082349872349872 16 minutes ago | next |

I haven't quickly found more recent numbers, but switzerland had a good experience from 2010-2020, and the following article claims the apprenticeship system helps:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/why-is-the-drop-out-ra...

> “The decrease in NEET is most visible among women, whose NEET rate decreases from 9.6% to 5.9% [during this time], while it remains stable among men (2010: 6.7%; 2020: 6.6%),”

> Among the reasons why Switzerland fares so well compared to other European countries is its good public education system, and excellent vocational training – its dual track apprenticeships (which combine training and vocational school) are chosen by two thirds of young people.

> A look at the table also confirms low NEET rates in other countries with strong apprenticeship systems like Austria and Germany.

schmorptron 6 hours ago | prev | next |

I think any interpretation of this phenomenon that doesn't include the phrase "it depends" is doing it injustice.

We're now in the first time where the implicit (and explicit) bias against women in education, especially in STEM, is decreasing (but not gone!) and the way girls are socialized compared to boys (and maybe even some developmental differences and movement requirements?) in general seems to make them better prepared for proper studying and learning at schools.

There's a discussion to be had if schools and universities are failing boys and men, and I think that might be part of it. If there are innate gender differences, and that I'm not sure of, the solution cannot be adjusting the schools to boys' needs again if it is at the expense of girls' results again.

I think the most important takeaway in this has to be: What do boys and men need in order to get to that same level, and how can we best provide it? This might be one of the things that can actually be accurately blamed on old-age patriarchial norms and their second and third-order effects.

As a man who's currently in uni, this has sometimes been a hard truth, because knowing that I might've had it easier than others makes it pretty hard to feel accomplished, and makes it feel even worse when you fail at something or courses even though you should have the "preferred" profile for it, and that is something that feels like patriarchial (in the powerful-man instead of all men way) thinking being perpetuated and subconciously being harmful.

There are lots of female empowerment programs nowadays, and while they might seem exclusionary, especially when there doesn't exist an all-gender pendant, I still see them as a net positive, simply because there is still too much social stigma towards women in STEM (that we in our bubble might not even notice) that that clear messaging of "YOU are wanted here" is incredibly helpful.

I like the ending thought in the article that this doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

Is anyone here more well versed in the topic? I feel like I skipped some steps in my reasoning and can't articulate why

benterix 4 hours ago | root | parent |

> There's a discussion to be had if schools and universities are failing boys and men

"If"??? That phenomenon started a long time ago and the society as a whole is suffering because of that.

> how the current education system places boys at a disadvantage; why boys raised in poverty are less likely than girls to escape it; the fact that female students are twice as likely to study abroad and serve in the Peace Corps as their male peers; Reeves’s policy proposal to have boys start school a year later than girls[0]

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...

082349872349872 7 hours ago | prev | next |

The "Simpsons Go Calypso" predicted this in 1991? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93COkUCwqSw

TacticalCoder 7 hours ago | prev | next |

Random anecdata: when I was dating a doctor back in the days, 71% of her class were women too (Belgium, city of Brussels, a good university [the one were FOSDEM takes place yearly btw]). Nowadays most of my doctors are women (another country but my GP, dermatologist, urologist [!], etc. are all women).

On the other hand there are some types of work for which women seems to have very little interest in: for example I have never seen a documentary showing a saturation diver / underwater welder fixing pipelines where the person was a woman (nor a woman identifying as a man FWIW). There may be some but I take it it's 99%+ men. Reality check.

close04 6 hours ago | prev | next |

I tried to look for an explanation for this phenomenon in the article but couldn't find a clear one.

What's the reason for this? Are women working so much harder? Are they intrinsically smarter more capable? Is this overcompensation from society trying to fix the pervasive discrimination from the past and forgetting the boys and young men, leaving them behind? Are men trying to "ride the wave" of advantages some may have had in the past without realizing there's no wave?

The result is easy to guess. It's what tends to happen to groups who feel ignored, forgotten, that their needs are not addressed in any way while others' needs are. The disillusioned flock to populist and extremist groups with the reasoning/hope that if the current power forgot about them, the opposite of the current power will help them. Or they will resort to violence against the ones they think are getting the unfair attention. For whoever didn't learn from history, extremism of any kind ruins the cake for everyone.

28304283409234 6 hours ago | root | parent | next |

So many theories. I tend to think it has something to do with the decades of men shunning educational professions. All the teachers are women, hence the teaching methods and school organizations are unwittingly gender-biased towards what works for women. As well as just the simple fact that the authority and rolemodel in front of the classroom is a woman, so girls get to look up to those and identify with authority, smarts, learning, teaching. While boys, well... Brawl Stars. So, yeah, that. And internet porn.

OutOfHere 12 minutes ago | root | parent | next |

In the US, "on average", adult women are significantly more aggressive than adult men, and this really ruins the show. I don't mean merely assertive which is fine. Looking back at all the women I have dated, the few non-aggressive ones were gems. No men would want a relationship with the aggressive women with their egregious levels of hate. I do think that the system of education is to blame for putting society out of balance.

atmavatar an hour ago | root | parent | prev |

It doesn't help that there's a strong social stigma that males attempting to interact with young children in any fashion must be pedophiles, and teaching is not exempt from this.

meiraleal 6 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

> For whoever didn't learn from history, extremism of any kind ruins the cake for everyone.

I introduce you the law system. Lock the extremists up, integration of women into previously men-only environment isn't against the law but being extremist against it is.

close04 5 hours ago | root | parent |

> I introduce you the law system

When the answer to such complex problems sounds so easy, it's probably wrong. Superficially, legal systems are more "after the fact", education is more proactive and could be much closer to the real answer. Everyone has a legal system so if that was the answer in practice, we'd all live in a utopia.

Instead I'll rephrase that as "democracy". Democracy really is the dictatorship of the majority. All it takes is a majority to easily redefine what's extremism and what's legal or acceptable.

If it doesn't look like the world is starting to polarize towards the extremes then the window of reference can be widened by looking at history. The theory is easy but all too often it fails to stop the practice of extremism from unfolding the same way again and again.

readthenotes1 2 hours ago | prev | next |

Boys: Bart and Homer Simpson. Girls: Lisa and Marge

There are a lot of young men these days you seem to be sucked into the dopamine of video games that doesn't seem to attract young women as much

mattlondon 6 hours ago | prev | next |

There are A LOT of female-only (or identifies as female) things (free STEM classes/camps, apprenticeships/internships, talks, events at museums, trips etc etc) for girls/young-women in the UK. Even at work there are female-only networking and career development and placement and mentorship things. Boys/men are not invited and are explicitly not welcome to attend.

Is it any wonder that all of this is leading to more opportunities and more success for women? Not sure why people are surprised that positive discrimination is having the intended effect

I am not saying it is wrong, but it was obvious that consistently giving special treatment and opportunities to one group while actively blocking access for another group would lead to outcomes that the other group would not benefit from when this all started a decade or two ago.

I know "equality" is now a banned word and is on the naughty list, but whatever happened to equity for young school-age boys and men? It is not the fault of a 5 year old that historically men have had things better, yet they are now being actively sidelined and actively denied opportunities due to the sins of the historical patriarchy. Somehow I doubt we'll see "boys only" extra-classes and events etc at schools any time soon though.

happytoexplain 5 hours ago | root | parent | next |

One nitpick: It is not the fault of anybody that any of their intrinsic member groups (e.g. race, gender) have historically been advantaged, regardless of age (until they decide to explicitly fight for that bias).

I not only agree that doing this kind of social bias correction based on symptom addressal has eventual negative effects on others, I think holistically it's a net negative. Human nature makes this an almost impossible argument to present, but I really think it's just as damaging to actively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically advantaged group as it is to passively disadvantage individuals for their intrinsic membership in a historically disadvantaged group.

AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago | root | parent |

I mostly agree with you. And yet...

Let's say you have one group that is being left behind because of lack of social capital. (I think that's a decent term to describe the issue.) You don't want to discriminate against the other group, because that's unjust and has negative effects. But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital.

You say "don't reverse discriminate", and I think I agree. But then... what? What should we do?

atmavatar 38 minutes ago | root | parent | next |

> But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital.

The point of the article is that women are no longer the "under" group. In the 80s and 90s, sure - the ratio of college graduates was something like 60:40 men to women, but now, it's the reverse. We should have started gradually taking the thumb off the scale as they approached parity, and we definitely should start taking the thumb off the scale now that the ratio is at least as lop-sided in favor of women as it was in the past for men.

Of course, that's a bit overly-simplistic, as there are certainly fields where we should probably maintain advocacy programs for women (e.g., CS), but perhaps there's a need to start up advocacy programs for men in other fields to balance things out.

schmorptron 4 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

Yes, I feel like this hits the nail on the head. It's completely understandable that something had to be done. This might not be the ideal solution, but it's extremely good that it happened and is happening to stop women from being the under group.

If the alternative is doing nothing, this is definitely the preferable outcome.

The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done.

mattlondon 3 hours ago | root | parent |

> The solution might be to transition into more programs that explicitly tell everyone they are welcome, but that is probably easier said than done.

Yeah I think this is part of the problem. Young boys have been given the message (implicitly, but also at times explicitly) that academic pursuits and achievement and learning are not for them. "Sorry you're a boy - this is not for you. Only girls get the support and encouragement and guidance and opportunities to achieve. Run a long and go play in the dirt or whatever it is boys do. You'll be fine on your own without any help."

We've raised a generation or two of men who have been taught to not strive or aim high, and we're reaping what we've sown in that regard, with what was noted in the article of economically inactive males.

486sx33 7 hours ago | prev | next |

My wife has significantly more education in academia than me. I make a lot more money. Should education be tied to financial compensation? In a free market, no. In communism? Probably.

Not everyone who is intelligent excels at academia.

Which is better? Arguments either way. Which makes a stronger country? A free market.

ackermavilla 2 hours ago | prev |

It is evolutionary. Who wants to put children in this world? It is not only the high cost of everything and relative job insecurity, it is also environmental issues and risks of war, etc., that makes many women not to want children. Then the next step is, not to want to be too associated with men. Then the next step is, to remain amongst themselves. It's the evolution, stupid.