Lack of men on campus may not be negative
dd...@bellsouth.net
College can seem and feel like extending one's adolescence before
entering the real world of work. It seems at least possible that young
men are quite reasonably chosing to forego college in order to start
earning. It is true that college graduates, on average, have higher
earnings than people who skip college. However, most people who go to
college leave it saddled with extremely heavy debts, another reason why
young men may be making a realistic choice.
While the number of strength-intensive jobs is no longer as great
as it once was, there will always be fields in which physical strength
is necessary -- and they will not be filled by women. Men may feel a
stronger pull toward earning when they reach adulthood than women do.
For all these reasons, the gender imbalance in college may not be as
negative as it seems but reflect young men's realistic choices.
Ben
That stomping in the distance that's rippling the coffee in your cup is
Hyerdahl on her way over to argue with you. :)
Viking
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.
dd...@bellsouth.net
(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."
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.
Viking
fight that, rather than accept it. Vocational jobs can be OK, but men
should have that choice.
warm_hearted...@yahoo.com
I don't like it.
I will molest usenet until someone answers my messages
I will molest usenet until unfairness stops.
I'd like people on usenet to carefully read and respond to my posts --
with rational answers -- instead of just brushing them aside.
I'd also like people on usenet to visit my group and join it and post
in it. Please do so
Here is my group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SaveTheBoys/
Read the *description* of SaveTheBoys. Tell me what you think of it.
Conner, Ian, MCP, Gabby, "Society", Hyerdahl and others. Please answer
my messages logically. Please join SaveTheBoys, tell me what you think
of it, please post in that group too.
And please rationally-answer my below post.
On average, the adult woman:
1. Is physically weaker than the adult man
2. Is more emotional than the adult man
3. Is better behaved than the adult man
4. Is far less likely to harm boy-children than the adult man
5. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g.
violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man
6. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't
7. Historically was treated worse than the adult man in most cultures
8. Is still treated worse than the adult man in many countries foreign
to USA
9. Is physically more delicate than the adult man
In addition, it is natural for an adult man to desire to treat adult
women more gently than he treats other men. Even non-human mammals are
gentler with their adult women than their adult men.
I therefore understand that:
1. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against
men, than visa versa
2. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against
men, than adults of the same gender from each other
3. Boy children need (and should be provided with) more protection
against adult men than against adult women
4. Adult women should get preferential treatment over adult men
The same, however, does *not* apply to children
Nothing puts me through more fear, disgust, shock, anger,annoyance,
indignation, helplessness, irritability, sadness, pain, grief,
embarrasment, humiliation, and depression than when the humans's
society forces men/boys to treat girl-children better* than they treat
boy-children.
*Better = more compassion, more sympathy, more respect, more
gentleness, more easiness, more empathy, more cleanliness, more
protection, more luxury, more personal space, more privacy, more
security, more freedom, etc.
Science has already proven that average girl under 14 is:
1. Stronger
2. Bigger
3. Heavier
4. Taller
5. Harder-bodied
6. Tougher
7. Higher-IQed
8. Faster
9. More energetic
10. More aggresive
11. More violent
12. More cold-hearted [but less hot-hearted]
13. More openly abusive [sexually and otherwise] to members of the
opposite gender
14. More openly sexist against members of the opposite gender
15. Better coordinated
16. More alert
17. Less tense
18. Less emotional
19. More emotionally-stable
20. Less compassionate
21. Less mature in personality
22. More sexually-violent
23. Less likely to suffer from diseases
24. Less likely to die from the ailments that affect her
25. Can speak in a lower-pitched voice
26. Greater in ability to control her voice and voluntary movement
than the average boy under 14 of the same age.
For the average girl under 14, the younger she is, the more different
[in terms of the above 26 facts] she is from the average boy under 14
of the same age.
Despite the knowledge of these facts, the public of the humans' society
continues to force men/boys to treat girl-children better* than they
treat boy-children. No non-human living organism has ever formed such a
cold hearted society. Show how illogical, immoral, un-scientific,
un-natural, and irrational the humans' society is.
Girls are stronger, yet society treats them softy. Shows how fucked-up
society is.
Ever since humans formed a public society seperate of their non-human
ancestors, this society has always -- and in all cultures -- forced
men/boys to treat girl-children better* then they treat boy-children.
I would like the humans' society change its rules to the following:
1. Allow a boy to do to a girl what he is allowed to do to a boy
2. Allow a boy to do to a girl what a girl is allowed to do to a girl
3. Allow a boy to do to a girl what a girl is allowed to do to a boy
4. Don't allow a boy to do to a boy what he isn't allowed to do to a
girl
5. Don't allow a girl to do to a girl what a boy isn't allowed to do to
a
girl
6. Don't allow a girl to do to a boy what a boy isn't allowed to do to
a
girl
7. Allow an older boy to do to a younger girl what he is allowed to do
to a younger boy
8. Allow an older boy to do to a younger girl what an older girl is
allowed to do to a younger girl
9. Allow an older boy to do to a younger girl what an older girls is
allowed to do to a younger boy
10. Don't allow an older boy to do to a younger boy what he isn't
allowed to do to a younger girl
11. Don't allow an older girl to do to a younger girl what an older boy
isn't allowed to do to a younger girl
12. Don't allow an older girl to do to a younger boy what an older boy
isn't allowed to do to a younger girl
13. Allow a man to do to a girl what he is allowed to do to a boy
14. Allow a man to to to a girl what a woman is allowed to do to a girl
15. Allow a man to do to a girl what a woman is allowed to do to a boy
16. Don't allow a man to do to a boy what he isn't allowed to do to a
girl
17. Don't allow a woman to do to a girl what a man isn't allowed to do
to
a girl
18. Don't allow a woman to do to a boy what a man isn't allowed to do
to a
girl
19. Allow a boy to be as effeminate as a girl is allowed to be
effeminate
20. Allow a boy to be as effeminate as a girl is allowed to be
masculine
21. Don't allow a girl to be any more effeminate than a boy is allowed
to be effeminate
22. Don't allow a girl to be any more masculine than a boy is allowed
to be
23. Allow a boy to be as homosexual as a girl is allowed to be
homosexual
24. Don't allow a girl to be any more homosexual than a boy is allowed
to be homosexual
25. Don't misconstrue male femininity as homosexuality
The abuse of girls is socially-acceptable only if the abusers are
female. I hate this same-gender abuse! The perpetrators of FGM,
foot-binding, killing-of-girl-babies, and other girl-abuses are usually
female because men/boys wouldn't get away with it. This abuse of
girlsis the fault of women/girls and not of innocent men/boys. Men/boys
are in a catch-22 situation in these situations. When a women/girl
abuses a girl, a man/boy has two equally-fatal choices:
1. Rescue the girl from the woman/other-girl. If he does this, he will
be tortured to death by the society of humans for intefering w/
female-only activities.
2. Ignore the situation. If he does this, the society of humans will
blame him for abusing the girl and will torture him to death.
In any case, the women/girls can always gang-up on him and accuse
him of abusing all the females. The society of humans will then
torture this poor man/boy to death for abusing girls, intefering
w/female-only activities and for harming all the females. Even if he
wasn't close enough to witness the girl-abuse, the society of humans
will torture him to death for being near the zone where the girl was
abused. Any man/boy is always at risk when a girl is being abused.
The society of humans has never -- in any culture -- tolerated
man-to-girl abuse or boy-to-girl abuse. That is not to say that it
doesn't occur. Of course it does but the men/boys who perpetrate it
are tortured to death by the public when the case is publicized.
If anyone wants to stop this girl-abuse, they should punish the
women/girls
who perpertrate it and stop blaming innocent men/boys.
Women/girls are usually dangerous to girl-children, not boy-children. I
hate same-gender abuse. Women often treat boy-children better* than
girl-children.
Women abuse girl children. Older girl children abuse younger girl
children. Society accepts this same-gender abuse. This is why I am
against society.
Men abuse boy children. Older boy children abuse younger boy children.
Society accepts it and that is why I hate society.
However, when a man is thought to have abused a girl-child, society
tortures him to death. If an older boy-child [no matter how young] is
thought to have abused a younger girl-child, the humans' evil fucked-up
society tortures him to death.
In prison, men who abuse boys are attacked only by inmates who were
themselves abused as kids or care about kids in general. Otherwise they
are treated no different from other common criminals [theives,
murders-of-other-males, drug-dealers, etc.]. Men who abuse girls, OTOH,
are tortured to death by other inmates in a lynch-mob manner.
Put a girl-child in men's jail. She'll be totally safe. No inmate
will touch her even if given permission.
Put a boy-child in men's jail and sure enough those sexually-starved
misandrist macho bigots will heinously abuse the poor child to
unspeakable extents.
Juvenile prisons treat boy-children very badly. Boy-children who have
been accused of 'hitting girls' are treated the worst by other
inmates. Fuck. I hate the society of humans. I have a pre-adolescent
son who is 2 right now. I don't want him going to jail just because he
looks at a girl. I read frightening truthful news in the daily paper
about boys as young as 4 being put in jail for 'molestation' even if
the girl forced sex on the boy and/or she is bigger/older than him.
These helpless boy-children are treated very savagely by teenage and
older boys. They are rountinely sexually-abused, physically-tortured,
and often killed by the bigger boys. No one condemns these brutal
baby-raping, infant-killing, adult-resembling, cold-hearted, teen
boys. In fact, gaurds and other inmates encourage the bigger boys to
hurt the smaller boys. Boy-children who are accused of 'molestation'
of girl-children are indeed treated the worst by other inmates.
Statutory rape laws are not meant to protect children from adults.
They protect 'underage' girls from males of any age. These laws to
nothing to protect boys. They also don't protect girls from abusive
women or girl-bullies. They send the horrifying message that it is
okay for a full-blown adult man to rape a male infant but unacceptable
for a male infant to even accidentally look at a girl.
I demand that statutory rape laws be made gender-neutral.
John Geoghan was murdered by another individual inmate named Joseph L.
Druce. Druce was himself molested as a kid. Revenge was the cause to
kill Geoghan. However, Geoghan was killed by only Druce -- who was
trying to avenge only his one personal childhood -- and not by a mob.
Geoghan actually gained sympathy from the public!!!!
If only Geoghan had molested girls, the other inmates would have
ganged-up on him and tortured him to a slow, painful, yet sure death
in a lynch-mob type manner. If Geoghan molested girls, no one would
sympathize with him. If Geoghan molested girls, he would have been
brutally killed by crowds of inmates in ways so horrifying that
thinking about it puts me in a dissociative state. Because Geoghan
molested only boys, the society of humans didn't show him much
condemnation.
The society of humans in prison is no different from the society of
humans outside prison. Men who steal girls' toys are attacked by
lynch-mobs of inmates. Men who rape and kill boys are -- if ever
attacked -- are only attacked by individual inmates [like Druce] who
himself suffered childhood abuse. Men who are in jail/prison for
abusing girls face a pre-historic type of condemnation from other
inmates. This violent condemnation is not meted out by the legal
system, not meant to avenge personal abuse [unlike Druce who wanted to
take revenge on his childhood trauma], BUT a kind of cold-hearted
torture meted out by the general public. This sexism against men/boys
existed ever since humans formed a society, it is -- and always was --
in all cultures of the society of humans.
In public, the society of humans has always -- and in all cultures --
forced men/boys to directly treat girl-children bettter* than they
treat boy-children ever since humans formed
a society different from their non-human ancestors.
*Better = more compassion, more sympathy, more respect, more
gentleness, more empathy, more cleanliness, more protection, more
luxury, more personal space, more privacy, more security, etc.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/20/1055828476733.html
Its horrifying to even imagine what this helpless 4-year-old boy went
through in jail. A defeneseless boy-child badly bashed in jail. He was
accused of 'molestation' of a girl his own age. The accusation is
obviously false. A boy so small is incapable of perpetrating sexual
molestation. Yet those sick fuckscums brand the poor child a 'rapist'.
It socially-unacceptable for a boy-child to show even make even the
most non-violent, non-sexual, innocent and clean contact with a
girl-child.
This male-against-male sexism is an ancient form of anti-male sexism
that existed -- in all cultures -- ever since humans formed a society.
Non-human societies are far more civilized the the society of humans.
Non-human societies don't make their men/boys treat their girl-children
better than their boy-children.
I HATE ^*SAME GENDER*^ ABUSE!!!!!!!
http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html quote:
"It also serves as a reminder that gendercide may be implemented by
those of the same gender.)"
Once again I hate this same-gender abuse!
I want it to stop.
Please assist, help, and advice.
Somone. Anyone. Please answer this post.
I just wish someone would lend a helping hand.
Fuck Society,
Kind Hearted Soul
Andre Lieven
Indeed. Its *sexist* of monkey hugging Mad Denise to claim, on the one
hand, college is bad, and on the other hand, not then claim that women
being the majority going to (Bad) isn't, well, bad, inofitself.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Andre Lieven
Jill (perspi...@nomail.com) writes:
> On 29 Sep 2005 10:53:27 -0700, "dd...@bellsouth.net"
> <dd...@bellsouth.net> 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."
>
> 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.
dd...@bellsouth.net
(Denise) I don't think college is bad. I just don't think it's an
absolute necessity for a successful life. Like everything else, it has
its pluses and minuses.
dd...@bellsouth.net
dd...@bellsouth.net
> >> 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."
>
> of so many women and why don't you also make an argument for squeezing
> them out of college as a "good thing?">>
(Denise) I'm not arguing for squeezing anyone out of college! What I
am saying is that there are many successful, productive people who
didn't go to college and that the decision to forego it in favor of
vocational training or a job or military service when one reaches
adulthood is not an unreasonable decision.
>
> 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?
>
> 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
> uesless position?
>
> 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.
>
> > 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?>>
(Denise) Yes, there is. They are the same reasons that women don't
play in the NFL and that the Army will not use them in front-line
infantry combat. They don't have the upper body strength or the speed
to perform strength-intensive tasks.
Ben
I don't think you were advocating squeezing men out of college, Denise.
In fact, I agree with some of what you wrote.
A friend of mine owns a small manufacturing business, and as such, he's
involved in the industrial development efforts in my area. One of his
common complaints is that voc ed gets short shrift in the schools and
is held in low esteem by society in general. He sees no reason why
bright kids shouldn't be exposed to manufacturing tech and allowed to
make their own decisions, and he deplores the all-too-common practice
of steering the "trouble" students into auto shop.
My friend started out as a machinist, paid his dues, and then
eventually opened his own shop. He does very, very well. He's not the
exception--it's not unusual too see voc/tech students outearning
college grads, and with nowhere near the debt.
Try geting a plumber or an electrician--then, when they come to your
home, ask to see their pictures of their house on the lake. :)
greg...@yahoo.com
And since men have no intellectual curiosity and zero need for personal
fulfillment, it's OK that fewer are going to college, eh Denise?
> College can seem and feel like extending one's adolescence
> before entering the real world of work.
And of course you can't have men extending their adolescences. Who
will carry women's dead asses if men go off studying what interests
them? We need to get men out to those factories and jobsites! Who do
they think they are, hanging around classrooms, wearing collegiate
sweatshirts, and carrying backpacks when there are women who need
supporting, lands that need buildings, and factories that need
laborers? Self- actualization is for women only, and young men would
know that if they weren't such impudent, selfish meanies.
> It seems at least possible that young men are quite reasonably
> chosing to forego college in order to start earning.
There's your fantasy. There's what "seems at least possible" to you.
Here's the reality: Boys typically want to go to college, if they can,
and those who can't afford it think endlessly about how to pay for it.
Some even join the army and face off against "insurgents" in hopes of
one day going to college, if they survive.
Then there are female teachers who belittle boys starting at Grade 1,
telling them they aren't as smart, "good," thoughtful, studious, or
intellectually curious as their female betters. Add to that the
hostile, misandric environment at most college campuses, and you could
dissuade Enstein from using a chalkboard.
My apologies for not administering this reality in smaller doses. I
don't want you to OD.
> It is true that college graduates, on average, have higher
> earnings than people who skip college. However, most people
> who go to college leave it saddled with extremely heavy debts,
No proof offered. Claim drops like a prom dress.
> another reason why young men may be making a realistic choice.
You call it "realistic" for young men to forgo their interests and
immedately start work, probably for the gaggle of bimbos you envision
taking over corporate America. Of course, we knew you were a
flat-assed bigot, but you still don't have to make it so obvious.
> While the number of strength-intensive jobs is no longer as
> great as it once was, there will always be fields in which
> physical strength is necessary
The fact is that we are stronger, but that doesn't mean we're dumber,
except in your zero-sum femtopia.
> -- and they will not be filled by women.
Actually, they will, and nearby men will have to help them. But this
is hardly limited to the blue-collar sector. White collar women also
sluff their work off onto men.
> Men may feel a stronger pull toward earning when they reach
> adulthood than women do.
Try push.
> For all these reasons, the gender imbalance in college may not
> be as negative as it seems but reflect young men's realistic
> choices.
It is deeply sexist for you to tell a crowd of men that a career in
manual labor is more "realistic" for them than four years of college.
"It's more realistic, boys, for you to accept the bias against you. Do
as you're told without complaining, and don't be uppity."
What brings you to this stunningly insightful conclusion? The
demonstrated intellectual superiority of women? Heh.
dd...@bellsouth.net
> >> 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."
>
> of so many women and why don't you also make an argument for squeezing
> them out of college as a "good thing?"
>
> 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?
>
> 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
> uesless position?
>
> 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.
(Denise) I don't think anyone, man or woman, should be "discouraged'
from attending college or have their opportunities to do so
"eliminated." However, those women who plan to make their careers as
fulltime homemakers might be well advised to get training that relates
directly to that occupation. They might try working in nurseries or
day care centers (if they plan to have children) or as housekeepers or
cooks to get a sense of how to perform household tasks efficiently.
dd...@bellsouth.net
(Denise) Thank you for your support.
>
> A friend of mine owns a small manufacturing business, and as such, he's
> involved in the industrial development efforts in my area. One of his
> common complaints is that voc ed gets short shrift in the schools and
> is held in low esteem by society in general. He sees no reason why
> bright kids shouldn't be exposed to manufacturing tech and allowed to
> make their own decisions, and he deplores the all-too-common practice
> of steering the "trouble" students into auto shop.
>
> My friend started out as a machinist, paid his dues, and then
> eventually opened his own shop. He does very, very well. He's not the
> exception--it's not unusual too see voc/tech students outearning
> college grads, and with nowhere near the debt.
>
> Try geting a plumber or an electrician--then, when they come to your
> home, ask to see their pictures of their house on the lake. :)>>
(Denise) I remember reading a quote that said something like "a society
that applauds mediocre philosophers because it fancies philosophy
exalted and looks down upon excellent plumbers because it thinks
plumbing is menial is one in which neither its theories nor its pipes
will hold water." Many of the occupations like that of machinest, auto
mechanic, electrician pay quite well and are extremely necessary. They
also require very specialized training. Vocational and technical jobs
should not be considered jobs for "dummies."
Thanks again for your support Ben.
Tron
<dd...@bellsouth.net> skrev i melding
news:1127993441.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Do a search for expectations and performance. They co-vary.
T
dd...@bellsouth.net
greg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
> Then there are female teachers who belittle boys starting at Grade 1,
> telling them they aren't as smart, "good," thoughtful, studious, or
> intellectually curious as their female betters.
(Denise) Yes. I think schools should do more to accommodate learning
styles that are more common among boys. In most schools, children are
expected to spend most of their time seated at their desks taking in
information. This is well suited to the receptive learning style more
common among girls. Many boys have a learning style that is more
"hands on" and that involves ranging and exploring. However, the
"explorers" may be diagnosed as hyperactive because school offers so
few opportunities for them to learn while moving around. We would
improve things for boys if we recognized and provided for differences
of learning styles and accomodated that which is more active.
It would also be good to get more male teachers in there beginning
in kindergarten.
Andre Lieven
"dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Viking (no...@goodbye.com) writes:
>> > Well, men are being squeezed out of college, and I believe we should
>> > fight that, rather than accept it. Vocational jobs can be OK, but men
>> > should have that choice.
>>
>> Indeed. Its *sexist* of monkey hugging Mad Denise to claim, on the one
>> hand, college is bad, and on the other hand, not then claim that women
>> being the majority going to (Bad) isn't, well, bad, inofitself.
>>
>> Andre
>
> absolute necessity for a successful life. Like everything else, it has
> its pluses and minuses.
Sure. The point is, that it's sexist to complain that " not enough women
are getting into college ", then, and then, when women are 60% of students,
to claim that " college isn't important ".
It appears to be to the 60% female enrollements... Who, statistically,
will not get as much income producing use out of it than most of the
men who will graduate...
Hal
Spot on.
But, as much as we may dislike it, the majority of men go to college to
find a better job and not for 'intellectual curiosity' or 'personal
fulfillment'.
Hal
NEVER trust a woman
Deborah Terreson
<no...@goodbye.com> wrote:
She's reflecting the reality of the situation in some areas Viking: Consider
that the WSJ is reporting that there is a new wave of unionizing across
America, in *white collar* jobs.
Apparently, the college edgemucated are seeing that their degrees are worth
less and less and they are moving to protect their job security like the
blue collar workers did. Like the blue collar workers, they eventually will
lose the class warfare battle that puts the laborer against the moneyed
interest of the investor.
When countries like China and India can and are offering up scientists,
chemists, engineers and numerous ranks of other highly trained inexpensive
workers, who are the corporations to say 'no' to that cheap labor in the
light of their socialistic obligations to maximize profits for their
stakeholders?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a marine biology degree may
in the long run, offer a less secure future than say a plumber - Let's be
real here, do you want to get shit on your fingers or snake out a backed
sewage line? Most people will do anything to not have to deal with a clogged
up toilet, even pay someone 95 bucks an hour to come out and fix it.
If you follow the financial compensations in business right now, you'll see
the bulk of it is going to the investors, the affluent, and they DO have in
many instances very real, tangible long-term estate and property obligations
AND the money to pay for it.
The trades pay better, (for licenced tradesmen), than the corporations
themselves often do, and with a licence, one can pick the jobs they want.
None of this salaried and working your ass 80+ hours a week horseshit that's
got the hourly compensation one's making averaged out to minimum wage levels
(this is why white-collar labor unions are forming)..
Going into the trades is definitely going to be a growth industry right now,
esp. for men and younger workers, as the stakeholding 'boomers and
idle-class retirees and get old and creaky and have the investment money to
pay for their properties to be maintained. Just look at the housing boom
(and not to get too off tangent, also look at how crappily alot are built
and that's a sure-fire guarantee that the houses will need maintenance in a
few short years), and look at the numbers of people with 4 or 5 homes!
Fat squabs are there for the picking.
Deb.
Ben
You're absolutely right. One of my friends does maintenance, lawn
work, and general repairs on vacation homes and rental/investment
properties in the area while his wife manages the rental properties.
Between the two of them they're doing very well, and the both enjoy
their work.
thunder...@hotmail.com
When educated, well paid career women marry less well paid blue collar
men so they can take a cut in standard of living when they CHOOSE to do
the Mommy bit, I'll support the notion of squeezing men out of college
!!
greg...@yahoo.com
> <snip all>
>
> Spot on.
>
> But, as much as we may dislike it, the majority of men go to college to
> find a better job and not for 'intellectual curiosity' or 'personal
> fulfillment'.
(sigh) Ain't it the truth. In _The Myth of Male Power_, Warren Farrell
put it thusly:
"Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
of the art history majors are women."
I agree with you that men go to college so they can earn more money,
but this too should change.
What happens will all the extra money that men generate when they work
high-paying jobs they hate?
- Their extra money gets taxed, and the money used against them.
- They die early of stress related illness
- They usually end up supporting a materialistic wife and _her_ kids,
- They buy alot of sophisticated trash that they don't need.
Of course, some men really do want this, and that's fine, but for the
man who feels pushed into it, I say he should study what he wants, and
work a job he likes. If he wants to study English Lit and Exercise
Science, and go on to be a personal trainer, he should do exactly that,
and not become a mechanical engineer because he wants a bigger nest to
attract females.
It is true that women will expect support from him, and may pass him
over in favor of a rich man, but this is because there are so many
other rich men. What if there weren't so many? Women tend to look at
men the way executives look at job applicants - they'll pick from the
pool of labor they have. She can expect all she wants, but her choice
depends on who shows up at the gate.
Regular men can find love anyway, if they want it. I'd bet you 10 to 1
that your 45-year-old postman is married. The officer who stopped you
for speeding is probably married. The guy at the water plant who runs
chlorine measurments is probably married. The wanted-dead-or-alive
posters of so-called "deadbeat dads" almost always feature men in
blue-collar lines of work.
But I'm going on. Bottom line: You're right, but it should change.
Men should do as they like, and not as women like.
STaylor
thunder...@hotmail.com wrote:
> When educated, well paid career women marry less well paid blue collar
> men so they can take a cut in standard of living when they CHOOSE to do
> the Mommy bit, I'll support the notion of squeezing men out of college
It is genetically very, very difficult for a woman to marry someone
less educated and/or less-monied than she. For millions of years,
women have exchanged sex for male power and is not in their genetic
interest to 'marry down'. This is why they must all be thrown onto a
sex farms where every man will have equal access to all women.
We must communize the cunt, or our society is doomed.
dd...@bellsouth.net
Andre Lieven wrote:
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >> Viking (no...@goodbye.com) writes:
> >> > Well, men are being squeezed out of college, and I believe we should
> >> > fight that, rather than accept it. Vocational jobs can be OK, but men
> >> > should have that choice.
> >>
> >> Indeed. Its *sexist* of monkey hugging Mad Denise to claim, on the one
> >> hand, college is bad, and on the other hand, not then claim that women
> >> being the majority going to (Bad) isn't, well, bad, inofitself.
> >>
> >> Andre
> >
> > (Denise) I don't think college is bad. I just don't think it's an
> > absolute necessity for a successful life. Like everything else, it has
> > its pluses and minuses.
>
> Sure. The point is, that it's sexist to complain that " not enough women
> are getting into college ", then, and then, when women are 60% of students,
> to claim that " college isn't important ".
(Denise) You are right there, Andre. The same people who used to
complain about "not enough women getting into college" ought to be
equally concerned about the present decline in men's enrollment.
Everyone ought to be concerned about the plight of boys in school in
general who are more likely to be diagnosed with ADD and more likely to
be disciplined.
dd...@bellsouth.net
Andre Lieven wrote:
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >> Viking (no...@goodbye.com) writes:
> >> > Well, men are being squeezed out of college, and I believe we should
> >> > fight that, rather than accept it. Vocational jobs can be OK, but men
> >> > should have that choice.
> >>
> >> Indeed. Its *sexist* of monkey hugging Mad Denise to claim, on the one
> >> hand, college is bad, and on the other hand, not then claim that women
> >> being the majority going to (Bad) isn't, well, bad, inofitself.
> >>
> >> Andre
> >
> > (Denise) I don't think college is bad. I just don't think it's an
> > absolute necessity for a successful life. Like everything else, it has
> > its pluses and minuses.
>
> Sure. The point is, that it's sexist to complain that " not enough women
> are getting into college ", then, and then, when women are 60% of students,
> to claim that " college isn't important ".
(Denise) You are right there, Andre. The same people who used to
complain about "not enough women getting into college" ought to be
equally concerned about the present decline in men's enrollment.
Everyone ought to be concerned about the plight of boys in school in
general who are more likely to be diagnosed with ADD and more likely to
be disciplined.
>
>
Hyerdahl
Hahahahaha...this just highlights male insecurity. Thanks, Steve. Of
course, fairy tales can come true; they can happen to you....
Hyerdahl
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > "dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> > > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > >> Viking (no...@goodbye.com) writes:
> > >> > Well, men are being squeezed out of college, and I believe we should
> > >> > fight that, rather than accept it. Vocational jobs can be OK, but men
> > >> > should have that choice.
> > >>
> > >> Indeed. Its *sexist* of monkey hugging Mad Denise to claim, on the one
> > >> hand, college is bad, and on the other hand, not then claim that women
> > >> being the majority going to (Bad) isn't, well, bad, inofitself.
> > >>
> > >> Andre
> > >
> > > (Denise) I don't think college is bad. I just don't think it's an
> > > absolute necessity for a successful life. Like everything else, it has
> > > its pluses and minuses.
Sure, for both sexes.> >
> > Sure. The point is, that it's sexist to complain that " not enough women
> > are getting into college ", then, and then, when women are 60% of students,
> > to claim that " college isn't important ".
>
> (Denise) You are right there, Andre. The same people who used to
> complain about "not enough women getting into college" ought to be
> equally concerned about the present decline in men's enrollment.
I don't think the concern was ever about women not getting into college
based on women's own choices; it was based on discrimination against
women, which is another matter entirely. So, there's a bit of a
difference between showing 'concern' and providing programs that pump
up men so they will be able to compete. Again, I'm talking about the
difference betweed discrimination and natural ability and choices.
> Everyone ought to be concerned about the plight of boys in school in
> general who are more likely to be diagnosed with ADD and more likely to
> be disciplined.
????? Boys have always been disciplined more than girls since boys act
up more. This is a double edged sword for girls since it also gives
girls less teacher attention. In many classrooms the disruptive boys
desks are closest to the teacher. Girls, IMO ...would benefit from
single sex classrooms. As long as the girls get equal funding, I would
go along with that if that also works to provide boys the kind of
education you think will benefit them. But, I have to be honest...I
think boys benefit by having girls in class.
.
Don Carlos
than people that skip college. On average, College graduates have an
IQ > 120. On average people that skip college have an IQ < 100.
Obviously, on average, people with much higher IQ have higher earnings.
College may have benefits; however, income is not often one of the
benefits. When compared to equally capable, talented, motivated,
intellegent people. College graduates make no more (and perhaps even
less) lifetime earnings than people that skipped college.
Hal
> > find a better job and not for 'intellectual curiosity' or 'personal
> > fulfillment'.
>
> (sigh) Ain't it the truth. In _The Myth of Male Power_, Warren Farrell
> put it thusly:
>
> "Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
> their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
> sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
> major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
> of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
> might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
> to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
> engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
> of the art history majors are women."
True. But, frankly, I think that most men are not intelligent enough to
be really curious. On the other hand, those men usually don't make it
to college anyway.
Also, men are just more interested in the technical subjects than women;
it's not only a financial matter.
> I agree with you that men go to college so they can earn more money,
> but this too should change.
>
> What happens will all the extra money that men generate when they work
> high-paying jobs they hate?
> - Their extra money gets taxed, and the money used against them.
> - They die early of stress related illness
> - They usually end up supporting a materialistic wife and _her_ kids,
> - They buy alot of sophisticated trash that they don't need.
>
> Of course, some men really do want this, and that's fine, but for the
> man who feels pushed into it, I say he should study what he wants, and
> work a job he likes. If he wants to study English Lit and Exercise
> Science, and go on to be a personal trainer, he should do exactly that,
> and not become a mechanical engineer because he wants a bigger nest to
> attract females.
Sure, agreed.
> It is true that women will expect support from him, and may pass him
> over in favor of a rich man, but this is because there are so many
> other rich men. What if there weren't so many? Women tend to look at
> men the way executives look at job applicants - they'll pick from the
> pool of labor they have. She can expect all she wants, but her choice
> depends on who shows up at the gate.
The market does work in this case, yes. I think that feminism convinces
many women to not compromise, though, and many of these women never get
married.
> Regular men can find love anyway, if they want it. I'd bet you 10 to 1
> that your 45-year-old postman is married. The officer who stopped you
> for speeding is probably married. The guy at the water plant who runs
> chlorine measurments is probably married. The wanted-dead-or-alive
> posters of so-called "deadbeat dads" almost always feature men in
> blue-collar lines of work.
Yes, and this is important. For nine men in ten, I think, the largest
satisfaction in life is having a family, and men ought to know that being
working-class doesn't cut them out of that.
Hyerdahl
The point is that we're NOT "squeezing men out of college". The men
are making choices that don't include college, which is another matter
entirely. If men can make good money as plumbers, contractors, etc.
they may choose to make their money that way. It's not a matter of
discriminating against men. And, you seem to think that what women
choose is going to influence what men choose to do in their lines of
work.
I'd like to suggest that women who make their own money have much less
of a reason to choose based on how much money a man makes. That
doesn't mean they won't consider it, tho. And, as long as women are
not discriminating against men, it's not women's place to make sure men
go to college.
Andre Lieven
"dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> "dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>> > Andre Lieven wrote:
>> >> Viking (no...@goodbye.com) writes:
>> >> > Well, men are being squeezed out of college, and I believe we should
>> >> > fight that, rather than accept it. Vocational jobs can be OK, but men
>> >> > should have that choice.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed. Its *sexist* of monkey hugging Mad Denise to claim, on the one
>> >> hand, college is bad, and on the other hand, not then claim that women
>> >> being the majority going to (Bad) isn't, well, bad, inofitself.
>> >>
>> >> Andre
>> >
>> > (Denise) I don't think college is bad. I just don't think it's an
>> > absolute necessity for a successful life. Like everything else, it has
>> > its pluses and minuses.
>>
>> Sure. The point is, that it's sexist to complain that " not enough women
>> are getting into college ", then, and then, when women are 60% of students,
>> to claim that " college isn't important ".
>
> (Denise) You are right there, Andre.
Exactly. Sexism decried when it appears only in one direction, is
really a cry for a special interest. No more and no less.
> The same people who used to
> complain about "not enough women getting into college" ought to be
> equally concerned about the present decline in men's enrollment.
But, they clearly aren't, because Feminism IS WomenFirsterism.
> Everyone ought to be concerned about the plight of boys in school in
> general who are more likely to be diagnosed with ADD and more likely to
> be disciplined.
See Christina Hoff Sommers' " The War Against Boys; How Misguided Feminism
Is Harming Our Young Men ".
Her only error is to presume that there is some form of Feminism that
is not so " misguided ". Its very innate sexism *guarantees* that it
will result in " misguided " results, as much as expecting humanistic
results from another single interest group, the KKK, would be.
bou bou
wrote:
>
>"dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>> "dd...@bellsouth.net" (dd...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>>> > Andre Lieven wrote:
>>> >> Viking (no...@goodbye.com) writes:
>>> >> > Well, men are being squeezed out of college, and I believe we should
>>> >> > fight that, rather than accept it. Vocational jobs can be OK, but men
>>> >> > should have that choice.
>>> >>
>>> >> Indeed. Its *sexist* of monkey hugging Mad Denise to claim, on the one
>>> >> hand, college is bad, and on the other hand, not then claim that women
>>> >> being the majority going to (Bad) isn't, well, bad, inofitself.
>>> >>
>>> >> Andre
>>> >
>>> > (Denise) I don't think college is bad. I just don't think it's an
>>> > absolute necessity for a successful life. Like everything else, it has
>>> > its pluses and minuses.
>>>
>>> Sure. The point is, that it's sexist to complain that " not enough women
>>> are getting into college ", then, and then, when women are 60% of students,
>>> to claim that " college isn't important ".
>>
>> (Denise) You are right there, Andre.
>
>Exactly. Sexism decried when it appears only in one direction, is
>really a cry for a special interest. No more and no less.
>
It's justified by moderates using a mentality that those seats were
historically occupied by men. It's insidious because it hurts the
present and future generations.
It's a really fucked up mentality to impose what you know is wrong on
children
Andre Lieven
Thats an interesting question, in that, do they know that it's wrong, or
is their ideology based cognative dissonence so severe that they have
rendered themselves unable to know it ?
In the latter case, responsibility demands that they still are liable
for their self deluding acts, as if you choose to lie to yourself, thats
not an excuse towards sharing those lies with others, and demanding
that said others live by those lies.
Society
<dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1128016407.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Viking wrote:
>>Denise, I'm sorry to see you write that, because
>>Really, saying that to squeeze men out of college
>>because vocational jobs are what they probably
>>want anyway is pretty bad; please reconsider.
>
> "squeeze men out of college!" Not at all.
Uh huh. And had Viking, uh, been a man
(to coin a phrase ;-) then he'd have left enough
of your prior post intact so others could see
the seed of his hyperbolic interpretation of
your earlier remarks, Denise Noe. But he
didn't. Ra<superscript>th</superscript>er,
he chopped all of your earlier remarks (see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1127993441.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
) and had Viking not done so, others could
judge for themselves if his criticisms are
valid or not.
Myself, I consider that you pointed out some
things that are often overlooked in the typical
discussions about college education carried by
the Establishment media, especially in the US.
For example, Denise, in your post that launched
this interesting thread you noted:
The things studied in college rarely relate
directly to an occupation.
This is especially true when looking at the
courses of study chosen by college-attending
women. IMO, for huge numbers of women
their college years simply do little more than
replace the function of the finishing schools
of prior generations -- except for all the
training in posture, manners, and ladylike
behavior, of course!
You also wrote:
College can seem and feel like extending
one's adolescence before entering the
real world of work. It seems at least
possible that young men are quite reasonably
choosing to forego college in order to start
earning.
These points (among others) were asserted
by Caroline Bird decades ago in her book
_The Case Against College_. IIRC, the survey
data she cited revealed that young adults in
college do not consider themselves to be
adults. They consider themselves to still be
"dependants". Yet their counterparts who
went to full-time work out of high school
generally do consider themselves to be full,
independent adults.
Bird argues that college educations are
largely overrated and I believe she is correct.
However, as long as the bureaucratic kudzu
of creeping credential-worship overgrows
the land then most parents and young adults
will feel compelled to go along with the game
established by the institutions of big business
and big government.
You wrote:
It is true that college graduates, on average,
have higher earnings than people who skip college.
That is the conventional and accepted wisdom
of our time. However, don't most of those
statistics compare the college graduates of
the 1950s and 60s with their non-college
attending counterparts? I wonder what the
gap is for the college students of today, when
instead of 6% of the US population of young
adults attending college it's more like 60%.
I also wonder how much of that gap is
simply due to the higher average intelligence
of the college-attending population, something
the pop media blather about the cash value
of a college education omits to mention.
People with the sort of smarts that are
undervalued by the academics who reign
over our colleges in the Western World,
what we identify commonly by phrases
such as street-savvy, mechanical aptitude,
and others, can do very well indeed for
themselves without a sheepskin in areas
such as sales or the skilled trades. Often
people in those fields make _more_ moolah
than their once college-imprisoned high
school classmates. And in some cultures,
doing productive work making _things_
rather than scribbling words on paper is
more highly valued. It's also considered
more manly and the former effeminate.
Something that changed in the US in the
1980s and is now a challenge for Europe
is that so-called white-collar jobs are no
longer a guarantee of lifetime job security.
And those are the jobs that college grads
expect to claim as their reward for 16 to
20 years of seat-time in classrooms. In the
Reagan years, America's white collar job
holders discovered that their positions could
be subject to layoffs. Today, a generation
later, the paper pushers and computer bit
twiddlers have discovered that their jobs
are subject to replacement by the Indians
and Chinese. And the populations of India
and China somehow don't feel such a need
for people with degrees in English Literature
to be their bosses as Americans seem to.
IMO, Caroline Bird was not wrong but just early.
Rich Zubaty, author of such books as _What
Men Know That Women Don't_, also
criticizes the idolatry of the sheepskin
worshippers in our modern culture. He also
notes that paper-pushing jobs are often
unsatisfying -- in his opinion, those jobs are
especially unsatisfying and alienating for men.
--
Things of interest to women are widely regarded as
being culturally superior to things of interest to men.
Designer fashion shows get news coverage. Salmon fishing
and hot rods do not. Women do not hesitate to belittle
and shame men for their "cruder" tastes.
...
As knights are considered morally superior to common
soldiers, so women are considered morally superior
to men. Women are believed when they lie, forgiven
when they cheat, and sentenced to 50% less jail time
when convicted of the same crimes as men. When a man
hits a woman we despise him as a brute. When a woman
hits a man we ask what HE did to provoke her. Why the
duplicity? Like all aristocrats, women are assumed
to adhere to a higher moral standard than common men.
...
If America created a special class of men who could
hold high office without fighting war, control vast wealth
by means of special government connections, and evade
hard labor by claiming cultural and moral superiority,
we would consider them parasites, a throwback to
monarchy -- bloody aristocrats!
Excerpted from "The New Aristocrats" by Rich Zubaty
http://www3.primenet.com/~slack/mens-rm/mens-isu.txt
Society
"Don Carlos" <My-Ru...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1128143653.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Your remarks accord nicely with my long-held
intuitions, Don Carlos, but do you have any sources
of evidence to substantiate the claims you made
here?
The chain of reasoning that goes something like
"college schooled people in previous generations
made more money (on average) than those not
college schooled, therefore if I am college-schooled
I'll make more money too" has more than a whiff
of the scent of a Cargo Cult sort of fallacious
reasoning.
--
Masculinity, like men, is simple. (I say this
affectionately). _Masculinity is efficacy._
Amber Pawlik, "The Anti-Romeos: Feminism's Assault
on Masculinity" (italics in original)
http://www.amberpawlik.com/Masculinity.html
Ray Gordon
>> of so many women and why don't you also make an argument for squeezing
>> them out of college as a "good thing?">>
>
>
> am saying is that there are many successful, productive people who
> didn't go to college and that the decision to forego it in favor of
> vocational training or a job or military service when one reaches
> adulthood is not an unreasonable decision.
That can be true, but it is irrelevant when one considers what women said
when they were a minority of students as opposed to a majority.
>> 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?>>
>
> (Denise) Yes, there is. They are the same reasons that women don't
> play in the NFL and that the Army will not use them in front-line
> infantry combat. They don't have the upper body strength or the speed
> to perform strength-intensive tasks.
There are women who are stronger than some men who are in combat.
As for colleges, they have already begun a form of affirmative action for
men, but it's been informal at this point.
As for the men in college, why would they complain about being outnumbered
by women?
Ray Gordon
>> telling them they aren't as smart, "good," thoughtful, studious, or
>> intellectually curious as their female betters.
>
> (Denise) Yes. I think schools should do more to accommodate learning
> styles that are more common among boys.
>In most schools, children are
> expected to spend most of their time seated at their desks taking in
> information. This is well suited to the receptive learning style more
> common among girls.
Odd, then, that men dominate math, computers, chess, and many other areas
where one must remain seated for more than 75 percent of the day in order to
properly work.
dd...@bellsouth.net
(Denise) They dominate in these areas because males consistently
outperform females in areas that are math and spacial intensive and
because a receptive, "remain seated" learning and performing style is
not a "female style" but simply a style more common among females.
Something to consider: there have been attempts to interest girls
in the math and help with their deficits in this area and those related
to it. It doesn't seem to me that a similar concerted effort has been
made to boost boys in verbal skills and I think such an effort is
needed.
Hyerdahl
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > > (Denise) Yes. I think schools should do more to accommodate learning
> > > styles that are more common among boys.
It doesn't work that way, Denise, because learning styles are not
sex-based, but rather, they are sensory-based. For example, some
children learn by seeing and reading the subject matter, while others
are more tactile in how they learn. Some kids benefit by rote
learning, while others are more conceptual. Sex has nothing to do with
that.
In most schools, children areexpected to spend most of their time
seated at their desks taking in information. This is well suited to
the receptive learning style more common among girls.
Of course that theory is bollocks and Denise recognizes the
inconsistency.
> >
> > Odd, then, that men dominate math, computers, chess, and many other areas
> > where one must remain seated for more than 75 percent of the day in order to
> > properly work.
> (Denise) They dominate in these areas because males consistently
> outperform females in areas that are math and spacial intensive and
> because a receptive, "remain seated" learning and performing style is
> not a "female style" but simply a style more common among females.
This style of teaching isn't related to maleness or femaleness as
teachers of both sexes employ it to some degree and this was also the
chosen method of teaching, historically from the all male schools
established, keeping women out to the little school house on the
prairie schoolhouse marm.
> Something to consider: there have been attempts to interest girls
> in the math and help with their deficits in this area and those related
> to it.
What efforts? The only effort I have observed has been one of
preventing discrimination against girls in math. Today girls are
expected to actually do the same math that boys do, and hopefully, to
get called on as often. But no extra funding has gone to girls to help
them with math.
It doesn't seem to me that a similar concerted effort has been
> made to boost boys in verbal skills and I think such an effort is
> needed.
Denise, do you want moneies spent on both sexes to go to one to offset
what you observe as a need to boost boys verbal skills?
Virgo Cluster
> As for the men in college, why would they complain
> about being outnumbered by women?
That's a point I've made in here several times
(often implicitly). I think it comes down to
the fact that almost all of the posters in soc.men
are not in college anymore and they resent the ample
pickings that today's young men have over what was
available 30 years ago, especially the pickings
in the math and physical science fields and the
higher status that students in these fields have
in today's tech-worshipping climate (keeping in
mind that a much higher percentage of Usenet posters
fall into these fields than is true for the general
population).
I certainly don't exclude myself from this envy,
but at least I'm aware that I have it!
Virgo Cluster
. Stupid Government and Bureaucracy in the U.S.A.
..
.. The U.S. government -- and all other official and
.. quasi-official bureaucracies -- is the source of much
.. material on the stupid side of things. Perhaps this
.. surprises you. Perhaps you think, as a red-blooded
.. patriot, that it is impossible for the government
.. (whether federal, state, or municipal) to do anything
.. stupid ... and for our elected or appointed officials
.. to do anything stupid. (Perhaps you also haven't been
.. reading the papers, watching television news, or keeping
.. up with current events. But that is none of our business.)
..
.. Great Moments in Pork-Barrel Legislation
..
.. Pork is not just "the other white meat". It is also
.. government spending run amok; spending that is not
.. requested by Congress, not competitively awarded nor
.. requested by the president; spending not serving the
.. public at large but rather a local or special interest.
.. It also exceeds the prior year's funding or the budget
.. request made by the president.
.. It _is_, however, testament to the good ol' American
.. "can-do" spirit -- but in this case, the "can-do" comes
.. from the taxpayer, and the reward goes to the politician
.. who requests the pork and, by so doing, garners the
.. support of his or her constituents.
.. This is not a cheap matter. In 2002, the two top pork
.. producers in Congress were Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska),
.. who managed to pull $451.3 million (which comes to $711
.. per Alaskan), and Senator Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) with
.. $432 million (or $353 per Hawaiian). This is not to say
.. that other members of Congress have fallen down on the
.. job. According to the watchdog group Citizens Against
.. Government Waste, Congress spent a record $20.1 billion
.. in 2001. Perhaps it is simple coincidence, but a lot
.. of pork winds up going to the districts that happen to
.. be served by those senators or congresspersons serving
.. on their respective appropriations committees.
.. In perusing the following, you will note that pork
.. knows no party. Republicans and Democrats alike seem
.. to thrive on a high-fat diet when it comes to appropriating
.. taxpayer money that just might win them votes.
..
.. Politician/State Amount For
..
.. Representative Sam $273,000 to combat "Goth" culture
.. Graves (R-Missouri) in Blue Springs, Missouri
<< Kathryn Petras and Ross Petras, "Unusually Stupid
.. Americans: A Compendium of All-American Stupidity",
.. Villard Books, 2003, pp. 33 & 62 & 63 >>
Viking
<Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
>Uh huh. And had Viking, uh, been a man
>(to coin a phrase ;-) then he'd have left enough
>of your prior post intact so others could see
>the seed of his hyperbolic interpretation of
>your earlier remarks, Denise Noe.
Hey, fool, just read the original post if you've got such a problem. I
don't believe in repeating *anyone's* original post and then adding a
line or two at the bottom. That's standard politeness on usenet; if
you've got a problem there, tough. My post stands.