“Young men get little help, in part, because schools are focused on encouraging historically underrepresented students. Jerlando Jackson, department chair, Education Leadership and Policy Analysis, at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Education, said few campuses have been willing to spend limited funds on male underachievement that would also benefit white men, risking criticism for assisting those who have historically held the biggest educational advantages.”
So this is a direct result of the move away from color blind policies, to race based policies.
> Keith E. Smith, a mental-health counselor and men’s outreach coordinator at the University of Vermont, said that when he started working at the school in 2006 he found that men were much more likely to face consequences for the trouble they caused under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
This is exactly what black students report as racism in school.
Seems like evidence that race based policies are just racist.
> In 2008, Mr. Smith proposed a men’s center to help male students succeed. The proposal drew criticism from women who asked, “Why would you give more resources to the most privileged group on campus,” he said.
Funding wasn’t appropriated, he said, and the center was never built.
Obviously white men are not in fact privileged on university campuses.
“Female students in the U.S. benefit from a support system established decades ago, spanning a period when women struggled to gain a foothold on college campuses. There are more than 500 women’s centers at schools nationwide. Most centers host clubs and organizations that work to help female students succeed.”
Men are failing because it is the policy not to support them.
>assisting those who have historically held the biggest educational advantages
History is just that: history. A white male going to uni _right now_ hasn't really enjoyed those historical advantages; they were before their time.
Yes there are other advantages in the modern world to being a white male, but there are also equivalent disadvantages, too. Easier to get power...but if you're male nobody is there to defend you or help you. Help yourself, defend yourself _and_ others, be the breadwinner (otherwise you're useless) "man up".
This is the best question. Masculinity is just an archetype. It could have been three dudes standing around, "Hey you know, we are all strong, smart, and like to protect our families. I bet it's because we have these third legs, pretty sure that's it." And then we pass it down generations. Tell women the same BS about femininity. Letting just a few folks define what a gender represents, as if one side or the other does not share those traits. Just being human isn't as fun, I guess? Or maybe just the complexity of being undefined is too much for some folks, to know they could be contradictory, complex or different. Either way, masculinity itself is just kind of like a cult-y marketing tool. It's used to either make you feel bad or great, maybe apart of something, (that always ends well), but the people selling it, want it to define you. And if you buy into it, think there is something special about you because you pee standing up, and that makes you superior, that's toxic AF.
And yes I am straight, white, and male, with a nice haircut and could tell you the 7 day forecast everyday of the year. Would love to hear your definition on masculinity and why you treasure it's meaning so much.
> Letting just a few folks define what a gender represents, as if one side or the other does not share those traits.
If you think masculinity is arbitrary and that traits are not specific to a gender, then why do you argue that men should be denied the same supports that other people get at college?
> And yes I am straight, white, and male,
Why are you so angry at white men?
> with a nice haircut and could tell you the 7 day forecast everyday of the year.
What relevance do these have?
> Would love to hear your definition on masculinity and why you treasure it's meaning so much.
Asking you what it means to you doesn’t imply anyone treasures it’s meaning. You are reading that in.
The premise of your question doesn't relate to that last part, (masculinity vs men, different things) but I can answer the last part: they do get the same level of support maybe even better, but no, they shouldn't receive specific support reserved for folks with different obstacles.
I like white men! Love everyone! I dislike excuses around "poor me"s from folks that lack perspective on how they have it better, (I did not say good, said better). And not all white dudes feel sorry for themselves and blame "society", or college, or women, or other skin colors, or etc... Those folks are awesome to hang with. I'll hang with anyone, but you'll get an ear full if you bring that stuff up and are a white dude, still friendly though.
THE RELEVANCE OF MY HAIR IS EVERYTHING, I am in my 30's and it's committing suicide everyday, I'll talk about it while I still can. (You really hate my jokes, still like you though)
I usually don't care if you don't answer my questions but I was truly truly hoping you'd answer what you think masculinity is, I answered for you, come on now.
See it's better when you share your opinion, that way it's easier to see what you are thinking. You are getting mad at me for all these assumptions, but I was right, you really think white people are underprivileged, "it's unfair", and you call me reprehensible. This is where I'd hope you'd be sarcastic.
It's been fun zepto, i thought threads could keep going, but they can't. Here is what you are going to do, you are going to keep looking up statistics why is harder to be white. You'll keep complaining how the white man doesn't get his fair share. And that denying white people even more privilege is the real racism. You are the "poor me", and life is going to be incredibly challenging for you but you'll probably find support in some white guys group where they can "stay proud" and stand up for the white man. Just take care of yourself and don't hurt anybody.
Still never answered the question, thats just cruel, I was really hoping I'd get that answered.
> Men are failing because it is the policy not to support them.
And because men need the support. I suspect that a lot fewer men needed support in, say, 1950.
Why do more men need support than did in 1950? I think the first reason may be because of education. Our education system is failing in a way that it wasn't in 1950. (This may be too harsh. If, say, 10% of high school graduates went to college in 1950, and 50% do now, then that means that the top 10% then were more prepared for college than the top 50% are now. But apples-to-apples would be to ask whether the top 10% then were better prepared than the top 10% are now. I don't have a good feel for the answer to that question.)
> And because men need the support. I suspect that a lot fewer men needed support in, say, 1950.
> Why do more men need support than did in 1950?
My answer is that when men were the vast majority consumers of higher education the system was built to support them.
This accords with what the social justice people would say, and I think they are right about that.
What they are wrong about is that men today should be denied support that other groups have today because men in the 1950s had support that other groups in the 1950s did not have.
Fair point. But my impression (only that) is that college in 1950 was much less hand-holding and "supportive" in general than it is in 2021. What there was, however, was almost certainly tuned for males (and in fact white males).
The question is fully answered. Men today are no less deserving of support than anyone else. They deserve the same support that other groups have today.
If you read the article you’ll see that men do not have the same support that other groups have, and proposals to provide that support are rejected on the basis of history rather than present need.
The desire ‘not to help white men’ is explicitly mentioned.
yea totally changed my mind, it does sound like things just aren't fair and the other "groups" have it better while the white man "deserves" it's fair share. Should we start a group or what? Which other group should we target first to get the "support" that we need?
Your response is dripping with sarcasm. Why do you have such hatred of white men in particular?
Also, why are you making this about race? The basis of the article was about how men are not getting the support they need. Why do you keep bringing “white men” into it?
All we’re taking about is recognizing that there are support services provided to women which are not provided to men, and there is no reason that men shouldn’t also need such services.
These are simply facts stated in the article.
What have you got against men that makes you want to deny them the same services as women?
Is it your opinion that white men, or men in general are somehow less deserving than young women? Or perhaps you think young men are inherently superior to women and therefore don’t have the same needs.
You are making a lot of huge jumps there, incorrectly, (except for the sarcasm, completely on point), and you asked like 5 questions.
Everyone should get support! More support! Everyone. By focusing on men, you are stating it is MORE challenging for men. It is not. Men should get more support, so should everyone, but if we are handing out bread, men should be last to receive, as our plate is the fullest. Do you really think men have it worse? I don't, being a guy is super great, much easier, and complaining about it just makes you seem like you lack perspective. Only you can tell us.
Jesus, zepto:
A) Thanks for such a detailed response
B) Screw you for such a detailed response, my thumbs gonna hurt
I write on my phone while watching travel videos on youtube and drinking, quoting is a pain, you deserve a better conversation, but I'll do my best,(thats a lie).
Sarcasm is great, its meant to get people riled up, you should try it, makes these comments more entertaining while also exaggerating another's end goal to show where those ideals lead.
Regarding focusing on men, (each paragraph to your points), I read the article, (like three times now because I feel like we read different things), its an opinion piece, I am trying to tell you I disagree with the summation that men, and white men, (the article brings up race!), are at a disadvantage and don't have the same LEVEL of support. They get different support, like being white and/or male, which for real, I will not go over again why its so much easier/better to be male and/or white. (Higher paying job while you get through school!)
At this point you aren't stating much, just trying interview me or something, so I'll assume all I want.
The article is providing context as pertains only to college. Disregards that white men have better access to college prep classes, paid more while they go to school, less chance of hardships, (not saying there are no hardships but again white male life = easier life) I really don't care if less men are going to college, I didn't graduate, not the end of the world, still had it easier. And no, not college age, but if you are, I swear life is better when older.
(oi i am only half way through)
Yea, "in terms of" thats the point that gets me, like caring about that, with all the other advantages you get from being white and/or male, you need to made sure no one else can ever have a different advantage, especially one thats easy to get around and still get to where you want.
Again, it's an opinion piece article, I am pointing out I think it's disagreeable because its so shortsighted.
Now you point out it's an age thing, I mean, sleep easy on that point, you are right. I haven't been that age for 13 years. Still live and work with people of all ages, share stories, listen to their lives, try to do my best to figure out whats going on, empathize... But if you want to say its a secretive world I would only understand if I were you, please help me get it, pretty sure these threads can go as long as we want.
I mean, you are debating heavily to prove that men have it worse, "in terms of" whatever, I can take that another step and just say you are complaining. Could go further with sarcasm and take if further but you pointed out you are not a fan.
I get your argument, but I am pointing out that while you are saying "same" you literally mean men should have access to support that is reserved for different people that have different hardships, in order to try to make the playing field more level. You, (not saying you personally, but in case you go there), can't say we should have the same access to support in college while having much different obstacles in life.
And yea definitely not trying to contribute anything, button says "comment" or "reply", not contribute, you feel like my opinions are that lame or what?
And yea, tying in a lot of things, but all related and what your greater point of view may be.
I like you zepto, just trying to help with your perspective. Obviously, that was a lot to write from both of us.
> Sarcasm is great, its meant to get people riled up, you should try it, makes these comments more entertaining while also exaggerating another's end goal to show where those ideals lead.
You aren’t exaggerating another’s “end”. You don’t actually know what that is.
You are simply being dishonest in your representation.
> At this point you aren't stating much, just trying interview me or something, so I'll assume all I want.
Lying about another person’s position is just that.
> Disregards that white men have better access to college prep classes, paid more while they go to school, less chance of hardships,
Even if true historically or when you went to college.
This is certainly not true of every white man today..
Whilst it’s certainly true that statistically Black people are less likely to have resources like college prep classes, that is a function of money. There are more poor white people than there are poor black people, even if statistically if you have black skin you are more likely to be poor.
There are also large numbers of rich and middle class black people who live in nice neighborhoods and have all the supports you mention.
That’s why it’s racist to base your discriminatory policies on race rather than actual hardship.
If you want to argue that people who have fewer resources should receive supports that others don’t, I will agree with you.
If you want to argue that being white means you have access to college prep, I think you are delusional.
> I didn't graduate, not the end of the world, still had it easier. And no, not college age, but if you are, I swear life is better when older.
You may have had it easier in your day, but as the article explains things have changed.
> I mean, you are debating heavily to prove that men have it worse, "in terms of" whatever, I can take that another step and just say you are complaining.
> you are debating heavily to prove that men have it worse
The article indicates that they do, at college. I’m not ‘arguing that’, I’m referencing it.
If you are claiming that I’m making a more general claim, then you are just misrepresenting me - I.e. you are intentionally lying about what I am saying.
> Could go further with sarcasm and take if further but you pointed out you are not a fan.
I’m not a fan because you are being at best fooling and at worst dishonest.
> I get your argument,
The evidence is that you don’t.
> but I am pointing out that while you are saying "same" you literally mean men should have access to support that is reserved for different people that have different hardships, in order to try to make the playing field more level.
I’m not arguing that some general “playing field” should be more level.
I am arguing that men are just people, and there is no reason they should receive less support in their education.
> You, (not saying you personally, but in case you go there), can't say we should have the same access to support in college while having much different obstacles in life.
Your position continues to embody racism and sexism
It seems like you are saying that men today should receive a worse educational experience than other people because men in the past like you had more advantages in life.
The problem is that this hurts those men who are less advantaged deliberately on the basis of their sex.
If there are advantages men as a category receive later in life, then those need to be addressed, but it’s reprehensible to use that as a justification for harming people’s educational experience.
worse educational experience? thats dramatic as hell. You are just mad that can't steal support reserved for other folks.
You keep throwing around priveledge and advantage but I don't think you get it. Do women make less money than men, underrepresented in industries, way higher percentage of being victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault? But your argument, is always "some men", but we are talking about "in general". Huge difference between situational advantage and systematic disadvantage.
Calling me reprehensible, and you are all high and mighty about how mean sarcasm is hahaha. This whole thread, is you getting all bent out of shape because you think the white man isn't getting enough, just leave it at that. I hope one day you see how ridiculous that is.
Please make this your last comment thread on HN, this was painful to read. This type of discourse does much better on twitter or reddit, feel free to keep it there.
"you know what this old thread needs? some hacker news superiority" - you
You jumping in a old thread, and you expect me to believe it's because you want me to stop? sounds like to showed up late to the party and just sad everyone left, and you want me to jump back in to talk to you. How you doing?
The other thing add that it is okay to support men who need that support. This was exactly what the Ontario Ministry of Education was encouraging men to get into teaching a decade ago. They had data that showed boys attainment of literacy was declining and viewed more male role models as a potential solution.
It is also worth noting that providing supports for men does not mean removing supports for other under represented groups.
It's called therapy, not blaming other people that don't look like you coming up. And yea, therapy is expensive and usually not covered by medical insurance. So vote.
all the men on here complaining they aren't getting support while others are, definitely aren't blaming anyone, you're right, I took that too far. Seeing a lot of men write how they are super stoked women are finally getting some small advantages in academia.
> all the men on here complaining they aren't getting support while others are,
Where are these complaining men? I see people critiquing policies. I think you are making up in your head that there are men on here complaining about their situation.
> definitely aren't blaming anyone, you're right, I took that too far.
Your sarcasm is causing you to dishonestly represent what others are saying.
> Seeing a lot of men write how they are super stoked women are finally getting some small advantages in academia.
They aren’t getting a small advantage. The advantage is huge across the entire educational spectrum now.
Nobody should be celebrating that any more than we should have been celebrating men having an advantage in the past.
The goal is for our systems to support everyone. Not to punish present day people based on arbitrary characteristics they share with people in the past.
your right, sarcasm is a tool of the devil and it's so unauthentic, it's like lying but with an even more evil purpose.
You are complaining, right now, about how now women get a situational advantage. And we shouldn't celebrate that they are better represented in academia! No mas zepto, at this point you just need to get out in the world and see what life is like for others, quit worrying about how underprivileged you are.
Men are the competitive gender. In past, only 40% of men survived to reproduce whereas 80% of women did.
Not in absolute terms, but imagine if more competitive men survive with higher probability in each generation, there's a good chance males will be more competitive and females will be more cooperative in next generations.
Now this theory is fringe. But not as nonsense as "Both genders are same, everything is social conditioning" bullshit we hear every day.
> You can't expect to play a game, give one team an advantage for the first half, give neither team an advantage in the second half, and call it a fair game at the end.
The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’.
I.e. you are simply assuming that racism is forever and that the only fairness comes dividing people by race and then balancing resources according to racial groups.
This is just more racism. It’s not the only solution.
We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted.
However if we apply that support through racialized policies, we will never solve the problem.
For example, we can see that black people historically are disproportionately impacted by policies that have prevented wealth building, such as redlining. Of course so have groups of low class white people been denied access to assets, just to a lesser extent.
A racist solution would be to give advantages to black people.
A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building.
This will still disproportionately benefit black people but will be self-balancing and won’t perpetuate racism or permanently embed it into our political and legal systems.
You never hear the tree-hugger saying, "it's my turn to clear-cut forests with unsustainable abandon". No, the goal is to stop clear cutting forests with unsustainable abandon. That's how I was raised to think of racism. You don't straighten up by stopping racism over here while increasing it over there. You stop racism by stopping racism.
"The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."
I heard someone else phrase it that the current "anti-racist" movement isn't trying to eliminate the jack-boots, they're trying them on for size, instead.
Yea black people always getting that advantage, you should let more people know. I mean, people just don't understand how hard it is to be white these days with twitter hate and everything. Be the voice! Let me know how it goes.
Why do you think a college would have an "advantage" for someone black that would not be available to someone white? Is it possible, hear me out, that maybe white people are still at a massive advantage getting to college and that colleges are trying to equalize the playing field?
"intellectually dishonest"
as opposed to physically dishonest or...?
Preferential admissions, sure. And that's not new, admissions take a lot of things into account besides race, like religion, family members who were alumni, hell you can even just pay to get in. You think maybe white men get more preferential treatment in life though? "BUt THaTs NOt WhAT We ArE TALkiNg AbOuT". Huge difference between situational advantage and systematic disadvantage.
> The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’.
No, you're arguing against an artifact the analogy instead of acting in good faith to understand the meaning.
Consider a game where all players are independent, but the "referee" arbitrarily chose half of the players to get an advantage. Let that be team 1, and everyone else be team 2. We got a new referee in the 2nd half, and that ref wants it to be a fair game; would it be unfair for them to acknowledging and try to correct for the 1st ref's team choices?
(Now if you argue that there is no "referee" in real life, I'm going to assume you are being willingly obstinate.)
> A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building.
So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards.
But take note that you'll then have minorities who were forced to work 10x harder than their white peers say, "wtf?! I put in all that extra work to pull myself up by my bootstraps, and now you're just going to hand out success to everyone? I feel disenfranchised!"
In a "fair" race, that person who worked 10x harder than their peers should be appreciably further along in the "game". The only way to make that correction is to acknowledge the divide already drawn by the first "referee".
As far as I can see you just restated the idea of dividing the world into teams based on race. That isn’t an artifact of the analogy.
That is the basis of racism.
We can accept that a game like this was played, stop playing it, and work to undo the damage without continuing to play the game.
>> A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building.
> So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards.
No, I don’t view socialism favorably and it’s not implied. Creating institutions or programs that facilitate higher levels of economic participation by those who start with less does not imply socialism.
No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, that happened naturally. What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse.
> No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided,
I think the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish consciously chose Africans to be imported as slaves to America. Don’t you?
Jim Crow laws were consciously written by people who were deciding how races should be divided.
Race isn’t even a natural category.
> that happened naturally.
Are you seriously suggesting that slavery and Jim Crow happened ‘naturally’?
> What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse.
This is false. If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it.
Here is something I did say:
“We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted.”
> Are you seriously suggesting that slavery happened ‘naturally’?
Are you seriously suggesting that humans aren't naturally occurring? Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not.
Randomly populate a geologically non uniform landmass with humans, and over time some will exploit natural advantages over others based on arbitrary factors. The fact that the British colonized everyone wasn't because they were somehow genetically superior or more predisposed to colonization, they just randomly got dealt the best hand.
> If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it.
I'm referring to your core argument that,
> A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building.
You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth.
Consider a hypothetical scenario where we had a "perfectly equal past", where there was no slavery or systemic racism and everyone had been treated fairly based on their own ability. Even in this world, you'd still have some people who fall short at "building wealth" compared to others. You'd still see a "line" drawn based on natural ability. This is the only scenario in which I'd agree with you.
But the natural ability line isn't the only one that history has drawn. We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation.
One day, I hope to get to a point where we're approaching a "perfectly equal past", but until then we have more than 1 line to account for.
> Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not.
No. I’m saying they made a conscious choice to enslave other races, just as abolitionists eventually made a conscious choice to oppose it.
> You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth.
Yes, why not?
This is what it means to stop being racist. You stop enacting race based policies, and you take steps to counteract the impacts of past racism on people in the present.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause. If you claim that is what I am saying then you are just lying.
Consequences of racism are the largest historical reasons black people as a statistical category have had trouble building wealth.
There is nothing wrong with recognizing this as a priority. As I point out, the groups with the biggest problem will benefit disproportionately by default if we address this.
However black people are not the only ones who have suffered from impediments. Racism is one cause, but there are others.
A person who is struggling today should be helped regardless of their own skin color or the skin color of the grandparents.
What is wrong, is to continue the racist practices of past societies by enacting race based policies.
> You stop enacting race based policies, and you take steps to counteract the impacts of past racism on people in the present.
But by definition, that's not what ignoring race does.
> This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that racism was a cause.
By definition, that's what "rotating the line to be orthogonal to race" does.
> However black people are not the only ones who have suffered from impediments. Racism is one cause, but there are others.
> A person who is struggling today should be helped regardless of their own skin color or the skin color of the grandparents.
Agreed, that's why I said: "We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation."
"Rotating the line to be orthogonal to race" is a bit of a confusing statement, but I don't think it's fair to say that it implies not acknowledging race. What it does imply is enacting policies that are not solely based upon race.
I agree with Zepto. You can't just easily quantify the effects of all of the past injustices against different groups of people. Imagine if today the federal government decided to pay reparations for slavery. How would you decide who receives the money? Do you have to be 1/2 black? 1/4? Do you receive less money if you're less black? What about other minorities? How much are they entitled to?
It becomes messy very quickly. This is a simplified example, but this is why it's best to take enact policies that help those who struggle today regardless of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
However, it is still important to acknowledge, teach about, and remember racism and other inequalities from years past (and some which continue today)
> After a few hundred years of race/gender based policies working in favor of whites/males, I don't know what else we would expect from a deliberate effort to reverse it
White hasn't even meant the same thing for over a hundred years in America. Treating "white males" as a monolithic group is a vast over-simplification of all the different sub-groups and cultures who were not equally advantaged.
The great irony of this logic is that you are totally embracing might is right politics. As long as your team wins. But that's not how might is right works.
I hear you, this is alarming. No support! We deserve it, right? Being a young white male is probably the hardest thing to be in the world. Getting profiled... by twitter. And then, not to mention, all the dirty looks we get when we lock our doors, protect our families from this new wave of white hate. I proclaim we change this, but it won't be easy. We'll need to wear some hoods... ... Or just stop being a sad boi, join society and have some fun? Don't be a jerk? Like actively try to make others lives better? Might just get, actually it will, get better for you.
I also wonder about those in Silicon Valley telling young men "don't go to college" and the mostly male fascination with entrepreneurship and crytocurrency. The entire meme stock and "apes together are strong" seems like a young male flex. Could it be that college is just seen as "gay"?
Are Academics Disproportionately Gay?
A new analysis suggests that's the case, and that academic work -- at once solitary and social in nature -- makes it particularly attractive to those who are not straight.
So this is a direct result of the move away from color blind policies, to race based policies.
> Keith E. Smith, a mental-health counselor and men’s outreach coordinator at the University of Vermont, said that when he started working at the school in 2006 he found that men were much more likely to face consequences for the trouble they caused under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
This is exactly what black students report as racism in school.
Seems like evidence that race based policies are just racist.
> In 2008, Mr. Smith proposed a men’s center to help male students succeed. The proposal drew criticism from women who asked, “Why would you give more resources to the most privileged group on campus,” he said. Funding wasn’t appropriated, he said, and the center was never built.
Obviously white men are not in fact privileged on university campuses.
“Female students in the U.S. benefit from a support system established decades ago, spanning a period when women struggled to gain a foothold on college campuses. There are more than 500 women’s centers at schools nationwide. Most centers host clubs and organizations that work to help female students succeed.”
Men are failing because it is the policy not to support them.