Where girls outnumber boys, moral standards will slip

[DJDamage]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5cd0e1b6-17db-42f0-8f48-e64620ec653b

Leonard Sax has a simple theory about what is behind the slide in moral behaviour on university campuses.

When parents complain about the increasingly provocative attire of their girls, the proliferation of no-strings-attached sex, or the demise of dating, the gender-studies expert tells them to look at the growing gender imbalance on campus.

With females now outnumbering males at universities across North America with a 60:40 ratio, the theory of scarce resources -- or crudely put, the fact that there are not enough guys to go around -- is going to increase female competition for male attention, driving down moral standards, Dr. Sax says.

This controversial theory came up during a recent string of talks in Canada by the American psychologist, physician and author of Why Gender Matters, and is timely amid all the hype about risque pictures that have emerged this week from parties at McGill University.

Explicit photos showing undergraduates in various states of undress and undressing each other have sent school officials scrambling to reassure the more overprotective parents and members of the public that such lewdness is not condoned behaviour on campus.

And while some argue that such debauchery and raucousness has forever been part of university life, Dr. Sax's theory is that there is an important distinction to be made in what is going on these days.

"Young men have always engaged in parties and pranks involving alcohol and various degrees of undress. That's not news. What's news is that the women are now taking part, and getting drunk right along with the men," he said in an interview. "Thirty years ago, our culture endorsed the idea that normative behaviours for girls were different than those for boys. Today, we've had 30 years of being told that gender doesn't matter, that girls can and should do everything that the boys do."

The provocative behaviour on display at the McGill parties is evidence of what he says is "the unintended result of [society's] gender blindness," but it may also be more than that -- he says it may support his theory that whenever there's a gender imbalance where girls outnumber boys, moral standards will be downgraded.

Today's students attend universities that are the flip-side of those their parents attended, where males typically outnumbered females by the same 60-40 ratio that now favours women. In Canada, the ratio was 53-47 men-to-women in 1991, but there are now roughly three women for every two men.

McGill University became the first in Canada to consider the possibility of affirmative action to boost the numbers of men. In 2003, the university's senate considered recommendations such as admission targets or a varied admissions process, but no actions were ever taken from the report.

This theory linking the gender imbalance with moral decline will go nowhere with those who see sexual shifts such as the frequency of oral sex and the rise of "hooking up" as evidence of young women's sexual empowerment, but it has a powerful currency among skittish parents and proponents of single-sex schooling, like Dr. Sax.

When the impassioned advocate of single-sex schools was in Ontario last week, one of the talks he gave was to parents at Branksome Hall, one of Toronto's most prestigious all-girls schools.

Some of his insights into the differences in risky behaviour between those who attend single-sex schools and those who attend mixed schools would certainly have been reassuring: Research studies have found that girls who attend single-sex schools are considerably less likely to have problems with alcohol, less likely to be involved in casual sex and more likely to date, and have fewer unwanted pregnancies, says Dr. Sax, who founded the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.

In his book, which is subtitled What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About The Emerging Science of Sex Differences, he highlights some major gender differences with regard to sex: High self-esteem decreases the odds of a girl having sex, but increase the odds for a boy; participation in competitive sports decreases the odds of a girl having sex, but increases the odds for boys.

"I would never want us to be claiming none of our girls engage in any risky behaviour, but his message is re-affirming for us," says Karrie Weinstock, head of Senior and Middle School at Branksome. "Even in our uniform policy, it's saying, 'You don't have to present yourself as a sexual being from 8 til 4, you can participate in life in a different way.'"

When Dr. Sax turns his attention to what he sees happening at the university level, however, it is as a warning to those who have spent years nurturing girls' individualism and self-esteem to help them navigate the rough-and-tumble sexual environment of the modern university campus.

"Just look around any campus and this is what you'll see: The girls are all dressed to the nines, trying hard, and the boys, they look like slobs, they look like they aren't trying at all," says Dr. Sax. "Why do the boys think they can get away with this? Because they can, quite frankly.... What are the consequences of this three-to-two ratio [of women to men]? Young men are in short supply and they know it. They have a sense of entitlement ...

"We've seen an astounding transformation of sexual mores ... There's no dating anymore, no [sexual] bases or order of sex acts anymore -- We're seeing this because men are scarce."

I agree with alot of the points raised in this article. I do not however agree with the argument that there is not enough guys out there and that is the main reason girls are skanking themselves up. There are many other factors at work here.

DjDamage

 

[Soupar]

Girls skank it up because they are horny.

 

[Scrumtulescence]

High self-esteem decreases the odds of a girl having sex, but increase the odds for a boy; participation in competitive sports decreases the odds of a girl having sex, but increases the odds for boys.

Heh, that's pretty interesting. Never really thought about that.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

For those who've been to college, this isn't anything new. It's not shocking, and it's NOT the college atmosphere doing this. It MIGHT be the encouragement of college: freedom, no strings, booze, female competition, etc, BUT, for a woman to FIRST take that step toward PROMISCUOUS, LASCIVIOUS behavior she MUST first have a lack of moral purity, flat beliefs, and poor models at home.

If you had 18 years of training as a prize fighter, or bodybuilder, you wouldn't ABANDON all that in a week moment while on spring break or in college. Look at any bodybuilder seeking top notch pro-tiers, long-term priorities. The ability to stick to it.

Why is this happening?

1) People think it's OK to be sleeping around. THAT's the new norm. And women LOVE to be on the cutting edge of trends. Their best role models are "Sex and the City", "Mtv's Real World" , "The Bachelor" , "OC" , "One tree hill" , and "Cosmo." MOST girls dominate watching that, which to me makes women funny, since they're a clone of each other. The only thing SPECIAL about a woman these days is HOW she treats her man and behaves as a woman.

2) Parents don't see the coming trend. Parents at age 50 or so are out of touch with their kids, for the most part. And parents who are younger, say 40's or 30's, DID this precise behavior, so they can't exactly say "DO NOT DO THAT," because they did it. Yet, they should, since Divorces predominate marriage, and relationships are only as good as the Seratonin stays hot and fast. In reality, the relationship is just convenience, since people stay while infatuation is high, but leave just as LOVE is setting in.

3) Colleges are a social designed system MEANT to further the feminist agenda gone haywire. By splitting the kids during their formative years, they can do likewise on into college, and worsen it by grad school. In HS, MOST girls have not peaked to their worst UNTIL college, when the most vices are introduced forcing her to make decisions.

And graduate school IMO, is just a way to worsen the situation via the following. Reading the Boston Globe, and watching Suzi Orman, 2 women called/wrote in about their graduate degrees. They want on to pursue "their passion"; not necessarily professions that can PAY BACK the loans, but their PASSION. One did Photography, the other Art.

Girl 1 had $165,000 worth of student loans - Suzie Orman show - for striving for her passion, which she wasn't doing now anyways since she needed 2 jobs JUST to pay the interest.

Girl 2 had $118,000 worth of student loans - Boston Globe - for art - for striving for her passion, which she needed 2 jobs to eradicate the debt.

What Happens:
*Student loan debt CAN NEVER, EVER be discharged in bankrtupcy, esp. now that Bush passed a new law regarding it.
*Whenever a woman marries, the debt becomes BOTH person's debts, so she can get knocked up, stay home, while the man pays her debts, EVEN if he was smart and frugal UNTIL marriage.
*It becomes a worthless degree for roughly 10-20 years, since the pay back on THAT amount is over 20 years, or much larger payments over 10-15.

MOST girls don't see this happen because THEY never paid their BA/BS degree (I say most, and that's a true statement in my reality), so they figure WHAT THE FARK, let's borrow so I can achieve THAT lifestyle, or DO that. To them, a degree is a badge of honor, a symbol of respect and confidence. It's NOT necessarily WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, INTELLIGENCE, it's just "look what I did dad, or bf, or husband, fwb."

Do I feel this towards most girls?

Yes.

Do I tell them?

No.

I just realize *I* have to have control over my own kids when the time comes, and enlighten people I care about to this plight.

----------------------------------------------

Visiting a Local Prestigious university recently, I visited my cousin. Her tuition bills, paid MOSTLY by her parents (my family) surge above 30k. She has 2 more brothers who would do BETTER in school than her. And her older sister is JUST finishing school for foreign languages, with the tuition being 30k+/yr. All told, more than $500,000 will be spent on educating these children IN SOME FASHION.

While at school, I saw that my cousin ( and while it's perfectly normal and I did it to an extent, but I paid for my college ) spent a large % of her time drinking.

NOW if 1 of you guys BORROWED 30k+ right NOW, wouldn't you be DOING whatever the hell you could to maximize the return on that investment, INSTEAD of waiting for the next 50k or 60k job out of college, with payments that last 10+ years?

It's simple mathematics and ROI. YES education and learning are fundamental to human existent, BUT, there's OTHER ways to achieve that. I'm sure LOTS of guys here who know investments or business would say that with 30k, you BETTER get 100k, or 300k for taking such a risk. Give it to STR8UP or Egoist, and let them turn it for profit into something.

-------------------------------------------

The point is, parent's frown on this behavior, but they never did much during the 18 previous years to PREVENT it.

The girl I'm regularly seeing has this situation, and she's the 1st girl of her type of dated so I find it a telling model.

Parents are in their mid 40's, so they're young. Two daughters, BOTH 8+. The younger 1, her sister, is an easy 10, prom queen, and dates the jock of the school. Thing about the jock is, they only begin dating because "they were friends." He dated/banged other girls. He's VERY polite, down to earth, rarely parties, attends church, and MOST of his guy friends come from well-mannered families of a similar ilk.

My girl + her sister, come from a religious background that does TONS of family things and by tons I mean:
-Family vacations anywhere 2x+ per year.
-Family dinners.
-Parents are always available to talk.
-Parents have the final word.
-Parents instituate a curfew.
-Parents make the girls seem like the most important people in the world.
-Parents EXPECT the girls to have jobs during hs and college, and to own pieces of their education, such as books, food, clothes, etc.
-Parents make all holidays and birthdays special, but they do it ON THE CHEAP.
-Parents are conservative, much like the "millionaire" next door.
-Parents have a strong man in charge, with the woman enjoying the other half of the household.
-His job is his job, it pays the bills and provides a lifestyle, but it doesn't make them seem lavish.
-Her whole family is well connected, and spends almost all birthdays together.
-Etc.

You needn't BE like that to be OK, but you'll see, as time progressed, and the introduction of supposed SCIENTIFIC propaganda infiltrated the world, the proliferation in porn, feminism, the extension of schooling to college and beyond, and women entering the workforce, FOR some, family life has declined.

YET, a strong, happy family, is to me, the PINNACLE of it all. There's nothing that can replace that. Sure, if you've never had it, you can say "I don't need it." But that doesn't mean you can't create it either. The family unit isn't the end-all, be-all, BUT, it does insulate kids and young ones and easily influenced youths AGAINST what the world says. It gives young boys and girls strong role models, confidence, and the idea of who they are and what they're doing is right. A young woman can look to her mother and SEE in action, a successful marriage. And a young man can look to his happy family and be ok.

-------------------------------------------

It's GOOD for girls to have the freedom of choices they so long desired now. I'm all for that. But their wages WILL always be less than a Man's UNLESS she is willing to BE a MAN. And to that end, WHY would men EVER marry a woman then? Those women who sought true sexual equality, will lose out in the long run to women who go inward for themselves FOR their TRUE motivations. Not what they are told to do, but what they BELIEVE in themselves.

-A construction worker will earn more than a teacher.
-A dr will earn more than a nurse.
-A salesman will earn more than an admin assistant.
-A president will earn more than his secretary.
-Male athletes will earn more than females athletes.

But women don't realize, behind it all, women being in the workforce should ONLY be because they WANT to, not because they should be, since the gov. doesn't provide anymore incentives to working at retirement, and she likely won't earn more unless she goes the NON-traditional and slim route of modeling, acting, porn, stripping, etc.



A-Unit

 

[DJDamage]

Great post A-unit, you filled up the missing points as always.

DjDamage

 

[ethnomethodologist]

This thread has the ability to create some CONCRETE advice on how to take advantage of said theory.

Sure A-Unit, you filled in the missing concepts. Well revealed most of the reasoning... now, what is there to extrapolate from this 'new' phenomenon?

 

[undesputable]

is the 60/40 ratio an average out of all the universities and colleges in the US? Next year ill be heading to college and i did reasearch on many schools and most of them were very close to a 50/50 ratio.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

I would like to go to a college where I am the only guy.

 

[Ricky]

And alot of girls who aren't serious about their degrees are going there to land a man to marry anyways.

 

[ntssv]

Sure wish I was in college now.

 

[ntssv]

Oh yeah,

Women have moral standards? What are they?

 

[Titanium]

Hope its alright that I bring this back. Such an interesting thread.

Moral standards slip when females dominate.

I'm going to speculate that this has something to do with the fact that males are the ones that naturally create the structure or 'rules' within a given environment. Not that women are inherently bad or 'immoral', but when women out number men, the moral structure is not being maintained.

Throughout history, there seems to be a common underlying theme that women (with full freedom) are wicked, apparent in different religions and also dating back to ancient Greeks and Romans. I've always wondered about this. It is illogical to assume that women are inherently bad...but it makes sense that they do depend on men for their role of maintaining social structure and social moral.

I am definitely not advocating for the oppression or suppression of women. I think women should have freedoms, and I also believe that men and women are equal- BUT DIFFERENT.

One of the downfalls of the women's movement is that it attempts to erode the significant differences between men and women...or rather the differences between masculinity and femininity. Women want to believe that they are the same as men (and tend to take offense when told they are not)....but they are not. Masculinity and femininity complement eachother by providing a balance that is essential to the well functioning of a given community or society or home. Each has its role....feminine is nurturing...masculine is structuring.

That said...there are some men who think like women, and some women who think like men (ie Alpha females). Because of these variations we can't lump ALL men and women into their respective gendre categories...but I think we can, at least 'generally' so.

Great topic, DJDamage.

A stellar post, A-Unit. I totally agree with you that one's inner guidance (or lack thereof) is initially developed and established through family and home. Of course there's always variations on this too...like personality. And perhaps the single parent family faces the most challenges in this respect. When a young adult leaves home for college / university, they may be at their most vulnerable in the sense that the values they have learned (or shunned) in the home setting will be put to the test.

From my own university years, I saw many women (and some men) who seemed to be there merely for the 'experience'...and in my opinion, they would have been better off doing something else with their lives instead. Especially those in degrees with limited / to no employment potential. I studied in a very applied scientific discipline with empoyment as a main focus...and more than half the people I graduated with never moved on to use their degrees, nor demonstrated the ambition to do so. That's always amazed me, I guess...why anyone would strive at something if there really is no goal.

 

[IsiMan84]

My university is 56/44 male/female, and also being a mostly engineering/science school we have nerds up the wazoo. I was an engineer myself but nothing like the ones I would see in my major or others. Needless to say, seeing a HB5 or HB6 walking around campus with upwards of 7-8 guys is not so much of a stretch.

 

[OldMan]

That's an interesting article, I think the scarcity of men at universities could be a big factor.