While many believe young people are becoming more liberal, data shows that 12th grade boys are nearly twice as likely to identify as conservative compared to liberal. Around 25% of high school seniors identify as conservative while only 13% identify as liberal. In contrast, the share of 12th grade girls identifying as liberal has risen to 30%. Many factors may contribute to this trend, including the rhetoric of Donald Trump which appealed to disaffected young men, and the focus of progressive movements on issues of gender and racial equality which some young men perceive as a “matriarchy.” However, most high school seniors claim no political identity, and many boys in high school do not actively discuss
Gendered organizations take away valuable educational opportunities from the opposite gender when they have no alternative. Since this is about high schoolers, it’s worth noting that when I was in high school, there were some extra-curricular educational opportunities that were girls-only and had no open-enrollment equivalent whatsoever. Of course, if those same clubs only allowed boys, there would be a shitstorm and people would probably end up losing their jobs over it.
These programs exist specifically in fields where women and girls are underrepresented. Why would boys need, for example, an additional chess club program or an additional computer science educational option when they often are the dominant gender (by far) in these courses? If that’s not what you are referring to, please provide a few examples.
The error you’re making is treating people as groups instead of individuals. There being a lot of men in, for example, computer science doesn’t benefit the boys who aren’t but want to be in any meaningful way. You would never have a girls-only football team without having one for boys or open-enrollment alongside it, even if the boys get to play football in PE sometimes. Why is it suddenly okay when the subject is academic?
You’re right, there should be open enrollment for everyone.