Went and dug a little deeper and it seems that for high-income nations, this trend of more women than men graduating in universities (as well as outperforming in school) has been going on for multiple decades now.
Apart of me wants to think its just right-wing hysteria because this was brought to my attention by some random podcast clip using this example as somehow proof that patriarchy doesn’t exist lol. Some articles I read did mention how other factors (particularly class and race) was a higher determinant of school/university success.
And I particularly do not like biological explanations anyways (too essentialist to my taste, but I can’t say for sure). I forgot which article in particular but it did argue it’s because men used to be able find jobs in more traditional blue-collar industries, leading to this present day discrepancy.
What do you all think?
So far as I know, white ‘working class’ boys are the worst academic performing demographic in the UK.
I don’t have an answer as to why this is the case other than: capitalism.
It’s a similar picture in prisons. Although prisons are disproportionately filled with black men, the white men in prison tend to be from poorer backgrounds, with mental health issues, and are more likely than not to be illiterate and innumerate.
On the whole, black students tend to ‘receive’ worse university grades because so many of the higher ‘performers’ are white ‘middle class’ students (including men).
Some schools have a program for children of parents who have received social security within the last X years or children of single parent households (the categories overlap considerably, I think). Race is not a factor in the program I’m thinking of. But race is a factor in some programs. These are the target of right wing commentators who note the stats for poorer white boys.
Some universities (Aston rings a bell) have a pot of money especially to help white working class boys. Most unis also have other funding for other ‘disadvantaged’ students.
I put some terms in quotation marks because:
Aside: Gary Roth, The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility is a great book on university education and class. It’s not quite related to your main point, though.
I completely agree. I do definitely think that if anything, patriarchy and capitalism together contributes to many problems that men face. Such as the higher incidence of attempted suicide and depression (if i am not mistaken) or in this case failure in education. It is definitely plausible, and probably the most accurate, to say that its all these factors, ie. cultural and political-economic, that contributes to this observed underachievement in school.
As for your point about race, it is one aspect I didn’t cover, because I think for most people, or atleast those in this site, the affect of class and race on educational achievement is more or less obvious, if they had read any even basic marxist theory.
I am also acutely aware of the British educational system (not saying that this is specific to the British though) due to having gone through the international versions of both GCSE and A-levels. It is definitely not meritocratic, and it becomes clear that, lets just say, higher income families, can afford to spend extra tutoring sessions, have typically more stable family relationships or even to afford extra revision materials.
I think as for the term such as ‘disadvantaged’, it can also be interpreted as disadvantaged-by the system itself, and not directly putting blame onto the individual. I do see your concerns though, and thats the issue with identity politics that negate or disregards class as not important. I think as long as we use certain terms with disclaimers, as you have done, it becomes less of an issue, and we can talk more about the heart of the issue, like how disability and class intersect.
And on that small note about middle class and working class, its something that still irks me. I think we all agree that there is a certain portion of the working class that has absorbed and internalised bourgeois ideology due to their more privileged relation to production. Labour aristocracy comes to mind, but I understand that does not really particularly describe this scenario?
Petite bourgeoisie is another but of course that is more to do with small business owners.
When I rant I usually just say something along the lines of managerial/upper middle class/specialist but it would be useful to use a term more grounded in Marxist theory.
Good response. I agree.
Pointing out the higher incidence of suicide and depression among men makes me wonder if alienation is a factor along with culture and political economy.
As we’re in c/revolutionaryfeminism, I wonder if anyone knows of a Marxist analysis on gender and alienation. I doubt it’s possible to say that men experience more alienation than women, but I’d bet there are gendered differences relating to alienation. These differences might explain academic achievement.
As for class, I go through the same cycles. Working class / middle class is convenient short hand for many discussions. If I’m talking with non-Marxists, I’ll often reject that binary (liberals seem to rarely ask what is above the middle) and insist on a Marxist definition. But this is to make a point. Among Marxists, we can probably get by knowing that if one of us uses e.g. ‘working class’ we’re invoking it for convenience and as a relational term.
And I agree about labour aristocracy / petite bourgeois. Although maybe if add that in many cases, the middle / managerial / professional class(es) seem to have a petite bourgeois ideology. So they fit into that category even if they’re not a small business owner of minor landlord.
As for labour aristocrats. This is a useful category, but it’s meaning can seem too wide and too narrow at the same time. Depending on who you ask, it covers everyone in the imperial core or only those on the highest salaries. 🤷