For Every 100 Girls

not allowed

Not allowed?

Oh... I had to make it invisible for a few moments due to a last-minute edit requirement. Should be good to go now

Depending on your perspective you could digest this differently.

On one hand it shows that there is some favoritism towards women.

On another hand it, it could show that men just aren't up to par.

All about perspective.


Good read in any case. Thanks Karl.

The individual perspective matters none... What it demonstrates is that boys are having a tough time in just about every sphere of modern life and need help more so than girls.

wow-now there is that inequality we hear so much about-poor girl's have a long way to go

Good stuff Marx. Statements that clearly indicitate not just something, but that EVERYTHING is clearly screwed up. Indeed perspective matters not, because wether it is because of favoritism or because of boys themselves (we all know it's favoritism on a side note), boys are having a harder time and indeed need more help. Nobody in his/her right mind can claim women have it harder or need even more 'equality' with these numbers in front of their noses.

And off course, there is a source below each statement from a reliable source. Irrefutable.

Quote from Marx

The individual perspective matters none... What it demonstrates is that boys are having a tough time in just about every sphere of modern life and need help more so than girls.

No, It doesn't demonstrate anything. It shows that more males than females are enrolled in school from K-12.

About the same graduate and have the same opportunity at undergrad and grad school.

Perspective is all that matters, especially if yours is convoluted only with what you want to see.

You'll pull out of this article what you want and so will I.

All I see is similar numbers with similar opportunity and for some reason boys tend to commit suicide more.

So I stand by my opinion, perspective is all that matters. You complain that boys and men need more help when that's the same bullshit that women have been riding for the last half-century.

Sounds like you're riding the same "we're oppressed" train that the feminists have been on.

That direction sucks in my opinion.

MY perspective on this is, how come so many adolescents boys are committing suicide compared to girl? That one was shocking to me. I can understand men being 5 times more prone, but kids!? This should be addressed with the utmost haste in today's society and has nothing to do with

riding the same "we're oppressed" train that the feminists have been on

How come the first thing that pops up on google when I type adolescent suicide boy vs girls is this.

Girls' Suicide Rates Rise Dramatically - CBS News

Quote from Bmiricle

No, It doesn't demonstrate anything. It shows that more males than females are enrolled in school from K-12.

it demonstrates, for example, that more boys are either 'lost' or aborted before they have a chance at living out side the womb.
It shows that while more boys are being enrolled, more boys are not able to make it... And the idea is to ask ourselves, 'Why?'. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, feminism did employ tactics to make schools & learning more girl-friendly. Since implementing female-friendly setups in schools, they went further and began swinging more towards male-hostile, such as banning running around, banning breaks, banning various games (British Bulldog for eg, very good for 'team building' - no teachers required), teachers were instructed to hunt out female's who put their hands up and favour them over boys with their hands up - then they wonder why boys are sat there going 'Me, me, me, me, me, I know the answer Miss...' and instead of rewarding their enthusiasm for learning they're instead punished... and so on. I was in school when this was happening, I recall my English teacher explaining that we would have different award structures based on not only the exam-results but the coursework too, it's aim he stated was to help girls improve grades. Look around online and you'll find references to this happening in the late 80s and early 90s...

The stats also show that more boys are labelled and need help... and the 'need help' part is what I stated earlier on in this thread. Do you not think a group who commits suicide x% more than the other group should have some kind of support in place to help them avoid slitting their wrists - and completing the task??? Do you not observe that a considerably high proportion of boys (276) are noted as having learning difficulties compared to 100 girls? Should these boys be ignored and left to live on benefits for their life?

Quote from Bmiricle

Sounds like you're riding the same "we're oppressed" train that the feminists have been on.

Funny how you came here highly supportive initially, until you hooked up with a self-proclaimed feminist, then suddenly became very distant on here and defensive of feminism in the matter of weeks... Not saying it's definitely related, just observing the raw correlation.

Yes, ultimately you can take what you want - a feminist will say it's 'proof' that women need help, that men are oppressive, that this or that.. I'm just looking at the numbers and seeing that men could do with a hand in some areas.

Sounds like you're riding the same "we're oppressed" train that the feminists have been on.

That direction sucks in my opinion.

Why yes, 'sucking it up' is the direction to go... Well, THAT is what sucks. The difference between us and them feminists is that we don't play the victim for the sake of playing the victim. We speak up because of things that we can can proof to be wrong. You ought to know better than that as a person who has been dragged through the mud by family court.

Quote from Nynrah Ghost

Why yes, 'sucking it up' is the direction to go...

Oh yes, it's worked well so far hasn't it... I wonder if those numbers of higher suicides had to suck it up?

Quote from Marx

Oh yes, it's worked well so far hasn't it... I wonder if those numbers of higher suicides had to suck it up?

I honestly can not think of any perspective that could genuinely conclude that these numbers (e.g. higher suicides for men, higher learning disadvantages for boys etc.) can indicate that there girls need even more help. If you say that boys and men are having it tough because of an anti-boy/anti-male environment, then it makes sense that there ought to be help. If it because of the alleged feminist claim that boys and men are simply inferior (like 'can't learn as well' and that kind of nonsense), then it is also only sensible to give boys and men a helping hand so they too can have a fair chance in life.

It matters not how the numbers are interpreted, the conclusion will ALWAYS be the same: boys and men are disadvantaged horribly more compared to girls and women in our current 'modern' and 'patriarchic' society. Only a twisted mind could spindoctor this, like they can turn men dying in war as a women's issue.

Quote from Bmiricle

No, It doesn't demonstrate anything. It shows that more males than females are enrolled in school from K-12...

While I get your intent, it's just not thorough. Institutional racism is not something you can just pull yourself up out of with your bootstraps, the bootstraps are not that long or strong. The male children who are emotionally battered by the current system of witchery have no power over such forces, they are entirely victims, entirely and it is tragic.

But a the very least of your point, against victimhood. Disavowing victimhood does not mean avowing injustice. The current bigotry and hatred against males, particularly the institutional (Ministry for Women anyone?), is as wrong as it was toward any other group in the past, and has the same devastating effects. 'Overcome it 5 year old Johnny'. Really?

Quote from Marx

Funny how you came here highly supportive initially, until you hooked up with a self-proclaimed feminist, then suddenly became very distant on here and defensive of feminism in the matter of weeks... Not saying it's definitely related, just observing the raw correlation.

Yes, ultimately you can take what you want - a feminist will say it's 'proof' that women need help, that men are oppressive, that this or that.. I'm just looking at the numbers and seeing that men could do with a hand in some areas.

An astute man in the MRM (I forget who) once said something to the effect of "Most men in the MRM are one blowjob away from being a mangina". I think there's a lot of value in that statement. I've sworn off women altogether for the time being because I think being around them feminizes a man.

On a side note, when the Red Cross shows up in Haiti and begins passing food around to the starving population and gives that food ONLY to one sex, I don't think someone could come to any other conclusion than that the ones who were allowed to starve are being oppressed. If women were targeted for starvation, would we call that "oppression"? I believe we would.

When most of those who die on the job are men, that tells me that nobody cares about the safety of men. If most people who died on the job were women, would we say that their safety was not important to society? I believe we would.

You cannot look at these numbers and conclude anything other than the fact that men are being discriminated against by the legal system and by the healthcare industry. Men are about 98% more likely to be executed for murder than women who have committed the same crime. That's the government picking one sex to kill, and you're telling me that isn't oppression? Not only is it oppression, it's highly dangerous to society to have female killers (who usually target MEN to kill,btw,because they can legally claim abuse and walk with no or very little jail time) walking free to offend again at their leisure.

Quote from Bmiricle

Depending on your perspective you could digest this differently.

On one hand it shows that there is some favoritism towards women.

On another hand it, it could show that men just aren't up to par.

What it clearly shows is that any favouritism toward girls is NOT justified and that any favouritism currently toward boys (I doubt anyone could find any) could be non-working or backfiring.

If there were no favouritism, if the education and health systems had not been radically altered in a way that has proven worse for boys (whether or not it is advantageous to girls) then we could indeed be inclined to see a probability that boys aren't up to par. As it is, the preponderance of evidence is that the systems are skewed against boys.

I read this post with some care. Marx posted statistics and factoids that are verifiable. Good on him!

The responses are just too partisan. Members attempted (accurately) to explain why men generally lose out and they are right.

Why not look at the bigger picture? "Mother" nature is not a benign mother - she's a bitch. She has gifted almost all women with the power of procreation and the ability to select the fathers of their children from a surplus of men. It doesn't sound "fair" but that's the way it is.

So why does "Mother Nature" act in ways that are repugnant to civilized men? She is out of date. She seeks to breed a surplus of men so that any old woman can select the brightest and best. Men that fail her tests can be weeded out by disease, competition or genetic defects.

"Mother" decrees that she, loyal wife, who selected her husband with care, should prosper. Then again, even the humble concubine can get lucky if she is able to surpass the "legal" wife, sexually or morally.

The west lives in a fake primitive world. While western men are promoting grand universal moral values abroad, their own women back home are busy taking advantage of their misplaced patriotism.

Western men are so busy debating minor details that they don't understand that they have been conned.
It still goes on. The protests from MRAs are too little and too late.
To be continued. . .

There is a lot of truth and wisdom in what you say Yan Yan. I disagree with your "little and too late" theory though. The West is driven by public opinion or more precisely by those who make the most noise and can influence the most voters, ( its both a strength and weakness of democracy).

It is a bit like the "Emperor has new clothes", by continuously making more and more people aware of the fact he has no clothes eventually someone will cry out "he has no clothes", and this time the flood gates will open and public opinion will switch around. Unfortunately I predict this won't happen for another generation.