MIT produced a report called 'Wayward Sons' in which they showed that although a significant minority of males continues to reach the highest echelons of achievement, the median male is moving in the opposite direction. I'll be quoting from that report and injecting my own comments in an informal manner.
Over the last three decades, the labor market trajectory of males in the U.S. has turned downward along four dimensions: skills acquisition; employment rates; occupational stature; and real wage levels. This would be in addition to all the social trends against males in the U.S. previously discussed.
These gaps in educational attainment and labor market advancement will pose two significant challenges for social and economic policy. First, because education has become an increasingly important determinant of lifetime income over the last three decades and because earnings and employment prospects for less-educated U.S. workers have sharply deteriorated; the stagnation of male educational attainment bodes ill for the well-being of recent cohorts of U.S. males, particularly minorities and those from low-income households.
Recent cohorts of males are likely to face diminished employment and earnings opportunities and other attendant maladies, including poorer health, higher probability of incarceration, and generally lower life satisfaction.
Of equal concern are the implications that diminished male labor market opportunities hold for the well-being of others: children and potential mates in particular. As biscuit noted, due to their low marriage rates and low earnings capacity the children of less-educated males face comparatively low odds of living in economically secure households with two parents present and children born into such households face poorer educational and earnings prospects over the long term. For males, this results in many direct societal costs such as an increase in crime and incarceration and indirectly to women as they cease contributing to female run households.
It is a fact there has been a steep decline in the marriage rates of non-college U.S. adults, a steep rise in the fraction of U.S. children born out of wedlock, and a commensurate growth in the fraction of children reared in households characterized by absent fathers.
Across all western industrialized countries, poverty rates are much higher in single-parent than two-parent households and the incidence of poverty is greater among single-parent families in the U.S. than in other western countries reflecting the fact that the U.S. has low levels of pay for non-college workers and a comparatively incomplete social safety net which even in its current state, as previously shown, is reaching a point of severe curtailment in a decade or two due to economic unsustainability even with expected higher taxes.
The increased prevalence of single-headed households and the diminished child-rearing role played by stable male parents may serve to reinforce the emerging gender gaps in education and labor force participation by negatively affecting male children in particular. Specifically, male children raised in single-parent households tend to fare particularly poorly with effects apparent in almost all academic and economic outcomes. The results of this for society, women, and the men themselves are all bad.
Boys raised in these households are less likely to have a positive or stable same-sex role model present. Moreover, male and female children reared in female-headed households may form divergent expectations about their own roles in adulthood with girls anticipating assuming primary childrearing and primary income earning responsibilities in adulthood and boys anticipating assuming a secondary role in both domains.
I live in California. Both of my state's senators are feminists and so is my governor even though he's a male... lol. The state legislature and the courts are heavily biased in support of the policies of liberal feminism which they have systematically implemented over four decades with devastating results to the overall economic well-being of Californians in the private sector and the social fabric of the state. What's occurred nationally has occurred to a greater measure here.
Though called the "Golden State" before liberalism became the primary political ideology, California is now heavily in debt both on the state and local level with some cities filing bankruptcy, portions of the state are overrun by illegal aliens, unemployment/underemployment is high, from 1982 to 2000 my state's prison population increased 500% peaking in 2009 and then declining a little as prisoners were granted early release putting the community more at risk, one-third of America’s welfare recipients are Californians though we make up only one-eighth of the population, immorality runs rampant, etc...
How is increasing the number of women in Congress, the Senate, as CEOs, and in the White House going to turn this around when statistically such women conform their political behavior to liberal feminism which is a primary driver of all of this? If that were to occur, in my opinion, they would simply make what they are doing in California a blueprint for the nation.
Furthermore, this "male oppression" is going to get a LOT worse economically and socially in the years ahead and what feminists never seem to acknowledge is that, as biscuit pointed out, there is a symbiotic relationship to the well-being of females with regards to the well-being of males and the present trend is to flush all of the positive aspects of this relationship right down the drain.
As for domestic abuse and sex crime statistics, women are far less likely to be arrested and prosecuted for sexual abuse due to a systemic pro-female bias and anti-male bias that is deeply embedded in our culture.
It's so glaring that even a few brave atheist, feminist, transgenders are willing to
document this lol.
