TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

AP Article about declining college enrollment doesn't even mention the gender disparity - roughly 60% female/40% male; the "Lace Curtain" in action

hehimCA

March 10, 2023
146 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://apnews.com/article/skipping-college-student-loans-trade-jobs-efc1f6d6067ab770f6e512b3f7719cc0
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title AP Article about declining college enrollment doesn't even mention the gender disparity - roughly 60% female/40% male; the "Lace Curtain" in action
Author

hehimCA

Upvotes 146
Comments 54
Date March 10, 2023 3:01 PM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11nrftb/ap_article_about_declining_college_enrollment/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ap-article-about-declining-college-enrollment.1172891
https://theredarchive.com/post/1172891
Top posts by hehimCA

Presidential debate moderator says women hit hardest by Covid, despite fact that more men have died from it and continue to be at higher risk of death.

1953 upvotes
October 23, 2020
/r/MensRights

Department of Education says schools can’t use ‘national statistics’ to justify women-only scholarships, programs | The College Fix

1367 upvotes
January 15, 2021
/r/MensRights

In the US, there is a bi-partisan Congressional Men's Health Caucus that is attempting to create an Office of Men's Health and generally promote male wellness. #progress

578 upvotes
June 9, 2023
/r/MensRights

Another anti-male commercial - VROOM, where a woman walks into a dealership and the male salespeople won't talk to her, so she pulls out a dummy of her husband and they talk to her. I'm so tired of this anti-male stuff in the media.

178 upvotes
January 26, 2022
/r/MensRights

Female privilege in action: Insurrectionist who stole Pelosi's laptop in order to sell state secrets to Russia allowed free to stay with Mom while awaiting trial. Can you imagine a male criminal who performed this act to be allowed to stay out of jail awaiting trial?

117 upvotes
January 22, 2021
/r/MensRights

Thrileed to be seeing gender-neutral selective service registration supported on National News!

104 upvotes
July 24, 2021
/r/MensRights

Movember launches new Men's Health Institute in Australia with $100M investment

97 upvotes
December 12, 2023
/r/MensRights

Carville in NYT: "48 percent of the people that vote are males. Do you mind if they have some consideration?" -- was excited to read this.

92 upvotes
March 28, 2024
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Comments

[–]Htrail1234 31 points32 points33 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't mess with the narrative otherwise it would be necessary to admit you were wrong.

[–]Unnecessary_Timeline 32 points33 points34 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I work as staff at a public state college and nobody talks about declining male enrollment at all.

It’s pretty crazy because my state has a well known “enrollment cliff” that’s going to happen around 2026-2028. Basically, we know the number of graduating high schoolers is going to drastically plummet in those years because the birth rate 18 years prior plummeted. So it’s a matter of there literally less young people existing.

Despite this knowledge, there’s absolutely zero discussion of targeting male students as an underserved population. There are robust conversations about targeting and serving any and every ethnicity, about developing “women in STEM” campaigns, about making STEM classrooms more “comfortable” for women (whatever that means), targeting every rural smaller town, targeting “non-traditional” aka adult students, enhancing masters programs, developing remote/online programs, and literally any other nonsense you could possibly think of.

Except men and boys. Despite males making up less than 37% of our students, there is literally no discussions of targeting them as a demographic or adjusting curriculum to serve what they’re looking for or changing teaching styles or classrooms to cater to their needs. Nothing at all.

And you know what’ll happen due to this? Men will increasingly find success outside of academia, without degrees, and then in 10-15 years those men will be blamed for perpetuating a gendered divide in the side of the workforce that doesn’t require college. We’ll be blamed, again, when the real problem is nobody ever talks about men as a demographic unless they’re blaming us for something.

[–]Whale31777 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I love what you’ve written. No veiled views - just speaking straight from the heart.

[–]HAnicetry214 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I know way too many of my friends who are men who thought about going to college but realized the degrees mean nothing and that they will be more successful in the trades. I talked a friend out of going to college for psychology because i know its a hard environment to be in.

[–]WorldlinessExact7794 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m confused. Is that bad? I think it’s great that they skipped college for the trades. Maybe college was always a scam or a overhyped fad. Maybe someone should have analyzed the distribution of jobs needed and figured how that should drive the education distribution. Because it really is problematic if say only 30% of jobs required advanced degrees but 60% of people achieved advanced degrees. That would mean a lot of people wasted a lot of time and money for nothing. And they would be very angry.

And then someone may argue that university is about so much more than a job. But no it isn’t. Not right now. The world is heading to a more cut throat type of place. College is only about being able to make yourself more money. And if you can find a better way, which there are so many, then that’s what you should do. Your friends are smart I think.

[–]kookookokopeli 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My understanding is that there are plenty of people in the trades, but the trades don't want to pay a fair wage. So, no trades workers.

[–]mrmensplights 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s easy to get caught on anti-male rhetoric and explicit policies (rightfully) but I think one of the most terrifying aspects of the current ideology is how it can make men simply invisible. Beneath consideration. After a while, in any positive or empathic context men as a category just simply doesn’t come to mind.

[–]kookookokopeli 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Been that way for some years now, and it's getting worse. And then women complain about the lack of available men. LOL

[–]MRA_TitleIX 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We are already seeing the loan debt framed as a gendered issue. I think you nailed where this is going.

[–]Early-Department-234 27 points28 points29 points 3 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Average Men falling through the cracks: Yay feminism.
Average Men fallen through the cracks at risk of becoming social outlaws: We must fund more feminism which affects average men.
The Canadian elites fear a growing underclass of disenfranchised men, which was why they were the first to vilify an American pickup artist at a national level, for hosting a bar meetup in Montreal and Toronto.
So make up your minds feminists and elites. You want to create an underclass for average men, yet don't want an underclass because historically, a growing underclass of young and angry men is not good news for the elites?

[–]stanfy86 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Canadian elites fear a growing underclass of disenfranchised men,

I have been here for almost a decade now, my government has NEVER represented me, or my interests.

[–]Early-Department-234 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just need to win the lottery and I will quietly pack up my bags, ignore the feminist border agent trying to get me entrapped in Canada by provoking me [happened to me once on my flight to Atlanta], and will give a huge smile and say two words down at the ground as the plane departs Pearson or Pierre Elliot Trudeau Airport.

[+]Jean_o_tails -13 points-12 points-11 points 3 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

And this is feminism's fault because...?

[–]Perfection-seeker-13 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not directly. It is the fault of populists that govern the people based on what they want to hear.

This is where the feminist agenda about equality comes into place.

Most, if not all, developed and civilized countries already have gender equality between men and women, on all levels where the government can exert control. (I am prefacing with this because I do realize some countries on the east have not reached even the basic human rights for women, let alone equality, and don't want it thrown in my face as an argument.)

But the populist politicians keep pushing for more "equality". After all, those are free votes from all/most feminist women, and it would be stupid not to do it. When those policies are enacted in actually equal society, this causes men, especially those in the lowest economic bracket, to be left without any social safety nets.

Eventually, this creates an enormous economic disparity between the lowest class of men and women, where it is basically impossible to even compare them.

And in those countries affected by the late-stage capitalism, will not name which ones, those policies make it impossible for men to even improve their condition by moving upwards. With ruined socio-economic mobility, no social security, societal help or resources available to improve their situation, they are thrown into the proverbial meat grinder.

(Also, notice the parallels to the Chinese "rat, rat I" movement currently happening on Chinese social media, and the wave of incel propaganda, transmaxxing propaganda, MGTOW stuff, and other godforsaken stuff the internet has nowdays.)

[–]Zestyclose-Repair-86 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's remember that the feminist women are predominantly white women.

Racialised women of most cultures generally do not support the white feminist agenda

[–]Fearless-File-3625 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Yes because feminists push gender quotas for women.

[+]Jean_o_tails 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

You realize that gender quotas in universities have been illegal for fifty years, right?

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Private scholarships and affirmative action are not illegal.

[+]Jean_o_tails 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Quotas in affirmative action were literally banned in universities fifty years ago, lad. As for private scholarships... there are no government laws regulating those, are there?

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Wrong about affirmative action, there is literally a pending case about it in Supreme Court.

Government can make publicly funded universities decline private scholarships if they discriminate against men.

Maybe look into your sources before making verifiable false claims.

[+]Jean_o_tails 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Read a bit more about that case instead of the headlines, son. How about you give us a source on that? Affirmative action in universities has been prohibited from using quotas since 1973. Source: my partner and I are university professors and they are their school AA head. AA can also benefit you as a man, btw. All you need to do is show that men are under represented in a significant way within a given field and you could apply for affirmative action consideration and sue if you don't get it. Kinda flummoxed as to why no one has tried this yet. Here is the case that banned quotas in universities: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, UC Davis's program went too far for a majority of justices, and it was struck down and Bakke admitted. The practical effect of Bakke was that most affirmative action programs continued without change.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it takes into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant

Since you can't read past the headlines, I will take my $100.

Kinda flummoxed as to why no one has tried this yet

The fact that you think no one has tried that shows that you have no clue whatsoever.

It's up to the university to allow AA programs, government doesn't mandate that. So even if you show proof of discrimination against men, that doesn't mean universities will have programs for men.

The best that can done is to submit an OCR complaint against these discriminatory programs, which take years to resolve and that assuming if they are not thrown away for frivolous reasons. Mark Perry, Kursat Pekgoz and many others have successfully filed OCR complaints against these AA programs. Most of the time the university will either stop the program or make it gender neutral, rarely they will create programs for men only.

[+]Jean_o_tails 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I think we have a basic problem of communication here. Bakke banned QUOTAS in university affirmative action in 1973. It did not ban affirmative action. What it established was the so called tie-breaker for affirmative action, wherein identities can be a FACTOR in recruitment or retention but not an OVEEWEENING FACTOR. Quotas reserved for minorities were thus prohibited. You, however, seem to be so wedded to the notion that affirmative action = quotas that you can't even process what the 1973 Bakke case was about. That 2022 case you cite? It has nothing to do with quotas in universities, does it? Go ahead and look: find any description in the case that it is fighting against quotas. I will wait.

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Bakke banned QUOTAS in university affirmative action in 1973.

Of course not, if a person is getting admitted due to their race/sex then that is a QUOTA for that race/sex.

The seats are reserved for a certain group of people and will only be given to someone outside the group if they can outperform everyone from that certain by a very large amount.

Dishonest morons make a distinction about these two terms as if there is literally any practical difference between the two.

I don't make any distinction between those two terms.

wherein identities can be a FACTOR in recruitment or retention but not an OVEEWEENING FACTOR

Identity being a factory in admissions ... ummmm what does this sound like .... oh right this is exactly what QUOTAs do.

That 2022 case you cite? It has nothing to do with quotas in universities, does it?

It is literally about the 2003 case which upheld the use of race/sex in admissions.

[–]Jean_o_tails1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

USE is not QUOTAS, as was claimed above. They are very different things.

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How?

[–]Jean_o_tails1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How what?

[–]Jean_o_tails1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, I see. What Bakke established in 1973 is that idenities CAN be used as positive factor in college admissions but not an overweening factor. Quotas were expressly prohibited. What universities could do, however, was use these identity categories as "tie breakers" to recruit students from excluded groups. So, for example, given two A grade candidates in engineering, one male and one female, the university could say " We choose the woman because we need more women." And note: the law covers identity categories, not specifically gender or race. In the Bakke case, the justices said a school could use this to even recruit, say, midwesterners to an elite ivy league institution. So, in theory at least, the affirmative action law covers men. If there are indeed fewer men than women in, say, nursing, Bakke allows universities to take active measures to recruit more men. This is a good thing, no?

[–]Jean_o_tails1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Use, not quotas. Be honest. It helps you make your point.

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Both are same.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Source: my partner and I are university professors and they are their school AA head.

Do you think appealing to authority will make you correct?

School AA heads are the very people that discriminate against men. I hope such jobs will go the way of dodo in future.

[+]Jean_o_tails 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I think that gives me more authority to comment on this than some internet rando who never even heard of Bakke until this post pushed him to google it.

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yet somehow that internet rando is still correct and you aren't.

You appeal to authority because you have no arguments to support your stance. A common fallacy.

I mean, I don't expect any better an academic.

never even heard of Bakke until this post pushed him to google it.

That's clearly not true*, but let's just assume that's true. That means someone can google Bakke and know more than you have.

You seem pretty ignorant in this sort of stuff, I implore you to use Google. It's not demeaning as you think it is.

[–]Jean_o_tails1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Please give me one example where QUOTAS are being used in university affirmative action in the US. I will wait.

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Literally all of them.

Thanks for waiting.

[+]Jean_o_tails 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Source, please. Bet you 100 bucks it is not about AA quotas in universities.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College

[–]WikiSummarizerBot 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Docket 20–1199) and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (Docket 21-707) are a pair of lawsuits concerning racial discrimination in affirmative action programs in college admissions processes. The first case involves Harvard University's undergraduate admissions process which is claimed to discriminate against Asian American applicants, while the second centers on the University of North Carolina's use of socioeconomic factors in administration, which is claimed to incorporate race and violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

[+]Jean_o_tails 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Those cases have nothing to do with quotas. They are attempts to overthrow the tie-breaker norm established by Bakke or attacks on programs that favor students from historically excluded categories ( which Bakke established can't be quotas 50 years ago). Try again.

[–]Fearless-File-36252 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Too many weasel words for sugar coating blatant discrimination.

Bakke didn't ban AA, so yes these two cases are related to quotas. Try again and try harder.

[–]Jean_o_tails0 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

AA is not quotas. Deal with it.

[–]Fearless-File-36252 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes it is. Deal with it.

[–]Jean_o_tails0 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Show one example of quotas being used in US university affirmative action programs today, please. If you want to taken seriously and not dismissed as whiny incels, you need to learn a bit more about what you are complaining of.

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe you should learn a bit more, you literally act as if those two are completely different thing when in reality they are more similar than water and ice. Doesn't matter what you call, the end result is same.

Your complaining is pedantry.

[–]Jean_o_tails1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're using "literally" incorrectly.

[–]63daddy 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sadly this article like so many fails to address the cause of the problem. It doesn’t mention how colleges have become anti-male, hostile towards anyone who’s not some and it doesn’t address why college costs are rising, which are the root causes.

There are many resins why college costs are increasing but certainly one reason is all the money being spent on diversity & inclusion and all the other woke, often anti-male programming that has nothing to do with education.

The solution isn’t to have taxpayers pay, the solution is to cut such hostile programming, end the discrimination, trim other fat programs, reducing the hostility and costs.

Sadly any politician who tries to address this gets crucified by the woke media.

[–]AgeOfReasonEnds31120 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

60% of college enrollees are female... yet our workforce is 60% male.

​

What an enigma.

​

1950s gender roles can eat a dick.

[–]WorldlinessExact7794 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That stat just seems to say that college isn’t practical. If more women are doing it, then maybe it’s not very useful.

[+]Jean_o_tails -20 points-19 points-18 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Men are CHOOSING not to go to college. They are not being systematically excluded from it.

[–]denyjunctionfunction 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Girls are graded more favorably than boys in school systematically. Lower grades means they lose out on scholarship opportunities. College is unaffordable for many. Can’t afford it so they don’t go. Therefore systematically excluded.

[–]mrmensplights 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just want to add some more flavour to your great post. The anti-male bias in schools is not just driving lower grades but also disengagement; Boys drop out at higher rates and a lot of that is based on perceived opportunity. Also note that many scholarships are only for women - as many as 10x (!) - so boys aren’t just graded out but explicitly excluded. Lastly, many schools still have quota systems in place to favour women at the expense of men despite gender ratios.

[–]le_flapjack 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Found the ignorant feminist.

[+]Jean_o_tails -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Found the fool.

[–]runner557 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because today college vilifies men. College campuses today are radically left. And they bought into an ideology that men are bad. Men are privileged. Men are rapists. And all men have "toxic masculinity."

You have all these clubs and resources and scholarships for women at universities today. And even before college endless numbers of programs designed to help women go to college and go into STEM programs. Yet women make up 60% of new college enrollment. So women are the oppressed and unprivileged, and require all the social assistance, government assistance, and support. But make up 60% of the enrollment? And now you want a socialist government so that the taxpayers can pay all your student loans.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter