re: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday

quote:

---

socialized

---

So you think Cro-Magnon women were socialized or conditioned to such behaviors?

quote:

---

Like what, specifically?

---

You claim that marriage is bad for women and they know it and that's why they're rejecting it, yet the data says the exact opposite.

That married women are happier, healthier, wealthier and live longer than unmarried women.

quote:

---

You may not like this

---

LOL. I'm not the one arguing from emotion. I'm arguing the data. You're arguing your own emotions.

quote:

---

angry

---

Again, double LOL. You're the one who is angry. You and your friends don't like your marriages (according to you, anyway), so you project that onto all women. But the data says the opposite. It says women are happier when they're married.

quote:

---

I have a lot more insight about this than...

---

Than the data? I'm not arguing as a man. I'm arguing as someone who can Google the studies and see what they say. They do not support your narrative.

The one data point that does you won't answer my questions about.

So there has to be some reason that women—despite the objective data reporting that they are happier, healthier, wealthier, and live longer when they are married—are choosing to be less happy, less healthy, less wealthy, and die earlier.

My explanation is that they are indoctrinated by an ideology that at this point has permeated society so deeply that sometimes it's hard to spot, so they act against their best interest because their worldview has been colored such that they can't see reality clearly.

You're a great example. No matter how many times I cite what the studies say, you keep denying them. It's impossible for women to be happier when they are married and at the same time be disgusted with marriage, which is what you're claiming.

The studies say you're wrong, but you will not admit it. That's the effect of feminism.

It HAS to be true that women are oppressed and unhappy in marriage. The basic, foundational institution that the God you say you believe in created...LONG before He created the institution of the church.

It HAS to be that women rejected it because it's a bad deal for them. Data says otherwise? Pshaw. Who cares about data? I have my feminist doctrine that teaches me otherwise, and that's all I need.

The problem with this for those women is that their views will change but not until they’ve lost the leverage that their youth and beauty had lent them.

quote:

---

The problem with this for those women is that their views will change but not until they’ve lost the leverage that their youth and beauty had lent them.

---

And that is exactly what is happening.

It's also why although women are going to college more than men, have higher home ownership than men, etc., etc., they are increasingly depressed and unhappy.

They got exactly what they were told to want by feminism, yet they are increasingly depressed and anxious.

Again, the data tells the truth on feminism. THAT'S the bad deal for women. Not marriage.

I missed this comment yesterday

quote:

---

There is a reason husband and wife fall into more "traditional" roles though, and it ain't male toxicity. There is a reason kids do better in two-parent households, and it ain't male toxicity. There is a reason being a single parent mother is the biggest US noneducational demographic poverty predictor, and it ain't male toxicity.

---

I agree with all of this. I don't think men are inherently toxic.

Traditional roles didn’t emerge out of nowhere or purely from ideology, but from material reality.

Men’s greater average physical strength mattered for survival, protection, and labor in early societies. That advantage translated into men holding disproportionate control over land, resources, governance, and law. Once power consolidated there, it shaped culture.

Because of that power dynamic, certain traits were rewarded and cultivated in men: dominance, stoicism, risk-taking, emotional suppression, hierarchy maintenance. Other traits were discouraged because they were seen as liabilities in a world structured around force and control. The same process happened to women in the opposite direction.

What see now are the logical effects of that socialization colliding with modern expectations of marriage and workforce participation. Blaming buzzwords like male toxicity or female spite doesn't actually explain anything.

Boys and girls were trained for complementary survival roles, not for mutual emotional intimacy, shared domestic labor, or reflective partnership. When those older roles dissolve but the socialization remains, you get exactly what we’re seeing, which is a mismatch in happiness and satisfaction in many heterosexual marriages.

quote:

---

This is what happens when women figure out they bring a lot more to marriage than men.

---

At high school age, yeah. At 45+?

quote:

---

High school girls are concluding on the basis of their own life experience that marriage is a bad deal,

---

It’s a bad deal to them because there aren’t many 5 star quarterbacks and CEOs out there

quote:

---

Boys and girls were trained for complementary survival roles

---

Not exactly.
They were trained to those roles to maximize capability rather than minimizing differences.

At points when actual survival was dependent on getting the very best from American men and women in collaboration, i.e., the Great Depression, WWII, etc., we didn't have the luxury of things like DEI. Kids were trained IAW capacity and anticipated productivity.

In terms of gender, the acknowledgement was men and women perform differently in different roles. Training to those capabilities, rather than to some gender neutral hybrid goal, aka antimale-antifemale, was and is where our emphases should lie. Instead, 21st century pedagogy trains away from gender differences and/or roles.

When we look at cerebral PET scans for males and females processing -- problem solving -- their brains light up differently. Males demonstrate more focal, localized activation with greater reliance on parietal and occipital regions especially in spatial or mathematical tasks. Females demonstrate more distributed, bilateral activation with greater involvement of prefrontal and temporal regions, including, not coincidentally, language-associated areas. Those are biological, not training, differences. Yet we are trying to suppress them.

A very good example is in the financial and investment industry. Investment/finance is a field which would not inherently favor men or women. However, left to their own devices, men and women, stereotypically approach investment differently. Men tend to be more aggressive (in some instances carelessly so). Women tend to be more conservative, and patient. Now, we could 'train' women to trade like men, or vice versa. But wouldn't it be better if we trained toward the goal of maximizing each in their own innate capacity, then included the different approaches in an overall analysis?

There are ways to positively reverse current trends aiming to de-gender behavior. However, critical feminist pedagogy is NOT one of them.

For example, we know performance in gender segregated JrHS/HS classrooms goes up for boys and girls. However, girls performance and classroom interaction in that environment is particularly enhanced. There are a number social-psychological reasons for that. But the bottomline is, it is a win-win.

Critical theory, in its deliberate elusion of factual root cause, while instead pinning assumptions on oppression-oppressed narratives, is a damaging distraction from actual solutions.

I believe the administrative interference which prevents teachers from removing disruptive students from their classes is the biggest problem. Throw in the lack of phonics education in 4th grade resulting in a collapse of literacy rates, heavy discouraging of giving failing grades for work that is not even attempted, and the perverse incentives to "socially promote" students who fail simply to chase federal funding incentives based on graduation/matriculation rates results in not only enabling poor performance but greatly inhibiting and disincentivizing good performance until everyone feels numb because school is nothing but an obligatory waste of time for all involved.

quote:

---

prevents teachers from removing disruptive students from their classes

---

quote:

---

heavy discouraging of giving failing grades for work that is not even attempted

---

Yep. While Bad teachers can get away with their liberal nonsense, good teachers aren’t allowed to pass/fail based on completion/knowledge, and they are forced to deal with delinquent kids who disrupt, so there are no real standards. Did a lot of this BS start with George W’s “every kid must pass” nonsense?