AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (53 comments)

  1. Benjamin Cole

    Oh, to be young again.

    When I went to collage (gas lamps were being phased out, in favor of electricity) it must have been 2-1 boys. Guys everywhere, around every pretty girl. Even every so-so looking girl.

    From what I hear, to be a presentable male on a campus today is to be hot stuff.

    Dr. Perry is to be kudo’ed for presenting these un-PC facts.

    Life in the USA is tilted towards women today.

    Incarceration rates, college degrees, health—women are doing better than men.

    Maybe the next step is polygamy. Libertarians should be for legalizing that. Then women (in clumps, but still) can only marry rich guys, and dispense with the average guys altogether. Which is what they would like to do.

    Being an “Average Joe’ in America is taking on new meanings, as we go along….

  2. PeakTrader

    Men have more options and take more opportunities.

    Women don’t get paid for housework and children.

    1. The facts contradict your “options” and “opportunities” statement. Did you see the table?

      Men don’t get paid for housework and children either (or yard work, or vehicle maintenance, etc.). So what?

    2. Men have more options and take more opportunities.

      This is so categorically false, you only show what an ignorant buffoon you actually by putting something like this in writing.

      Women don’t get paid for housework and children.

      False. Husbands support women who stay home to do housework and children.

      It is men who don’t get paid for housework and children, as stay at home dads represent a very small minority of stay at home parents.

      1. PeakTrader

        And as Geoih and Ken prove, women have poorer options too.

        1. Ha! As impervious to facts and reason as ever. Keep up the good work, along with LarryG!! You guys excel at idiocy, knowing facts that aren’t true, and failing at even basic logic.

        2. And to demonstrate how bad a logic you actually are, please provide the logical steps that “proves” that women have “poorer options” from what my and geoih’s comments.

          1. PeakTrader

            You two prove it yourselves.

            And what do you know about logic?

            My comment: “Men have more options and take more opportunities.”

            Your response: “This is so categorically false, you only show what an ignorant buffoon you actually by putting something like this in writing.”

          2. You two prove it yourselves.

            As I thought. You can’t articulate an clear logical argument of your own position.

            And I know far more about logic than you. The differences between men and women are a clear example. Easily established premise (supported by decades of research): men and women choose different things. Result of premise: men and women have different job and wage distributions.

            Another established premise: women WANT to stay at home to raise kids, whereas men WANT to work hard to provide for their family. Result: after 20 years of this arrangement, men are far more valuable in the job market and women have far more satisfying lives.

            Your comment that men have more and take more opportunities is indeed categorically false and does underline what an ignorant buffoon you are. You make this claim, but offer zero examples of just what opportunities you are talking about. You simply taking the lazy way out and assume that different outcomes must be due to male oppression of women, rather than the actual reason: when presented with the same opportunities, women make different choices than men.

    3. Peak

      Men have more options and take more opportunities.

      I know there’s no need for me to jump in here, as you are already being soundly thrashed by others, and they need no help from me, so I’ll just point out that for your statement to even approach having meaning, you would have to define “options” and “opportunities”.

      I won’t even waste my time on your “paid for housework” nonsense.

  3. Women have traditionally been at a disadvantage for decades in that if they got married, had kids, then got separated, divorced and had no job skills or education, they were at a severe disadvantage in the job market.

    Many women now days will get their degree and still have kids but be able to return to the workplace in a better fashion than if they had no education or little or no job skills.

    I’m not sure why this is, over and over, highlighted by Prof Perry in a negative fashion.

    for a couple of hundred years and only until the last couple of decades, women have been at a serious disadvantage if they ended up unmarried and/or with kids to care for.

    A huge infrastructure existed and still exists to attempt to obtain from the primary breadwinner in separations/divorces (who was usually the guy) – “child support” and alimony , and if it was not obtained, the mom usually ended up with entitlements and, in fact, still do with earned income and child tax credits, and more.

    Since women often end up being the ones who end up with the kids – and we know this – then it makes sense that they get a college degree before they end up with the kids, right?

    I wonder if Prof Perry will point out the mother nature’s “discriminatory” practices with regard to women being the child bearers?

    1. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all the people so consumed with perceived guilt for the actions of others in the past would simply donate their wealth, liberty and lives to their perceived victims and be done with it, rather than continually try to punish other people who do not share their guilty feelings, perceived or otherwise.

      The only significant group that is disadvantaging women, or any minority, is the state and those supporting or promoting the state’s actions. Whether it’s Title IX, affirmative action, minimum wage, immigration policy, intellectual property rights, trade barriers, the war on drugs, public education, the war on terror, etc., etc., you cannot create equality by creating inequality, nor can you create virtue through coercion and violence.

      1. blame and guilt because women biologically are the bearer and care takers of kids?

        women have been for centuries in virtually all countries disadvantaged and relegated to subordinate roles that denied them the ability to be more independent.

        You cannot hunt buffalo or be a warrior if you are not allowed to learn solely because of your gender.

        in more modern times, women, in more progressive countries like the industrialized countries have gained more equitable roles and suffered less gender-discrimination but clearly up until the 1960s, women still had subordinate status when it came to jobs, the bearer of children and the career disadvantages of either not having a higher education and/or even if they did, dropping out of the workforce to bear the kids and care for them.

        These things are real now and factually historically and not deniable by those who really want to see how women have been treated in the past in this country and even now in many other countries in the world.

        the truth of the matter is – that in most countries in the world beyond the industrialized ones – that women do not have equal roles – and it was this way in this country not that many years ago when women were paid less for the same work because they were “not the primary breadwinners”.

        more women are going to college and this is the fault of the State and it’s unfair discrimination in favor of women?

        tell that to women in most other non-industrialized countries in the world..and this country a 100 years ago.

        1. Kevin L

          I think Prof. Perry’s beef is with the disingenuous statements that the bolstering of women’s status in education is about equality when women have clearly become more likely to get degrees than men. If progressives would just come out and say that they want women to dominate education and intellectual life then we could discuss the merits of such a society. But saying you’re still fighting for equality in education when you’ve clearly accomplished that goal and more is just plain Orwellian.

          1. re: ” If progressives would just come out and say that they want women to dominate education and intellectual life then we could discuss the merits of such a society. But saying you’re still fighting for equality in education when you’ve clearly accomplished that goal and more is just plain Orwellian.”

            except that’s only in the minds of those who think progressives want something more….

            there is no question that it’s been a long time before women IN THIS COUNTRY have achieved some level of equality and it’s clear that in many other countries in the word women get treated much, much worse, but in reality not much worse than women in this country were treated early on.

            but one of the reasons that women go to college now days is their Moms and Dads – both of whom know that if a women gets married and has kids with only a high school education that she’s in a terrible economic position if she ends up alone with the kids.

            I married such a lady whose parents – the Dad was in management and knew personally of women who were paid less than men – and trained men who would ultimately make more than them – her Dad insisted that his daughter was going to go to College so that would not happen to his daughter. Mom, being a women who had bore the kids, was totally on board with than idea.

            No matter how “equal” women become, their gender reality of being the ones who have the kids and predominately become their care givers if the marriage dissolves puts them at an economic disadvantage.

            you can’t change that. the question is – should something be done to at least provide them the equivalent economic status as a guy without kids?

            I’m not advocating that – I’m pointing out that – that is what is behind a lot of women willingly going to college – without necessarily any special favorable measures.

            they get told by their parents to get good grades in school – and they do – and then to go to college – and they will.

        2. Again, no men today is forcing women to have babies while they go out to hunt buffalo. No men today are forcing women to have babies for any reason.

          If you’re so hot to make amends for some perceived guilt you have due to human biology and the cultures that were created by it in the past, then you feel free. The rest of us rational people will continue to roll our eyes at you and do our best to ignore you. When you come with your guns and demand we be punished for your perceived guilt, we’ll do our best to fight back.

          1. re: ” Again, no men today is forcing women to have babies while they go out to hunt buffalo. No men today are forcing women to have babies for any reason.”

            and that includes denying them access to morning-after pills?

            “If you’re so hot to make amends for some perceived guilt you have due to human biology and the cultures that were created by it in the past, then you feel free. ”

            Women are STILL economically harmed as a direct result of their gender because they do interrupt their careers to have children and they most often do end up was those primarily financially responsible if the marriage dissolves.

            There STILL is such a thing as “child support” and it primarily involves guys – not the other way around.

            “The rest of us rational people will continue to roll our eyes at you and do our best to ignore you. When you come with your guns and demand we be punished for your perceived guilt, we’ll do our best to fight back.”

            WTF? this is a simple concept. Women still are STILL disadvantaged by their gender – even in more modern societies. they still get denied access to morning after birth control because they had sex. Really? What happens to the guy? So we “punish” the woman for having sex….like she is having it with herself and no guy is involved.

            right? and why do we punish in the first place if ultimately the child and it’s mom becomes an entitlement burden on everyone else?

            and we’d do what to fix this? deny the woman and her child entitlements?

            this is the kind of bizarre thinking that goes in the the gender issue.

          2. Women are STILL economically harmed as a direct result of their gender because they do choose to interrupt their careers to have children and they most often do end up was those primarily financially responsible if the marriage dissolves.

            A good reason to consider that choice carefully.

          3. edit:

            choice to not choose to

          4. The only thing denying women access to any drugs is your wonderful state.

            Women have children because they want to have children. That isn’t any man’s fault, nor does society owe a woman anything because she wants to have children.

            Biology is biology. If a woman wants to have sex with a man, then that is not anybody elses problem, nor are the consequences of the sex. A woman has autonomy over her body and should take responsibility for what she does with it. The only thing standing in the way of that is your state.

            Making all the whole world responsible for each individual woman’s sexual decisions is just another tool for state tyranny and slavery.

          5. re: ” Making all the whole world responsible for each individual woman’s sexual decisions is just another tool for state tyranny and slavery.”

            the guys have no role in the decision to engage in something that can create a kid?

            why?

            and the ban on morning after pills is national – and is advocated in favor of by the very same folks who blame women only for having sex.

            in terms of society and kids – the reality is that society does take responsibility for kids whose parents do not.

            that’s a harsh reality that we cannot deny.

          6. the guys have no role in the decision to engage in something that can create a kid?

            Nice strawman!

            By the way, by my count you still have 3 unused appeals to practice, and 2 unused non sequiturs available to you for use on this thread.

          7. re: ” appeals to practice” = “acknowledging the realities”?

            I’m ambivalent about any specific actions to benefit women based on perceived past discrimination but OTOH – dealing with the realities is reasonable.

            women bear kids. most women want to have kids. women have sex with men because often men want it.

            blaming women for getting pregnant for having sex when we deny her the ability to easily use birth control is dumb on a number of levels but most of all because an unwanted child becomes the responsibility of other taxpayers.

            Our entire tax code and entitlement system is oriented around kids – from the earned income credits to MedicAid to public schools.

            Women who want to get a better education so they can be more financially responsible for themselves and the kids they bear – is a win-win-win for everyone.

        3. You cannot hunt buffalo or be a warrior if you are not allowed to learn solely because of your gender.

          Even primitive people thousands of years ago were more aware of their world than you are of yours. They recognized instinctively that there were significant differences between males and females, that these differences gave men and women different interests and abilities, and had nothing to do with “discrimination” as you use the term.

          Women are typically better biologically suited to bearing and caring for children. Men are typically better biologically suited to hunting buffalo and doing other dangerous stuff.

          This just IS. There’s nothing unfair about it.

          While many things have changed over time, those basic biological differences still exist, even if they are less important to our survival as a species than they used to be.

          1. Well, if men are biologically suited only for “hunting buffalo and doing other dangerous stuff” — then you shouldn’t be the least bit surprised they aren’t attending college in today’s knowledge-driven economy, should you? Guess you solved the problem!

    2. Women have traditionally been at a disadvantage for decades in that if they got married, had kids, then got separated, divorced and had no job skills or education, they were at a severe disadvantage in the job market.

      Ha!! Thanks again for putting on display your complete idiocy. Hey did you know that French cuisine cooks are at a disadvantage to aerospace engineers at Boeing?

      Clown. Acting as if a woman’s choice to get married and having kids is some sort of disadvantage demonstrates the left’s and feminists’ war on women.

  4. Krishnan

    “yea but – men still get most of the PhD’s in the engineering disciplines (and many of the basic sciences also) – and since they have dominated such fields for so long, it is only fair that the tables are turned and women allowed to get more degrees than men – and activist policies will remain in place till women dominate men in every field for the next century – and till women make more than men no matter what they do – all this as partial payment for everything that has happened from time immemorial” (And “if you disagree with this, you are a misogynist and we will have the IRS,the FBI and others harass you”)

    1. Yes, and of course in the pursuit of gender equality, other traditional gender roles are being blurred also.

  5. Lock Piatt

    To paraphrase Hillary Clinton “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE” when neither can secure meaningful employment after graduation. Clearly we are producing many more Liberal Art major people – there are few jobs for minority studies, art history, languages, even Lawyers are going wanting. Colleges and Universities are not producing people with the needed skill sets of our current business would.

    Clearly there is a shortage of STEM graduates and the job demand is high. At the current moment a Chemical Engineer is the most highly paid – six figures. Like always pure percentages do not show the real world facts.

    1. and I agree with Mr. Piatt – women need to realize that a liberal arts degree is not a safe job path anymore.

    2. Krishnan

      I anticipate calls for “Equal Pay Legislation” (or the College Majors Anti Discrimination Act – CMAD) – The Federal Government will force companies to pay the Sociology Major as much as some companies may pay Chemical (or Petroleum) Engineer.

  6. In light of all the pressing economic issues at hand, why dedicate any time to this?

  7. Seattle Sam

    Clearly we need some sort of affirmative action program for men. If the academic criteria don’t yield the desired number of male graduates, then we have to give extra “points” to males to get to numbers proportional to the population. That was certainly the logic used to give black applicants higher admissions rates.

    1. Oh the good old days of affirmative action for white men. When all women and blacks were property, nobody could vote or have decent jobs except white men, and all minorities were segregated into slums or corralled onto reservations.

      If only we could go back to those days — then white men could thrive again!!!!

  8. Observer

    Three quick thoughts:

    1. The statistics suggest that, taken as a whole, there is little reason to continue to put resources into generating greater higher education opportunities for women than for men (i.e., discriminating in their favor).
    2. What implications do high and rising educational opportunities for women have for the U.S. population? Generally, such increases have led to decreased birth rates, and eventually to aging populations.
    3. With more education, women should be able to accomplish more in the workplace. But they also are the source of and usually primary caregivers to babies/children. Should married couples receive assistance in some way that maximizes both of their professional contributions?

    1. It’s all about the kid with women. They’d like to have the man and the kids but they know that 1/2 of such “unions” do fail and in 90% of the cases, the women end up with the kids – and the economic burden of trying to raise them.

      so more and more women are choosing (no matter what the govt assistance or incentives are or are not) … to bolster their economic status through higher education.

      what would be interesting is the stats for 2yr, certificate type institutions.

      that’s where folks go to get what is necessary to qualify for jobs – like a medical technologist… or similar.

      Women in this country – now – that if they end up on their own, by themselves or with kids, that they are far, far better off, if they have substantial jobs skills and they are more and more – doing the things necessary to obtain them.

      1. Boomushroom

        Simple solution: custody of the children automatically goes to the father. Problem solved.

        1. who will promptly marry a child-care giver or buy a nanny!

          ;-)

    2. Should married couples receive assistance in some way that maximizes both of their professional contributions?

      Absolutely not. Bite your tongue. What should happen, Ob, is that people should make their own choices, based on their own desires and wishes, without any interference or help from you or me.

  9. Frankie

    Women may be earning more degrees than men, but they still earn less salary. Clearly, women’s centers that promote education and leadership are still needed – at least until the wage gap closes.

    1. Clearly, women’s centers that promote education and leadership are still needed – at least until the wage gap closes.

      How condescending! Why do you believe women need help managing their lives but men don’t?

      1. One thing that these centers work on is eliminating discriminatory barriers for women that undermine the likelihood an equally qualified woman will enter and progress in a male dominant occupation or higher earning sector (like science, technology, math, etc). Surveys and studies show that such barriers matter more for women trying to move into male jobs but much less for men trying to move into female jobs (which men don’t often do because traditionally feminine jobs earn less than traditionally masculine jobs). Go figure.

    2. TheOldMan

      Prove it. If it were really true that women doing the identical work as men are willing to do so at 77% of the male wage, then no profit maximizing enterprise would ever hire a man for any position.

  10. Great article. It’s very worrying for a parent of a young boy to see this trend evolving and nobody in government doing a thing about it. I don’t understand why there are still female scholarships when young aspiring male students should get them.

    I guess it’s the whole “patriarchy” thing; somehow only women need help in society. Men don’t seem to have any problems according to our government.

  11. I don’t think the statistics here tell the whole story or make a useful start point for this discussion.

    Note the numbers of PhD;s for example, where men and women are almost equal numbers… how did that happen?

    Which subjects are studied, what is the gender ratio and the graduation rate/average?

    Universities are business that sell degrees, hence they take anyone who has funding (public or otherwise) as is evidenced by the large number of students who are dropping out or not completing the course in good time.

    Even if the students only last one year before giving up due to academic inadequacy, it still is a guaranteed profit for the institution. All the more so if it’s a subject where you can herd 300 students in one class and teach very cheaply!

    Whilst the gender ratios are indeed skewed, it’s not clear if the number and proportion of men (in the male populationj) who are genuine academic achievers has dropped or if the universities simply conned more women into believing they need to buy a junk degree to get barista jobs.

    My guess is that a that both is happening, Universities shut down hard science courses that are expensive to teach, thus offering less opportunities for men, whilst ramping up sales for profit with cheap to run Micky Mouse degrees.

    Dressing this up as a ‘help for women’ is a clever way of disguising the mother of all rip-offs and to make it accusation and scrutiny proof.

    Women getting fleeced also will affect men, those studentloans will be a millstone around families’ necks.

  12. TheOldMan

    But degrees in what areas? If women are getting their degrees in political “science”, communications, post-industrial critical feminist poetry while men are getting theirs in engineering, math, science, then the numbers are not a problem.

    1. take fields where hard credentials are required.

      a PE – professional engineer

      a Medical Doctor

      A lawyers (who has to pass the boards).

      etc

      how does that look?

      I see a ton of female Medical Doctors these days..

      1. Good luck trying to get accepted into med school if you are pale and male…

        1. anywhere in the world?

          ;-)

      2. And there we have the next problem…

        Having many female doctors has turned into a logistics problems for the British NHS:
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/27/the-problem-with-female-doctors/

        Also, part-timers do not get the practice they need to get (and stay) on top of their game.

        In short a degree is an investment that needs to pay for itself, and this currently isn’t happening for a large number of graduates (of either gender, with varying reasons).

  13. Given the cost/benefit of a college degree, who’s to say that women are in fact better off in the scenario described above?

    My smart, articulate, polite, non-tattoo’d 18 year old son isn’t going to college. He’s got good some ideas for a business, so he’s working crappy jobs, taking some ‘targeted’ courses at the local U. and living at home so he can create that startup at age 23 or so.

    It’s about goals and ambition, not a diploma (and his mom and I have several advanced degrees between us, which have served us very well. It’s just not for him)

  14. I’m curious. If you remove masters of education degrees, what does the split look like then?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content