I’m really glad to see that programs like Advancing Men in Nursing and NY Men in Nursing exist to support men who choose to pursue a career with such a gender imbalance. This thread made me curious about resources just for men in these types of fields.
I have a young white male son. He is not “losing” his privilege; he never had any. Men BEFORE him did. He had very slightly better stats than his sister - both NM commended, his SAT and SAT IIs 3 perfect scores, only SAT verbal lower at 730. Sister topped out at 780 on the same tests, 720 verbal. Sons friends NM finalists (2 white males). of the three of them, the males got rejected from 75% of the schools to which they applied. My son got merit only at UMiami and USC (nominal) and U of SC Honors.
The NM finalists, near perfect SATs, top 10% in class…also got very few merit offers. One went to OU on a merit scholar program, and the other is full pay at Notre Dame.
Two years later, my daughter was accepted to 9/10 schools that she applied to, including Cornell; she got merit money from every one except Cornell and VT (where she is going). RPI gave no merit to the male NM finalist. My girl got $25.5K. Her female friends had similar experiences IF they were going into STEM majors. (I would argue that RPI does have a valid reason for the merit offers - it made her reconsider the school, which she had originally and finally ruled out because of the skewed gender ratio) But maybe throw some merit aid to actual MERIT SCHOLARS? Maybe by making Shirley Jackson NOT the highest paid president of any college anywhere?
It sucks for these boys, because they ARE being penalized by the desire to “catch up” demographically. For example, Cornell said at the SWE weekend that they accepted 20% of the female applicants, but only 6% of male applicants, in order to achieve 50-50 balance.
So even though my daughter benefitted, (but again, not really since she isn’t going) it still seems unfair. It seems more fair to have the number of accepted students somewhat proportional to the number of qualified applicants. That is, if you get so many more applications from men, shouldn’t you end up accepting more of them?
Cornell was quick to say that the average SAT of the accepted females was 20 points higher than that of the males. so suddenly we are not so “holistic “.
Giving everyone a fair shot is fair.
Also - the president of the SWE at Cornell does women engineers no favors when she admits during a panel discussion that she has given up in getting a 3.0 GPA, preferring to spend most of her time on her “stuff” (like being the President of the SWE) instead of “staying up until 4AM studying something that I probably won’t understand anyway”. And bragging at snagging an internship where the average GPA of interns was 3.5 “because when they see Cornell on the resume, it really stands out”.
She is exactly the reason people will say rhathat women engineers aren’t as good as their male peers. She is the FACE of women engineers at Cornell. Argh.
If that gets reported, she isn’t doing her job prospects any favors either. What sane company would want to hire a person who can’t get a 3.0 GPA in their chosen major and because s/he is too busy with activism?
Lots of employers would not care much either way or at all about the activism, but use 3.0 as the GPA cutoff as one of the criteria for determining which applicants go on to the interview.
To be clear, I think activism for SWE is a positive thing. But it is a plus factor only when you can do that in conjunction with your main job in an engineering program, which is to learn the skills to be an engineer.
@Gudmom many RPI alumni would wholeheartedly agree with you about removing Shirley Jackson, not because of her treatment of male vs. female students, but because of her attitudes about students in general. Yes, RPI and other tech schools tailor their merit aid to shape their classes. If they didn’t, they would have even fewer young women apply, because those same students are being courted by all of the tech schools.
You say your son has no privilege, but that’s like a poor white many denying he has privilege - it exists in so many small ways that many don’t recognize. In classrooms around the country, white males are less likely to be questioned when they want to take advanced math and science classes - girls are still often steered in other directions.
As for Cornell, the female applicants may be a more self-selective group. I noticed this at my youngest daughters STEM-focused magnet school. Their application process is a lottery, with no prequalification. The vast majority of the girls who apply are well prepared to succeed in their STEM classes. No so, with the boys. At their orientation they are tested for math placement. All of the girls in her entering class (6th grade) were place in either accelerated math or Algebra 1. The lowest math class was all male, most likely because girls at that level wouldn’t bother applying. If the average SAT scores of the admitted females at Cornell were in fact 20 points higher than the males, it suggests either the male applicant pool had a broader range of scores, or admissions for the males was more holistic. If they had offered acceptances based on SAT scores, perhaps the percentage of women accepted would have been even greater.
@Hanna
"“But his complaint does seem to fit with what appears to be a current trend of young men being upset at the loss of privilege.”
Agreed."
Hanna, you went to Harvard. Would an unemployed white guy who used to work in a coal mine in West Virginia have more privilege than you?
@yearstogo
"I hope young, white men or men in general lose their privilege. I just hope it is not merely replaced with a shifting of privilege.
I hope that all people are treated with dignity, respect and love, and that animosity against anyone due to race or gender differences vanishes.
Is there any society that existed or exists where the concept of privilege does not exist or did not exist?
“Hanna, you went to Harvard. Would an unemployed white guy who used to work in a coal mine in West Virginia have more privilege than you?”
Gender privilege, yes. Class privilege, no. You can be advantaged in some areas and disadvantaged in others. Just as an example: if that guy and his sister are both up for a job at a new mine, will they benefit equally from the employer’s assumptions about their physical strength, bravery, social fit with the rest of the team, etc.? Of course not.
If you want to compare him to me directly, think about each of us taking a long walk alone at 3 AM in Baltimore. He can make that walk pretty confidently; I’d have to be insane to take that risk. That’s male privilege.
Of course, unemployed miners in West Virginia aren’t complaining about discrimination at Yale. So that’s a red herring as far as this thread is concerned.
I’m not Hanna, but that WV coal miner does have privilege over others in certain situations. Whether he has more or less privilege than one particular individual doesn’t negate that fact that he has privilege over others.
But the issue here isn’t a coal miner v. Harvard graduate, it’s a female student at Yale v. a male student at Yale. (And BTW there ARE support group and special opportunities for first gens at Yale).
Societies aren’t defined by the existence or non existence of privilege, but by the ways those with privilege find ways to make privileges accessible to others rather than caste-based, gender-based, etc., or by the ways those with privilege find ways to keep others from approaching them.
Humorously, it’s said that the French revolution abolished privileges for a few (which were an official category of things, laws, rights, etc.) so that most could have their own special privileges. 
I wouldn’t say a man can take that walk confidently. He may be at a lower risk of sexual assault, but there’s still the risk of robbery and physical assault, and while the risk of sexual assault is lower, it’s still not zero.
“If you want to compare him to me directly, think about each of us taking a long walk alone at 3 AM in Baltimore. He can make that walk pretty confidently; I’d have to be insane to take that risk. That’s male privilege.”
@Hanna, I’m concerned by your post. What is troubling about Baltimore?
Further, one of my good friends is an Asian-American guy who is 5’4" and about 120 pounds. He is visually impaired. He could make that walk pretty confidently, if there is something about Baltimore that causes concern, simply because he’s a guy? Really?
Finally, “privilege” is defined as “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor”. What right or immunity was granted to my friend, and by whom?
“I’m not Hanna, but that WV coal miner does have privilege over others in certain situations.”
@CTScoutmom, in what situations and compared to whom would the WV coal miner, who is an unemployed white guy, or my small and visually-impaired Asian-American friend who is a guy, have privilege? If I’m understanding correctly, the sole fact that they are men gives them privilege over all women. Compared to Rhonda Rousey? Compared to Angela Merkel or Teresa May?
Well, if you’re a guy, fewer people see you as a potential prey, regardless of size.
In my experience, guys simply take it for granted they can walk wherever they feel like. Women take for granted they can’t.
It’s not a matter of Baltimore.
It’s just ingrained, to the point that if you’re a gentleman you walk a woman back if it’s late and dark. You don’t do that for your buddy because you don’t assume someone will see him and think “easy prey” or “walking sex toy”.
Note however that the “walk back” services on university campuses are offered to both men and women.
@MYOS1634, while I’m still struggling to understand what about Baltimore is cause for concern in posts above, if there is an unsafe area (for example, a rural area full of Trump supporters with guns), I don’t think that a guy would go through it alone. I’ve lived in plenty of areas with high crime and haven’t ever met any man who thinks that he can go absolutely anywhere. And my Asian-American friend has been mugged before.
I’m not trying to be argumentative; I’m simply trying to understand: the sole fact that someone is a man means that he was given benefits that entitle him to things that women aren’t allowed to have?
Blanket and absolute statements about groups of people often aren’t a good idea, and it seems as though while many members of each gender may have some inherent things that may in many cases be beneficial, variation among individuals would mean that blanket statements about groups simply aren’t accurate. For example, it can be claimed that men have “privilege”, but I doubt many people would choose to be a white guy who is an unemployed former coal miner in West Virginia instead of Meghan Markle or Michelle Obama.
This is a myth. Men are victims of violent crimes at about the same rate as women. To the extent young men think they are invincible, it’s evidence of self-delusion not privilege.
^And for the white male walking the streets of Baltimore, hoping he “loses his privilege” would amount to hoping he is as likely to be sexually assaulted as a woman is. Or something.
I highly doubt anyone sees me as a walking sex toy these days, but then, maybe that privilege comes with age.
Rural areas are usually quite safe.
I think Baltimore was used as an example or urban area. (I really like the inner harbor but I’m guessing we’re talking The Wire’s Baltimore, not Inner Harbor’s Baltimore.)
And what’s being discussed isn’t “losing privilege” but rather the lawsuit that indicates specific support groups or programs aren’t necessary because privileges don’t exist anymore.
(These groups and programs exist to “level the playing”, not “take away” anything from me or you).
The point however isn’t “unsafe area” - yeah, if you’re a guy and not stupid, you don’t go alone, after street lights are on, through an area known for gun violence or mugging or drug dealing.
The idea isn’t that guys can’t be mugged.
But most guys feel safe going wherever they feel like going (I’m assuming you don’t randomly feel like going to an area known for drug dealing, violence, or muggings). I mean, if you need to buy something and it’s 10pm, you go get it at the corner shop or the wawa or pigglywigly. You go down the stairs and walk to the store, or walk through the parking garage or to the driveway and take your car, drive, park your car and walk from your car to the store. You don’t check your surroundings constantly nor have with you a bag that contains your pepper spray – you don’t take for granted that walking down stairs, through a parking garage, to a shop… may lead to being assaulted.
If you go jogging you put headphones in and no one considers that being “naive”, “unsafe”, or “unaware” -something I’ve read many, many times, in an “obvious” tone, wrt women wearing headphones while walking during the day in a city (this being referred to as being “smart” or “city-savvy”) because apparently they need to be “aware of their surroundings” at all times.
An exception may be a Black guy jogging, though.
The point is that “ANY area” can be considered unsafe for women after dark - I’ve found that rules for women aren’t the same as for men and you need to respect that.
@MYOS1634, rural areas full of Trump supporters have higher rates of crime than plenty of large cities. Baltimore is a strange place to use as an example. If an urban area is the issue, why not Manhattan? Central London? Central Paris?
I don’t know any men who “feel safe going wherever they feel like going” (Baghdad? Any US high school?), and even if “most guys” do, then that destroys the statements in other posts that men inherently have “privilege”. Lots of men carry pepper spray, so they don’t feel invincible simply due to their gender. Maybe many men have some aspects that women don’t (and the reverse), but not all do.
Further, don’t tell me that I “need” to do anything. If you want to order me around, then pay me for the privilege or quit being bossy.