Re: Lack of men on campus may not be negative


Jill (perspicacious@xxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> On 29 Sep 2005 10:53:27 -0700, "ddnoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <ddnoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Viking wrote:
>>> Denise, I'm sorry to see you write that, because I often find your
>>> posts full of good sense. Would you say that denying women the vote is
>>> good because it's one less thing to do in November, and they can
>>> influence their husbands anyway? Really, saying that to squeeze men
>>> out of college because vocational jobs are what they probably want
>>> anyway is pretty bad; please reconsider.
>>
>>(Denise) But I wasn't say we should "squeeze men out of college!" Not
>>at all. In fact, in a previous post, I suggested more early school
>>opportunities for the learning styles more common among boys -- hands
>>on active learning and ranging and exploring -- would be a good idea.
>>I'm just saying that college isn't a ticket to Nirvana nor a
>>prerequisite for a successful life and young men's recognition of this
>>fact may be the reason they chose to forego it. I remember reading
>>excerpts from a book called "The Case Against College" that made the
>>point that little learned in college relates to most people's
>>employment and that it can be considered "one hell of an expensive
>>aptitude test."
>
> Then why are taxpayers (mostly men) subsidizing the college education
> of so many women and why don't you also make an argument for squeezing
> them out of college as a "good thing?"

Indeed. This is the old school of anti men sexism, the denial that a
given thing that women GET more of, is a good thing.

" If raising kids is so menial and degrading, why do women *fight us*
so bitterly in court for the opportunity to do it ? " Jack Kammer, " If
Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make All The Rules ? ", p.92.

Denying that something that men used to be a majority in, and now women
are, paid for by mostly men, is now not a good thing is such a Femilicking
lying sexist ploy. Nothing less.

> How many college educated women end up having babies and never working
> their brilliant careers for long if at all? How many of these same
> women whine in family court for higher CS awards and other government
> benefits to subsidize them even though they are college educated?

Yep. The fUSSR's military industrial sector used to be called " The
Metal Eaters ", in that it provided little that was of value to the
society. The same can be said of over-educated, under-education using
females.

> How many women take up "Womens Studies" in college and how many of
> them ever find work in that "field" outside of government jobs where
> again the taxpayers (mostly men) wind up subsidizing them in some
> useless position?

Exactly.

> IMO you are arguing the wrong side of the equation and I believe
> educating women (with public money) is wasteful and those are the
> educations that should be discouraged and eliminated.

Starting with eliminating ALL sex specific programs and services on
campii.

>> I support efforts to help boys do better in school. If as much
>>attention were paid to helping them with their verbal deficits as there
>>has been recently to helping girls with their math deficits, we might
>>see boys doing much better than they are.
>> However, we ought not to think vocational jobs are second rate.
>>Vocational training relates directly to employment and does not usually
>>leave the ex-student saddled with extraordinary debt. My youngest
>>brother graduated from college many years ago, has a good job in
>>marketing but is still heavily in debt.
>
> Is there some reason "empowered girls" shouldn't be encouraged and
> expected to take up vocational training and do the dirty and hard
> work, too?

<laughs> Yep. " Traditional " women, the kind of traditional ones that
Mark S. has well described here, refuse to do their share of the dirty
work.

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
.

Quantcast