If boys are being 'left behind' at uni, then why do they grow up to spectacularly overtake women in the workplace?
Yet another idiotic, amateur-sociologist-cum-journalist writing about gender issues, taking a nasty anti-male stance. I've become pretty inured to the stupidity and hate of this genre, but when the targets are children or teenagers it does tend to get my hackles up.
I suppose its ironic in an article in which a woman is crowing about female educational achievement that she makes the kind of schoolgirl error in logic that would probably make her the class dunce. I'm talking, of course, of her failure to understand the fact that any 'trend' that is occurring now will take time to filter up the food chain of careers. Just because 17 year old girls are now more ambitious, why should that change the earning differential between men and women in their 40s, 50s or 60s?
Anyway, Mzzz Fairly (she certainly doesn't write fairly) certainly doesn't look like a spring chicken, so she might want to re-consider her celebration of the collapse of motivation amongst young men (again, accepting for the time being that this is real). She may be able to afford to take a snooty attitude towards carpenters but when she's truly old and in need of a pension, good health care, perhaps some nursing care, and certainly preferring a stable society around her, she might want to re-think her stance on the collapse of male motivation. After all, who still provides the lion's share of tax? Do you really want a ghetto Britain with vast swathes of young men out of work, with no motivation, not paying their taxes (and, indeed, leeching off the welfare state) and spending their days drinking and playing pool? Does she really celebrate all the consequences of this, not least of which may be increased mental health issues and yet higher suicide rates amongst young men?