#education gap

By: Daniel Nuccio

Published: May 5, 2025

A panel of prominent female scholars took to the stage recently at one of the nation’s most prestigious STEM universities to debate the fiercely contested topic of sexism in science.

“It’s 2025, not 1970,” said Christina Hoff Sommers, author and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who argued against the need to close an alleged gender gap in STEM.

“Look around,” Sommers said at the April 30 event. “The educational landscape has changed. Women have not merely closed gaps in key areas of STEM, they’re doing better than men.”

The debate, hosted by the MIT Free Speech Alliance and MIT Open Discourse Society, had the scholars debate the resolution: “We must close the gender gap in STEM.”

Systemic barriers prevent greater female involvement in STEM and must be torn down for women to enjoy financial independence and for America to maintain supremacy in an increasingly technological world, argued Pamela McCauley, dean of the School of Engineering at Widener University, and Jennifer Roecklein-Canfield, chair of the Department Chemistry and Physics at Simmons University, who took the affirmative position.

“As we enter into this new era of global competitiveness and artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, clean energy, and many other areas, every brain will count,” McCauley said.

“Closing this gender gap in STEM is a strategic necessity for the United States,” she added. “It will unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth, supercharge innovation and business success, and strengthen our national security. It will also secure America’s leadership in the global race for innovation and progress.”

Sommers, along with Cory Clark, a behavioral scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and the executive director for the Adversarial Collaboration Project, argued the alleged systemic barriers decried by McCauley and Roecklein-Canfield were abolished decades ago.

What differences remain in STEM fields result from differences in the aptitudes and interests of males and females, they said.

“One of the most robust and broadly true findings in psychology is that girls and women are relatively more interested in people and boys and men are relatively more interested in things,” Clark said.

“Women tend to be attracted to organic fields of study such as social sciences, humanities, biology, and medicine,” she said, “and men are relatively attracted to inorganic fields of study such as engineering and the physical sciences.”

“When educational and career opportunities opened to women decades ago, they made rapid progress and have surpassed men in the disciplines that interested them and [in] most disciplines, in fact,” Clark added.

Sommers cited how women currently make up the majority of college graduates, graduate degree recipients, biology and chemistry degree recipients, and medical students, while also completely dominating the social sciences.

The affirmative team did not attempt to refute these claims, but instead highlighted that men still make up the majority of students in mathematics, physics, engineering and computer science.

Clark acknowledged these disparities, but held that they were likely accounted for by men and women having different interests and making different choices regarding their academic and professional careers.

The reason women have not reached parity with men in physics and engineering, Clark said, is “not because sex barriers were held up in only these disciplines while they crumbled in all other disciplines, but because women on average have less interest in these disciplines.”

“Even among men and women in the top 1 percent of mathematical ability, where they all have the competence to pursue any discipline in STEM they want…women are still more interested in disciplines involving people,” she said.

Moreover, Clark said, “mathematically gifted women are also more likely than mathematically gifted men to also be verbally gifted – they’re more balanced, which is a typical female advantage.”

“These women,” Clark said, “are more likely to change their major – leaky pipeline – out of math and science into other disciplines.”

These choices, she said, should not be viewed as a deficiency in women nor as a societal tragedy that needs to be corrected.

Sommers at one point joked that this might “solve the mystery” of why her “mathematically precocious granddaughter” chose to study film.

Moving beyond the formal proposition of the debate, corollary topics were also discussed, such as why males are showing deficits in literacy, school attendance, college graduation, and workplace participation, as well as why certain segments of society do not seem to care.

“The gender equity movement deploys an unusual logic,” Sommers said. “Gaps favoring men, those are evidence of invidious discrimination. They demand massive attention, including national legislation. Gaps favoring women, no matter how large, no matter how momentous … those go unmentioned.”

Additionally, on multiple occasions, the negative side questioned whether the larger debate was about ensuring women have a fair opportunity to pursue careers in STEM or about achieving statistical parity in every STEM discipline, which Clark argued could only be achieved through “top-down social engineering that is a mix of soft coercion against women and illegal sex discrimination against men.”

The entire debate can be viewed on the MIT Free Speech Alliance YouTube page.

==

The gender gap in higher education is greater now than it was when Title IX - which demonstrably didn't actually change anything - was passed.

The fact that our primate cousins exhibit the same sex-typical things-vs-people preferences and behaviors as we do means that trying to act like humans alone are blank slates whose tendencies, behaviors and preferences are shaped by an invisible conspiracy-without-conspirators of brainwashing rather than millions of years of reproductive and survival pressures is as much supernatural evolution-denial as Noah's magic zoo boat.

Bridging the AI Gap #learning #ai, #artificialintelligence #elderly #reality #fake #learning #education #zsoltzsemba #digital #innovation #mentalhealth

How Older Generations Can Keep Pace with the AI Revolution Listen up, folks! We’ve talked about outdated teaching methods and the need for digital innovation in education. Now, let’s tackle another pressing issue: how middle-aged and older people can keep up with the lightning-fast world of AI. Trust me, it’s not just a young person’s game anymore. The AI Learning Curve: It’s Steep, But Not…

The case for helping boys and men in education

By: Richard Reeves

Published: Apr 8, 2024

When feminist scholars cite a “gendered injustice,” it was once a safe bet that they would be referring to inequities disfavoring girls or women. No longer. The feminist philosopher Cordelia Fine, for example, now uses the term to describe the wide gaps in U.S. education where, as a group, boys and men are lagging behind their female peers (Fine, 2023).

To say that the male–female education differences amount to an injustice is a strong claim, and one that can safely be left to scholars of justice like Fine. But it is clear that these gaps are at the very least a serious problem which demands a stronger response from policymakers (Reeves, 2022a). In what follows, I:

Describe some of the gender gaps in educational outcomes in the U.S.

Distinguish between three different policy approaches to tackling them: gender-neutral, gender-sensitive or gender-based policies.

Describe examples of policies in each of the three categories.

Propose and defend both gender-sensitive and gender-based policies to help boys and men.

GENDER GAPS IN EDUCATION

There are wide gender gaps favoring girls and women at every stage in the education system. But the ones getting the most attention are in higher education. On college campuses, the educational underperformance of men becomes suddenly obvious: they aren't there. There is a bigger gender gap in higher education today than in 1972, when Title IX was passed. Back then, 57% of bachelor's degrees went to men. Within a decade the gap had closed. In 2021, 58% of degrees went to women.1 We have Title IX–level gender gaps, just the other way around.

This gap is the result of both lower rates of college enrollment and lower rates of completion. In 2021, 51% of women graduating high school enrolled in a 4-year college, compared to 36% of men. Immediate enrollment rates into a 2-year college had no gender gap, at 18% for women and 19% for men. Having enrolled, women are more likely to complete their degree, and especially to do so quickly. Among women matriculating at a 4-year public college, 47% will have graduated 4 years later; for men the equivalent graduation rate is 37%.

These gaps reflect disparities that have emerged much earlier in the education system. There is a small and shrinking gender gap on the SAT and no gender gap on the ACT.2 (This is one reason why colleges and universities which go test-optional in admissions see an increase of 4 percentage points in the female share of students.) But there are wide gender gaps on most other measures, most importantly on GPA. The most common high school grade for girls is now an A; for boys, it is a B (Fortin et al., 2013). Girls now account for two-thirds of high schoolers in the top decile of students ranked by GPA, while the proportions are reversed on the bottom rung. Girls are also much more likely to be taking Advanced Placement, Honors, and International Baccalaureate classes (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).

“There is now wide consensus that gender inequalities are unfair, and lead to wasted human potential,” says Francisco Ferreira (2018), Amartya Sen Chair in Inequality Studies at the London School of economics, commenting on education gaps. He adds, echoing Fine: “That remains true when the disadvantaged are boys, as well as girls.”

Narrowing gender gaps in educational outcomes is an important goal for policy; and today, that means concentrating on boys and men.

GENDER-NEUTRAL, GENDER-SENSITIVE OR GENDER-BASED POLICIES?

There are three broad policy approaches to tackling these challenges: gender-neutral, gender-sensitive, and gender-based.

Gender-neutral policies aim at improving overall educational outcomes, without any explicit consideration of gender in their design or implementation. Of course, gender differences might be considered in any evaluation, along with factors such as race or ethnicity, or socio-economic background. But they might not, especially if there is no specific intention to narrow gender gaps. At the extreme, gender-neutrality veers into gender-blind approach: some school districts, for example, do not even routinely track differences in outcomes by gender. But improving schools overall would of course benefit boys (and in the lower-performing schools may help them the most, as an unintended byproduct of the policy).

Gender-sensitive policies are not restricted to males or females, but are implemented with the explicit goal of offering greater help to one or the other. Policymakers identify programs or initiatives that, on average, disproportionately benefit females or males.

Gender-based policies are restricted to one gender or another, with the stated goal of helping either women or men, typically in the spirit of attempting to level the playing field where it is tilted one way or the other, or in domains where equality of outcomes is seen as intrinsically important for social welfare reasons (such as political representation).

These categories are similar to those used by Klein (1987). She distinguished between “intentional” educational policies with regard to gender gaps and “general” ones, which have “no specific intentions related to gender, but with unintended effects on females.” The key difference is that I add a middle category: in my framework, gender-sensitive policies are “general” in the sense that they are not restricted to only one gender, but are “intentional” in the sense that they will have a bigger effect on one or the other.

EXAMPLES OF POLICY APPROACHES

This typology could be applied across policy areas. In politics, quotas for women or women-only candidate shortlists are examples of gender-based reforms, which I have argued for elsewhere (see Reeves, 2021). In employment, increasing access to flexible working or to paid leave are gender-sensitive policies, with the explicit goal of improving outcomes for women, especially those with caring responsibilities, without restricting access for men.

In health policy there are a number of provisions made exclusively for girls and women, especially in terms of prevention. These include obvious examples, such as screening for breast cancer. But they extend to some less obvious cases, too, such as screening for adolescent anxiety, which is covered without cost under the Affordable Care Act for girls and women, but not for boys and men. But I'll focus here on education policy, providing examples of existing policies or programs under each heading.

Gender-neutral policies

The list of gender-neutral education policies is of course a very long one. The vast majority of programs and initiatives are aimed at improving outcomes for all students, regardless of gender. As a general proposition, this is just as it should be. The case for focusing resources to help one gender more than the other, or even to the exclusion of the other, requires strong evidence that a) there is a significant gender gap to be addressed; and b) that there are programs that will help to address that gap, by helping whichever group is at a disadvantage. So investments in Head Start, School Improvement Grants, or the Teacher Incentive Program (TIP), or broader policy fronts such as raising teacher pay, expanding charter schools, or widening school choice are not aimed at helping female students or male students, but all students, and should be judged against that goal. To take a more specific example, the well-known ASAP program, for example, was not aimed at helping men or women, but students in general. And it does, pretty much equally well for women and men.

There are some complexities here, however. Like all classifications, my three-fold typology does not capture some of these nuances. In particular, policymakers have to be, or should be, alert to unintended gender differences in the impact of gender-neutral policies. There are a surprising number of policy reforms that generate positive results for girls or women, but not boys and men. Perhaps the most striking is the Kalamazoo Promise, a full-dollar free college program in the Michigan town. According to the evaluation team, “women experience very large gains,” in terms of college completion (increasing by almost 50%), “while men seem to experience zero benefit” (as cited in Reeves, 2022a). There are many other similar cases (for a fuller account, see Reeves, 2022a, 2022c).

There are also some evaluation studies where the opposite proved true, with boys benefiting more than girls. This includes Boston's expanded pre-K program. But at least in mainstream education (vocational training is a very different story, as we'll see), these are the exceptions to the pro-female rule. Josh Angrist and co-authors (2009) wrote, “These gender differences in the response to incentives and services constitute an important area for further study” (p. 17). They do indeed. But as far as I can see, nobody has heeded this call. At the very least, these results suggest that policymakers and scholars need to be much more sensitive to differential effects by gender and their potential implications for program design.

Most scholars are puzzled by the gender difference in impact of some of these programs, which were unexpected, and definitely not intended. These programs were gender-neutral in theory, but turned out to be gender-sensitive in practice. Whether that is a feature or a bug depends on how far you think male or female educational outcomes are most in need of a boost—and there are good arguments for each.

It is easy to imagine the opposite result from a gender-neutral policy reform happening, too. For example, there is good evidence that boys fare even worse in poor-performing schools than girls do: this is one reason why gender gaps in education are almost always widest in poorer families and communities. Let's assume that Policy X, which is gender-neutral in intent, significantly lifts up the weakest schools. This would likely have an even more positive impact on boys, than on girls. Again, while not the goal of Policy X, this gender difference in impact might reasonably be seen as a feature, rather than a bug.

Gender-sensitive policies

These are policies that aim to help one gender or the other, without restricting the benefits of the policy to that gender. Current investments in increasing the share of school-based mental health professionals, for example, are being explicitly linked to the alarming evidence of growing mental health problems among adolescent girls in particular. But of course boys will have access to these extra resources too. (Especially if some of the counselors and psychologists are male, but that's an issue for another day.) Likewise initiatives to improve campus safety will benefit all students, but particularly women, and women's safety is, correctly, the main goal of such initiatives.

Changes to assessment mechanisms, aimed at improving relative outcomes for women or girls, as well as for other demographic groups, are another example of a gender-sensitive policy. A high-profile example is Thomas Jefferson High School, a highly-ranked, STEM-focused school in Virginia. In 2020 the school dropped its admission test, switching to a lottery system among 8th graders with high enough grades. In the first year alone, the female share of entering students rose from 42% to 46% (Fairfax County Public Schools, 2021). (At the time of writing, the new policy has been struck down by a federal judge because of its disproportionately negative impact on Asian American students, one example of a battle playing out at educational institutions around the nation.)

Similarly, changes to college admissions policies downgrading the role of standardized tests, are aimed at increasing diversity in general on college campuses, but are also supported for being of particular benefit to women. That's because, as noted above, there is a big gender gap in GPA, and a small gap on the SAT and ACT. Indeed, the main effect of colleges going “test optional” in their admissions policy is to significantly increase the female share of students—by about 4 percentage points—according to Bennett (2021).

Of course, there are also boys who do not perform as well on tests as on other measures, and who will benefit from these changes in policy. But overall the impact will be to favor girls and women.

Gender-based policies

Certain policies are aimed solely at one gender. The scholarships available to women studying STEM subjects are an obvious example in the education field. Likewise, the Women's Resource Centers available on most college campuses. The provisions of the Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) of 1974, which was effectively defunded in the 1980s but reauthorized in 2001, are explicitly channeled towards programs and initiatives to support girls and women in the education system.

Perhaps the most obvious example of gender-based policy in education is the creation of single-sex schools and colleges. Single-sex colleges were once the norm, but now are relatively few in numbers, especially for men. There are only 26 women-only colleges remaining, and three all-male colleges (excluding institutions for religious training).

But the trend has been strongly in the other direction. Since 2006, public schools have been exempted from the sex discrimination laws that prevented the creation of single-sex schools. This was one result of the 2002 No Child Left Behind legislation, with Senator Hillary Clinton being a crucial vote for this provision, citing her own educational experience at Wellesley, an elite women's college. By 2014, there were 850 single sex public schools (including charter schools), up from 34 in 2008 (Rich, 2014). The evidence on their effectiveness, for either boys or girls, is mixed.

THE CASE FOR GENDERED EDUCATIONAL POLICY

Many of the gaps in educational outcomes described above justify policies with the explicit intent of improving outcomes for male students, both in absolute terms and relative to female students. Gender neutrality won't cut it when gender gaps are this wide, in either direction.

Here I'll argue for some policies that range from gender sensitive (such as more vocational educational opportunities) to gender-based (such as starting boys in school later) to those that are arguable a mix (such as incentives for men to enter the teaching profession).

Such policies are only justified when the evidence for both the scale of the problem and the efficacy of the solution are strong. This is not only a matter of good policy but of good jurisprudence. In United States v. Virginia (1996), Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that, among other requirements, the state must provide justifications showing the need for policies separating students by sex that are “genuine, not hypothesized or invented post-hoc in response to litigation. And [they] must not rely on overly broad generalizations about the talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” This suggests, as Lettie Rose et al. (2023) wrote in the Georgetown Law Review, that “claims must have concrete empirical evidence behind them to succeed” (p. 807). This was in reference specifically to single-sex schooling in higher education, but the same legal test may apply more broadly.

Against that backdrop, I argue for:

Expansion of technical high schools (gender-sensitive)

A recruitment drive of male teachers (mixed)

Starting boys in school a year later (gender-based)

More technical high schools

There is strong evidence that vocationally-oriented learning benefits boys and men more than girls and women—on average, of course. For example:

A 2023 MDRC evaluation of the seven founding P-TECH programs in New York City, for example, which are vocationally-oriented 9–14 initiatives based on a three-way partnership between high schools, employers, and community colleges. Male students were 9.9 percentage points more likely to obtain a postsecondary degree within 7 years of entering high school. There were no statistically significant gains for female students (Rosen et al., 2023).

An earlier evaluation, also by MDRC, of Career Academies, small, vocationally oriented high schools, which generated a 17% earnings boost, equivalent to an extra $30,000, over the 8 years of the follow-up study, for male students. There were no statistically significant gains for female students (Kemple & Willner, 2008).

A study of Connecticut's statewide system of 17 technical (CTE) high schools in Connecticut, which collectively educate around 11,000 students, or 7% of those in the school system, showed a 10 percentage-point higher graduation rate for male students than for those in traditional schools. Their wages were 33% to 35% higher by the age of 23 and there were no apparent gains for female students (Brunner et al., 2021).

There are currently around 1,350 vocational secondary and high schools in the U.S., accounting for about 6% of all public high schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Of the 98% of school districts that offer CTE programs, only 12% have a full-time, CTE-focused high school (Gray & Lewis, 2018). We should aim to add at least 1,000 new CTE secondary schools across the nation by 2030. Assuming an additional cost of $5,000 per student for these schools (the Connecticut level of extra funding), this goal could be achieved for around $4 billion a year.3

Given the results of the evaluation studies, only showing benefits for boys overall, should these be single-sex schools? No. Even if, in general, girls derive less benefit from attending these schools, some girls will, and they should not be denied access to this opportunity, just as young men in Kalamazoo should not be denied the Promise Program. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, requiring the Virginia Military Institute to become coed, differences on average between male and female learners do not as a rule justify separation. VMI might be a better learning environment for the average boy compared to the average girl, Justice Ginsberg conceded, but this did not provide a justification for excluding girls “whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description” (United States v. Virginia, 1996). (Today, around 12% of students at VMI are women.4)

But the expansion of technical high school I propose does have the explicit intention of helping boys and young men. Success would be judged primarily against that metric. If the schools skew heavily male, that should be considered good news, not bad news. At the margin, it would make sense to market these schools primarily to male students. It would, in other words, be a gender-sensitive policy.

More male teachers

The male share of K–12 teachers is now 23%, down from 33% at the beginning of the 1980s (Ingersoll et al., 2018). Male teachers are especially scarce in elementary and middle schools. There is some limited evidence that male teachers can help boys learn more effectively. Thomas Dee (2006) estimated that if half the English teachers from sixth to eighth grade were male, “the achievement gap in reading [between girls and boys] would fall by approximately a third by the end of middle school.”5 On the other hand, work by Michael Hansen and Diana Quintero (2018) found no strong evidence that male teachers are associated with better outcomes for either girls or boys, though points to “suggestive evidence” that male teachers of color might be. And a recent Danish study finds no positive impacts from male teachers in the last year of primary school (if anything, female teachers seem to generate better outcomes for both boys and girls; Kjaer & Jakobsen, 2023).

I think it's fair to say that we don't know for sure what the benefits of more male teachers would be, certainly in terms of narrow educational outcomes. But there are of course broader cultural and social factors here too which are necessarily harder to measure. For sure more work on this question is needed. But assuming that one way to help boys is to recruit more male teachers, or at least to stem the downward trend in male share, how?

I propose the provision of scholarships for men training as K–12 teachers, in particular, but not exclusively, men of color and men intended to teach English, where men are even more underrepresented than in most other subjects. These would be akin to the ones available to women pursuing STEM subjects and careers. Since the main goal of such scholarships would be to help boys, it should be seen as a gender-sensitive policy. But in implementation it would be a gender-based policy, since only men would be eligible.

Redshirt boys by default: Gender-based

Boys develop, on average, a little later than girls. The gap is mostly in the development of non-cognitive skills, which are important for school success especially in adolescence. This fact should influence education policy. Specifically, by default, boys should start school a year later than girls, completing an extra year of pre-K. This is already fairly common practice in more educated and affluent families. Among summer-born boys with BA-educated parents, the redshirting rate was 20%, according to an analysis of 2010/2011 data by Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, my counterpoint partner here, and Stephanie Howard Larson (Schanzenbach & Larson, 2017). In one DC private K–12 school (who shared their data with me on condition of anonymity), 30% of senior boys were older than the cut off dates for school entry for their cohort, compared to 7% of girls (Reeves, 2022b).

There's some evidence that being a year older helps boys, especially those from lower-income backgrounds:

In a predominantly low-income and racially diverse sample, Cascio and Schanzenbach (2016) found that being a year older had a positive impact on test scores in eighth grade, reduced the risks of repeating a grade before high school, and improved the chances of taking the SAT or ACT at the end of high school. But the benefits for boys were at least twice as big as for girls on all the outcome measures through 8th grade, and by high school only boys were seeing any gains.

A study by Cook and Kang (2018), using data from North Carolina, found that redshirted children are doing significantly better in both reading and math by the end of third grade, especially boys. Looking at gender gaps within racial groups, they found that the 10% redshirting rate among White boys reduced the overall gender gap among White students in third grade reading by 11%.

A Norwegian study (Flatø et al., 2023) exploits a sharp change in policy away from redshirting, introduced at different times in different regions, and finds that the option of a later start increased adult earnings by 4% for redshirted boys from the younger end of the cohort. The positive effects of a later school start were greatest for boys from lower-income families, who were also most likely to be redshirted under the previous policy regime.

The idea here is not to force children of either sex to start at a certain age, but to change the “default setting” so that boys start school somewhat later. I have previously argued that the default should be set a year older for boys. But the evidence suggests much bigger benefits for the younger boys. So I would now argue for setting the default entry birth date for boys at 6 months later than for girls. Parents would be at liberty to override the default, to either hold back their daughter or accelerate their son, just as they are in the current system (except in Chicago and New York where redshirting is prohibited). The point here is that on average boys develop a little later and could benefit from the “gift of time,” not that all boys will, nor that many girls would not also benefit.

An obvious objection to such a blunt policy intervention is that all such systems are blunt tools. There is a good deal of overlap in the development of boys and girls, at any chosen age, with the degree of overlap depending on what yardsticks are selected. But the same is true of children in one grade and those in the grade above or below, separated only by the blunt tool of an age cut-off for school entry.

A key plank of this proposal is that the students who do start school later get a longer dose of pre-K. And most of these will be boys: that's the point of the policy. Whether these extra resources are justified will depend on how the long-run educational and economic outcomes of boys change as a result, which is an empirical question, and possibly a legal one too. So some careful evaluation of pilot studies is essential. But the key point is that such a gender-based policy should not be ruled out tout court, given the gender gaps we now see in education.

Fundamentally, advocacy is about helping others, rather than helping yourself… to look good.

And my god, I know, the things I post on this page, certainly do not look good.

No, these issues will not look good on your social media feed, I doubt such discussions will make you many friends at parties either or win you top marks at your next class presentation.

There are no prizes, brand deals, coupon codes, or rounds of applause at @thetinmen.

No book deals. No invites to speak at conferences. Or photo ops with politicians.

You will not be thanked, likely shunned, and will probably find yourself uninvited to that next social occasion.

But these issues are real, and incredibly important.

That’s what advocacy is.

It’s about doing good, not looking good.

And the cult of wokeness has clearly lost sight of this.

Self-serving, self-centred, and painfully virtuous, the SJW guardians of equality have skipped past the area of men and boys' advocacy; clearly unwilling, or uninterested in examining their own failures, or in accepting their own portion of accountability, and would rather keep the self-aggrandising circle jerk going a little longer.

It is a mess.

A backward situation where the people who are doing harm, are not only unaware of said harm, but actually believe they are part of the solution, each of them the hero of their own story.

So, who will stand up to the cult of wokeness run amok?

Who will put their head above the parapet?

Because sadly, if change for men and boys is to arrive, many more of us will have to be sacrificed upon the altar of social justice.

So, who’s joining me?

~ [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/boys-delayed-entry-school-start-redshirting/671238/ [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51313438

AIBM: https://aibm.org/research/male-college-enrollment-and-completion/

Mary Curnock Cook: https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/head-of-ucas-expresses-concern-as-recent-data-reveals-gender-gap-in-uk-higher-education-is-widening-a6799081.html

UNESCO: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-unescos-global-report-boys-disengagement-education

==

If your issues need to be spoken about in hushed tones behind closed doors, you're not the "oppressor." If you can demonize and shut down other people by calling them a name or accusing them of some imagined bigotry, you're not "marginalized," you're the hegemony.

For some reason, we're not supposed to notice this, but it's indisputably true. Yes, I see you.

For all their supposed modern education, #woke culture hasn’t been taught the real difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Capitalism exists even in anarchy.

Corporatism would suffocate in anarchy.

Insights into Indonesia's Economic Realities.

I Am Used to Being Hungry That is what one of my followers said to me the other day. Yes, it was a bit hard to hear but it came up after I shared my meal of the day on a photo. I happened to be at a coffee shop having a sandwich and that is the comment I read at the time. I am fortunate to have enough to eat, drink, and have a place to sleep, however, this came up twice in the past week. One of…

It’s a strange time, stranger than any I can remember in the second half of my life. If you try to summarize the number of global issues our nation faces, it begins to feel unprecedented. There is violence on three fronts in Israel arising from the horrific terrorist attacks of Hamas. There is the question of how Iran and Hezbollah will accelerate that conflict. Putin is still waging a brutal…