at all in school,it's a joke.Break times should allow them to enjoy themselves whether that's kicking a ball or something sedate.

Seems pure nuts that kids are not allowed to play football at some schools. I couldn't believe it when a friend told me. Playing football every day in primary school was pretty much the only exercise I got until my 30s.

Lux23

maregal wrote: »

The writing is on the wall. Male unemployment is up. Male suicide is up. Divorces are up. Males entering college is down. Anecdotally, the amount of guys in their mid 20s still living at home, single, and unemployed or working a dead end minimum wage job is staggering. Spend a few minutes reading the threads in this forum. It wasn't like this 20 years ago where a young educated man could get earn a decent wage straight out of college and buy a home to raise a family. I'm trying to ignite a discussion as to what has changed but it's being constantly derailed by smears aimed at myself.

This is white, male privilege wrapped up in a bow and delivered straight to the hardcore feminists. You seem to think that as an educated male you deserve a job and twenty years ago it probably was handed to men like you because you wouldn't have had to compete with smarter women and minorities.

Equality has brought about a somewhat leveller playing field for everyone and some of those who were previously in a more privileged position just don't have what it takes to win anymore. Successful humans are adaptable and take responsibility for their own failings, if some men (or privileged women) are dropping it is because they simply don't have the ability to work hard and improve where they have failings.

Also, gender quotas in my experience are 50/50 so how on earth would that favour women?

Potatoeman

psinno wrote: »

Seems pure nuts that kids are not allowed to play football at some schools. I couldn't believe it when a friend told me. Playing football every day in primary school was pretty much the only exercise I got until my 30s.

Are they worried about being sued?

kunst nugget

Potatoeman wrote: »

Are they worried about being sued?

Yeah, schools got very restrictive about what went on at lunch breaks over concerns about public liability but I'm pretty sure the tide's turning a bit in relation to that. I know in my daughter's school they've relaxed a lot about this and they allow balls and skipping ropes to be brought to school. The caveat being that there can't be hard ends to the skipping ropes and the balls have to be light but I suppose it's a start.

silverharp

Lux23 wrote: »

This is white, male privilege wrapped up in a bow and delivered straight to the hardcore feminists. You seem to think that as an educated male you deserve a job and twenty years ago it probably was handed to men like you because you wouldn't have had to compete with smarter women and minorities.

Equality has brought about a somewhat leveller playing field for everyone and some of those who were previously in a more privileged position just don't have what it takes to win anymore. Successful humans are adaptable and take responsibility for their own failings, if some men (or privileged women) are dropping it is because they simply don't have the ability to work hard and improve where they have failings.

Also, gender quotas in my experience are 50/50 so how on earth would that favour women?

By definition not everybody is hyper-purposeful about their lives so yeah in the 1960's an average guy could drift into the middle class by just making some easy calculations and seeing a win win risk and reward. in the meantime a lot of middle to lower end male oriented jobs have just vanished or been outsourced and yes more have to compete with women where they didn't have to before. the consequence is that whereas in the past maybe 90% (guess) of men would have made family men, that number has dropped maybe 2/3rds? (guess) . women lose too as such as motherhood is drifting away from more women. its up to society to reflect on the implications of it and maybe it just is what it is but I'd say kiss the welfare system good bye at some stage as like Japan you will end up with an inverted pyramid which will make the rewards of working on the plantation even less inviting

I just see it as the bar has been raised and more men will walk under it with the attitude that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Pat Mustard

Lux23 wrote: »

Also, gender quotas in my experience are 50/50 so how on earth would that favour women?

If one gender does not make up 50% of the best qualified and experienced applicants, then the quota favours the gender who is in the minority of qualified and experienced applicants.

In modern times, there are relatively few roles which require the particular physical characteristics of one gender or another. Therefore, in general, selection on the basis of gender is discriminatory practice.

midnight city

Lux23 wrote: »

This is white, male privilege

Its really depressing to see this used in an Irish context. Its bulls**t that doesn't apply here.

Carlos Orange

Lux23 wrote: »

Also, gender quotas in my experience are 50/50 so how on earth would that favour women?

How often do you hear about a gender quota being imposed on areas where women outnumber men?