Are you a prepper?
Quite frankly, most people alive today are bluepillers and are completely oblivious and have 0 critical thinking skills. If you do your own research, you'll see it for yourself.
I don't know that what you're posting qualifies as "research." The process at which you're declaring validity and then drawing conclusions are incongruous.
All you are doing is linking some cherry picked stats (which aren't really contextualized or vetted beyond flat numbers), which is problematic, by itself, in the uncritical nature in which you're looking at them. But you aren't stopping there. You then double down on that lack of criticality by issuing these broad, sweeping generalizations that you think are (or have been or will be) the results of (past, present, and future) these "statistics"
Finally, the audacity of saying others lack critical thinking skills gives this circus its third ring.
You've got the process backwards. You don't start with declaring a conclusion and then making a bit of evidence fit here and there.
That's what "bluepillers" did when Roger Goodell levied the allegations against the Saints and assembled a weak cast of cherry-picked, de-contextualized "evidence" to prop up a specious narrative.
Your crusade is misdirected. There might be some aspects of your argument worth talking about, but sifting through the rhetoric and generalizations and doomsday alarmism makes that tedious.
In the end, you end up marginalizing your
own perspective through your
own posts more than anyone else who is responding to them. You're typing a lot and linking to a lot, but really saying little that's substantive and coherent.
edit:
as an illustrative example -
you link to this:
What's wrong with that in the first place? You just link to it and then expect us to (1) assume whatever point you're getting at, and (2) assume that you're right. That's not "research." What's your objection to programs driven to attract women to math and science? It happens at levels below postsecondary, too. I've seen them work very well. I've had female students in them. I've also seen boys-only programs for literacy and the arts. I've seen funding for increasing engagement with literature for boys and have written curriculum geared toward male student engagement (e.g. through the canonical inclusion of graphic novels in the curriculum) because their interest and participation lags, generally, behind girls (and, interestingly enough, there's concern the impact that lack of engagement has on critical thinking and critical literacy... is that a full circle?). Is that somehow objectionable, too? If this is one of the Avengers that appears when you "Assemble!" your argument, you've got a pretty weak squad. I wouldn't want a 98lb weakling in my superhero corps, but ymmv