A possible side effect of Dumbing Down exams in the UK...
Philip Lewis
for permission to use Intelligence tests in their selection
criteria - apparently they have lost confidence in the A levels
and their grading alone as a sufficient guide to potential
competance for University entrance - this could be bad news for
women candidates as intelligence tests place little or no
emphasis on the qualities of diligence and concientious work,
this contrasts sharply with coursework which can contribute
greatly to the grades students can achieve in A levels and other
related exams normally considered in entrance criteria.
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
OffLine
"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4u2ll$2mibse$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
Heidi Graw
>"OffLine" <off...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40730675$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> maybe then this may 'level the playing field' in men's favour..for once.
This assumes there is a significant difference between the IQ's of men and
women.
>
> "Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c4u2ll$2mibse$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Just heard on the news that Universities in the UK have called
> > for permission to use Intelligence tests in their selection
> > criteria - apparently they have lost confidence in the A levels
> > and their grading alone as a sufficient guide to potential
> > competance for University entrance - this could be bad news for
> > women candidates as intelligence tests place little or no
> > emphasis on the qualities of diligence and concientious work,
> > this contrasts sharply with coursework which can contribute
> > greatly to the grades students can achieve in A levels and other
> > related exams normally considered in entrance criteria.
Or, it may indicate *nothing* of significance....that male and female IQ's
are too similar to impact greatly on entrance eligibility. So, if a boy has
marginally met the minimum requirement to attend university, while the girls
exceeded expectations, if both have similar IQ's, I don't see how this will
greatly impact eligibility for the boys.
Take care,
Heidi
Ken&Laura Chaddock
regime, most of our universities have dramatically increased their
entrance requirements (since they can no longer "trust" basic high
school graduation results) and have had to institute remedial courses in
such basics as reading, grammar and basic math...
...Ken
Philip Lewis
favour..for once.
Yes to a certain degree but they will still be disadvantaged
unless the contribution of coursework towards final marking is
drastically reduced.
On the positive side if the universities succeed with their plan
(IQ\aptitude tests as part of selection process) the message may
finally get through that the current level of coursework has
undesired effects for ALL concerned and since 'all' includes
girls\women we can expect change quicker than if the negative
effects were to fall only upon boys\men.
Philip Lewis
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:odEcc.39463$Ig.3752@pd7tw2no...
'If'.
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
|
| Take care,
| Heidi
|
|
|
|
Philip Lewis
"Ken&Laura Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:4iEcc.16489$kc2.3...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
| Since the conversion of Canadian schools to a more "girl
friendly"
| regime, most of our universities have dramatically increased
their
| entrance requirements (since they can no longer "trust" basic
high
| school graduation results) and have had to institute remedial
courses in
| such basics as reading, grammar and basic math...
Yes - the problems of dumbing down are certainly not confined to
the UK - I wouldn't be surprised if similar problems arise in the
US,Australia,New Zealand and of course Canada - all areas where
feminist activism seems to keep roughly in step.
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
|
Hanuman
Statistically speaking, the average IQs of men compared to the average IQs
of women are not that different. On the other hand, the distribution of IQs
between men and women is very different. Average IQ overall is about 100,
with most people falling between 90 and 110.
At 100, you have more women than men. When you get down approaching zero,
on the other hand, there are far more men in this region than women. Also,
when you get up around 175, there are far more men in this region than
women. So, while the averages are similar, the distribution differs.
What we can predict from these kinds of results in the past, is that if IQ
tests are used by colleges and universities, this would likely benefit the
most intelligent men.
Hanuman
--
"Free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass
terror, and don't blackmail the world."
- George W. Bush on "Meet the Press"
I guess that settles it. The USA is not a free society.
Heidi Graw
>"Hanuman" <han...@monkey.com> wrote in message
news:2RFcc.200976$_w.1930312@attbi_s53...
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
> > Or, it may indicate *nothing* of significance....that male and female
> > IQ's are too similar to impact greatly on entrance eligibility. So,
> > if a boy has marginally met the minimum requirement to attend
> > university, while the girls exceeded expectations, if both have
> > similar IQ's, I don't see how this will greatly impact eligibility
> > for the boys.
> Hanuman wrote:
> Statistically speaking, the average IQs of men compared to the average IQs
> of women are not that different. On the other hand, the distribution of
IQs
> between men and women is very different. Average IQ overall is about 100,
> with most people falling between 90 and 110.
>
> At 100, you have more women than men. When you get down approaching zero,
> on the other hand, there are far more men in this region than women.
Also,
> when you get up around 175, there are far more men in this region than
> women. So, while the averages are similar, the distribution differs.
>
> What we can predict from these kinds of results in the past, is that if IQ
> tests are used by colleges and universities, this would likely benefit the
> most intelligent men.
>
> Hanuman
Key words being *most intelligent men* while more men than women fall below
the "average" IQ. So, if what you say holds true, we can expect *few*
exemplary men at university, while the rest of the spaces are made up of
more women than men...a situation that exists right now, does it not? (Or,
if not right now, is fast approaching the overrepresentation of women as
opposed to men).
And if the concern is regarding the gender distribution of people actually
attending university, in order to achieve equal numbers, an "affirmative
action" plan *may* have to be considered to allow more men with lower IQ's
to enroll. Or, the universities could offer dumbed down courses for men.
I'm gathering from recent discussions that the amount of "coursework" is
that obstacle that holds men back. They can't handle the amount of work
needed to get those high grades. Women appear better able to do that amount
of work, but not men. Hmmmm...So, consider if we lessen the work load for
all. Wouldn't this still allow for more women than men to succeed? Or, are
you hoping that when women have less to do in any given course, they might
get bored and drop out?
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
> "OffLine" <off...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40730675$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> | maybe then this may 'level the playing field' in men's
> favour..for once.
> Philip wrote:
> Yes to a certain degree but they will still be disadvantaged
> unless the contribution of coursework towards final marking is
> drastically reduced.
I see...reduce the workload to accommodate more men?
Less work, higher grades, better quality education?
I think that's arguable. Much would depend on what one actually wants to
achieve. I can see instead of doing 100 equations when 10 may be enough
could make some sense. But, if one wants to do research and write about a
certain topic, I don't see how less work can produce better quality, deeper
insights, and/or more truthful or broader revelations. Don't the sciences
require copious reading and writing while trying to prove or disprove
assorted hypothesis?
I suppose we could always lengthen the time it takes to actually learn
something. We could double the length of time it takes to get that Masters
or Ph D, but one would have to consider the costs involved. And why? 'Cause
the boys can't handle all that reading and writing? 'Cause the boys can't
sit still long enough?
And are we going to hold back those students who can accomplish a lot within
a shorter period of time?
Heidi
RogueStar
First, IQ test are only useful in detecting mentally incapacitated
individuals. Second, IQ is not a good factor when deciding college
admission; a person with a 140 IQ can just no go to class and do the
work, thereby failing school, whereas a person with am 87 IQ could try
very hard and committ themselves and still graduate in high standing.
Heidi Graw
>"RogueStar" <Rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:63532b2e.0404...@posting.google.com...
> "Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c4u2ll$2mibse$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Just heard on the news that Universities in the UK have called
> > for permission to use Intelligence tests in their selection
> > criteria -
> Roguestar wrote:
> First, IQ test are only useful in detecting mentally incapacitated
> individuals. Second, IQ is not a good factor when deciding college
> admission;
The news was talking about *university* entrance. What I suspect is
happening is that they, too, are experiencing phenomenal growth that they
just can't keep up with. Introducing IQ criteria may be one way that they
can weed out people without actually appearing too discriminatory. You have
to have a high IQ along with exceptionally high marks to qualify for
*university.*
Colleges can adjust their programs to serve the needs of their immediate
communities, smart or dumb, able and/or disabled. A mentally handicapped
person can find a college "life-skills" course, while you won't find that
being offered at a university, not in BC, anyway.
>a person with a 140 IQ can just no go to class and do the
> work, thereby failing school, whereas a person with am 87 IQ could try
> very hard and committ themselves and still graduate in high standing.
Exactly, and these people will find all kinds of courses they can take at a
local community colleges. In BC, we also have hybrid university colleges
which offer *some* first and second year university level courses to help
ease the pressure to find spaces at the universities.
Take care,
Heidi
cv
>
>>"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c4v7u0$2n4b60$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "OffLine" <off...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:40730675$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> | maybe then this may 'level the playing field' in men's
>> favour..for once.
>
>> Philip wrote:
>> Yes to a certain degree but they will still be disadvantaged
>> unless the contribution of coursework towards final marking is
>> drastically reduced.
>
> I see...reduce the workload to accommodate more men?
>
> Less work, higher grades, better quality education?
>
> I think that's arguable. Much would depend on what one actually wants to
> achieve. I can see instead of doing 100 equations when 10 may be enough
> could make some sense. But, if one wants to do research and write about a
> certain topic, I don't see how less work can produce better quality, deeper
> insights, and/or more truthful or broader revelations. Don't the sciences
> require copious reading and writing while trying to prove or disprove
> assorted hypothesis?
Copious by the average person's standards. Poor researchers usually lack
creativity or clarity. It is rare to encounter a researcher who has
trouble reading or writing. I think you should keep graduate schools out
of your arguments.
> I suppose we could always lengthen the time it takes to actually learn
> something. We could double the length of time it takes to get that Masters
> or Ph D, but one would have to consider the costs involved. And why? 'Cause
> the boys can't handle all that reading and writing? 'Cause the boys can't
> sit still long enough?
Sit still? Sitting still is rarely a problem for men. Boys are more likely
than girls to be fidgety, but the problem usually resolves itself by
adulthood. "Boys" doing PhD not being able to sit still is a non-issue, in
my experience.
Are you surrounded by adult men who can't sit still? Rest assured that
isn't normal, and some medical care may be called for.
-CV
Heidi Graw
>"cv" <c...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.07....@spam.net...
(snip)
> Are you surrounded by adult men who can't sit still?
Actually, yes! A 50 year old man and two teenage boys!
>Rest assured that
> isn't normal,
My 42 year old brother can't sit still either...he has to constantly pace
and move around.
>and some medical care may be called for.
I suggested it to them, but they sneered at the idea.
I'm not surrounded by placid men. They need to move. Even when we have
visitors, the men rarely sit for any length of time. They stand, talk, walk
around a bit, go outside, come back in, sit for a while at the table and do
it all over again.
O.k., 87 year old grandpa sits and we all take turns keeping him company.
Take care,
Heidi
Hanuman
But that's not true. Neither more men nor more women fall below the
"average." Thus, the term "average."
> So, if what you say holds true, we can
> expect *few* exemplary men at university, while the rest of the
> spaces are made up of more women than men...a situation that exists
> right now, does it not? (Or, if not right now, is fast approaching
> the overrepresentation of women as opposed to men).
Well, what we'd expect to see is *more* men than women in the highest IQ.
Thus, if IQ were used as a measure for college entrance, perhaps more men
getting admitted. Of course, perhaps it is these same men who already score
well on exams and already do their homework. So realistically, there's no
way of telling what impact it would actually have in practice.
> And if the concern is regarding the gender distribution of people
> actually attending university, in order to achieve equal numbers, an
> "affirmative action" plan *may* have to be considered to allow more
> men with lower IQ's to enroll. Or, the universities could offer
> dumbed down courses for men.
Most universities already offer dumbed down courses in English and Math. I
was one of about 10 people in my entering class who didn't have to take
them. This, of course, is the result of dumbing down courses in high
school. Everyone at my university was forced to take a course called
"composition and rhetoric" which was, frankly, beneath me. Why? Because
most of the people I was attending school with had NO CLUE about composition
and rhetoric. Pathetic. I learned that shit when I was 15. Thank you
private high school!
> I'm gathering from recent discussions that the amount of "coursework"
> is that obstacle that holds men back. They can't handle the amount
> of work needed to get those high grades. Women appear better able to
> do that amount of work, but not men.
I wouldn't say that's the problem at all.
The problem is not the *amount* of coursework. The problem is the *type* of
coursework.
> Hmmmm...So, consider if we
> lessen the work load for all.
I'd consider that a stupid policy. Just as stupid as offering dumbed down
courses to keep grades up.
> Wouldn't this still allow for more
> women than men to succeed?
Yep. That's just one reason why it's a stupid idea.
> Or, are you hoping that when women have
> less to do in any given course, they might get bored and drop out?
No. Not at all.
Hanuman
>> "Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c4v7u0$2n4b60$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "OffLine" <off...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:40730675$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>> maybe then this may 'level the playing field' in men's
>> favour..for once.
>
>> Philip wrote:
>> Yes to a certain degree but they will still be disadvantaged
>> unless the contribution of coursework towards final marking is
>> drastically reduced.
>
> I see...reduce the workload to accommodate more men?
>
> Less work, higher grades, better quality education?
I have no idea where you got the idea he was saying that the workload should
be reduced. Here's what I got...
The current situation is something like this:
70% coursework + 30% exams = final grade
I think what has been suggested is that if it were as follows, grades
*might* be more balanced between girls and boys:
50% coursework + 50% exams = final grade
If I'm wrong about this, Philip, please let me know....
Philip Lewis
| Heidi Graw wrote:
| >> "Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:c4v7u0$2n4b60$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
| >>
| >> "OffLine" <off...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >> news:40730675$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
| >>> maybe then this may 'level the playing field' in men's
| >> favour..for once.
| >
| >> Philip wrote:
| >> Yes to a certain degree but they will still be disadvantaged
| >> unless the contribution of coursework towards final marking
is
| >> drastically reduced.
| >
| > I see...reduce the workload to accommodate more men?
| >
| > Less work, higher grades, better quality education?
|
| I have no idea where you got the idea he was saying that the
workload should
| be reduced. Here's what I got...
|
| The current situation is something like this:
| 70% coursework + 30% exams = final grade
|
| I think what has been suggested is that if it were as follows,
grades
| *might* be more balanced between girls and boys:
| 50% coursework + 50% exams = final grade
|
| If I'm wrong about this, Philip, please let me know....
Well I didn't get into any hard and fast %'s because of the
variability in different courses - but my primary beef with the
inflation of coursework is that they are marked much more
subjectively than are actual exam questions - points for 'style'
(of presentation) neat handwriting and general verbiage can score
well even where the actual 'meat and potatos' or content is
rather light. Thus girls can score well in coursework even where
their depth of knowledge of the topic is light or superficial. I
think coursework is valuable but only as a tool for preparing
students for the final exam instead it has been increasingly used
as a major contributor to final exam marks even tho' (as I said
earlier) there is nowhere near the same rigour in marking
coursework as there is in the actual exams. In my view the
quality of coursework should be seperatley assessed but play NO
ROLE whatsoever in contributing marks to a specific exam - that
way an exam certificate is a certificate of knowledge and
competancy in that subject and NOT (as it is now) a watered down
certificate that has inflated grades because of the variable but
significant contribution made by subjective judgements of
presentation style and neatness made under NON exam conditions.
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
|
| Hanuman
|
| --
| "Free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of
mass
| terror, and don't blackmail the world."
| - George W. Bush on "Meet the Press"
|
| I guess that settles it. The USA is not a free society.
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/2004
Philip Lewis
A better solution (IMO) and far more obvious solution to me - is
to restore confidence in exams by removing ALL contributions of
coursework towards final marks - thus the exam then becomes
PURELY a certificate of aptitude and knowledge under exam
conditions with the variability and subjectivity that the
inclusion of coursework entails being removed. As a lad
coursework was homework and was prepatory to the final exam and
NOT a part of it as it is now. You see coursework is not closely
supervised nor is it subjected to the rigour and stringency as
the actual exams are - as a result as the amount of marks
contributed by coursework has been expanded -
employers,universities and colleges have lost faith in what exam
certificates actually have measured - unfortunatley coursework is
a very 'hot potato' it is the feminists main tool in apparently
advancing girls whilst holding boys back - those in academia know
that to try and challenge the amount of coursework contribution
directly is to defintely 'rock the boat' so 'sticking plaster
solution' like 'IQ' tests are being pushed forward instead -
because those in academia KNOW that most exams today do not
accurately reflect the level of knowledge or competance in their
subjects anymore.
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
---
Heidi Graw
>"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c50qvi$2bof7d$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
(snip)
>Phillip wrote:
> Well I didn't get into any hard and fast %'s because of the
> variability in different courses - but my primary beef with the
> inflation of coursework is that they are marked much more
> subjectively than are actual exam questions - points for 'style'
> (of presentation)
...a very necessary skill for any professional. If an engineering firm
cannot present a well organized plan, they are *not* going to get the
contract. If a scientist cannot organize his argument to support a
hypothisis, he's not going to be able to convince anyone.
>neat handwriting
Word processing. Hardly anything is handwritten nowadays.
>and general verbiage can score
> well even where the actual 'meat and potatos' or content is
> rather light.
Detailed analysis requires verbiage.
>Thus girls can score well in coursework even where
> their depth of knowledge of the topic is light or superficial. I
> think coursework is valuable but only as a tool for preparing
> students for the final exam instead it has been increasingly used
> as a major contributor to final exam marks even tho' (as I said
> earlier) there is nowhere near the same rigour in marking
> coursework as there is in the actual exams. In my view the
> quality of coursework should be seperatley assessed but play NO
> ROLE whatsoever in contributing marks to a specific exam - that
> way an exam certificate is a certificate of knowledge and
> competancy in that subject and NOT (as it is now) a watered down
> certificate that has inflated grades because of the variable but
> significant contribution made by subjective judgements of
> presentation style and neatness made under NON exam conditions.
Phil, I don't know for how long you've been out of school. *Today* course
work and exams are indeed evaluated *seperately.* However, the final grade
combining coursework and test evaluations give a more comprehensive picture
of a student's skills. I would never hire anyone based on *exam* marks
alone. Exam marks don't tell me if a person has developed organizational
and critical thinking skills. Anyone can be taught to memorize, but I'm
more interested in knowing if someone can *think.*
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
...just a further note, Phil...
One of my friends has a son who refuses to hand in assignments, although he
consistently does well on tests. The assignments he figures are too much
work. That boy is facing failure and may not graduate this year.
If only his tests were counted, he would appear brilliant. If only his
assignments counted, he'd have been thrown out of school for "seat warming."
His combined scores make him appear marginal.
That marginal grade is the rightful grade to assign to such a boy. Why?
'Cause if I were his employer, I'd have a lazy, though bright employee. I
can't afford to have such a person at my work place. Corporations value
productivity. They want hardworking and bright people.
This student also does not deserve to attend university. He hadn't
demonstrated that he can organize his thoughts in writing, hasn't
demonstrated he can write essays, hasn't demonstrated he can do research and
glean important facts to come up with ideas of his own. He hasn't
demonstrated critical thinking skills. Doing well on tests only tells me he
has memory skills, that's all.
Heidi
Philip Lewis
|
|
| >"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:c50qvi$2bof7d$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
| >
| (snip)
|
| >Phillip wrote:
| > Well I didn't get into any hard and fast %'s because of the
| > variability in different courses - but my primary beef with
the
| > inflation of coursework is that they are marked much more
| > subjectively than are actual exam questions - points for
'style'
| > (of presentation)
|
| ...a very necessary skill for any professional.
| If an engineering firm
| cannot present a well organized plan, they are *not* going to
get the
| contract. If a scientist cannot organize his argument to
support a
| hypothisis, he's not going to be able to convince anyone.
All the above could be assessed within exam conditions...
|
| >neat handwriting
|
| Word processing. Hardly anything is handwritten nowadays.
Exactly - thanks for helping me make my point.
|
| >and general verbiage can score
| > well even where the actual 'meat and potatos' or content is
| > rather light.
|
| Detailed analysis requires verbiage.
Quite the opposite - it obvious that you don't understand what
'verbiage' means.
Marks from coursework not under exam conditions will not tell you
what yuo want to know - why do you think universities are asking
for seperate IQ\Aptitude tests if they thought the coursework
component of applicants A levels would indicate the level of the
applicants 'thinking skills'?
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
|
| Heidi
Hanuman
given to exams, written assignments, and homework.
I attended an Epsicopal private high school in Minnesota. They gave us both
letter grades, and a short, one paragraph narrative evaluation with each
course.
I was pretty much a low to high B student at the time. A typical evaluation
for a course I took and received a "B" in would read something like follows:
"He performs at the top of the class on exams, very near the top on term
papers, and at the middle on homework. If he would apply himself more
dilligently to his homework, he could raise his grade by nearly a full
letter." I received honors my senior year, but no honors through the rest
of high school. I'm confident that if homework had not been weighted so
heavily toward my grades, that I could have been an honors student all the
way through school, and could have been a high honors student my final year.
I attended UC Santa Cruz back in the days when they still had a narrative
evaluation system rather than letter grades. So, I didn't receive any
grades throughout college, just narrative descriptions of my performance. A
typical evaluation would read pretty much like the ones I received in high
school. The difference? Due to having no letter grades, honors is by
evaluation of the board. The board gave me honors and honors in the major
for my entire university career.
One of my first employers actually looked at these evaluations when hiring
me. His observation: "From these, you seem to be so intelligent that you
don't need to do the busy work. That's just the kind of person I need in
this company."
Here's the problem, as I see it.... Homework is weighted far to heavily in
the grades. At my high school, it was 1/3 homework, 1/3 lab/term papers,
and 1/3 exams. Performance on exams and papers have about zero to do with
completing homework assignments. Through every learning experience I've
had, I have retained more of the information than my fellow students. I
have more readily understood the issues than my fellow students. I have
been able to recall the information years or decades later, while many have
forgotten it. I did the absolute bare minimum of homework required to pass
courses. In some courses, I got away with doing no homework at all, and
still aced all the exams and papers.
Homework is BUSY work for the more intelligent students, and serves no
legitimate purpose for them. It should count toward about 5% of the grade.
Anything more is just a way of boosting the grades of the students who
*don't* learn, *don't* retain, *don't* test well, and *can't* write papers.
They get a boost cause the *only* thing they *can* accomplish is homework.
Additionally, homework is like punishment to boys. My sister had a lot less
of a problem with it, as did most of the girls in my schools. It
disadvantages boys, and advantages girls, and serves little if any purpose
to the top 25% of the class.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
> "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:e1_cc.43130$Pk3.13603@pd7tw1no...
> |
> |
> | >"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:c50qvi$2bof7d$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
> | >
> | (snip)
> |
> | >Phillip wrote:
> | > Well I didn't get into any hard and fast %'s because of the
> | > variability in different courses - but my primary beef with
> the
> | > inflation of coursework is that they are marked much more
> | > subjectively than are actual exam questions - points for
> 'style'
> | > (of presentation)
> |
> | ...a very necessary skill for any professional.
> | If an engineering firm
> | cannot present a well organized plan, they are *not* going to
> get the contract.
Actually, if an engineering firm can't demonstrate technical competence
they won't get the job...today, the appearance of the proposal is about
as important as the appearance of the technical wizard who puts it
forward...which is not at all important...think about all those
millionaire computer "geeks". In fact, in many quarters a "wild child"
appearance and apparent disorganization are considered *positive*
attributes of a brilliant mind...and everybody wants to hire the genius
who "thinks outside the box"...not the anal retentive who colours inside
the lines...
If a scientist cannot organize his argument to
> support a
> | hypothisis, he's not going to be able to convince anyone.
>
> All the above could be assessed within exam conditions...
They certainly can, and in fact are more accurately evaluated in a
"pressure" situation like an exam...
> |
> | >neat handwriting
> |
> | Word processing. Hardly anything is handwritten nowadays.
>
> Exactly - thanks for helping me make my point.
> |
> | >and general verbiage can score
> | > well even where the actual 'meat and potatos' or content is
> | > rather light.
> |
> | Detailed analysis requires verbiage.
>
> Quite the opposite - it obvious that you don't understand what
> 'verbiage' means.
Quite, it's conveniently appropriate that "verbiage" rhymes with garbage...
...Ken
Philip Lewis
Well that alone was a very good short essay ('precis'?) on the
pitfalls of coursework\homework - you have highlighted well why
in the UK for example - coursework is so heavilly relied upon.
The (labour) government set itself a target of getting at least
50% of all school leavers into university - this means that it
had also set itself the task of 'raising' the educational
standards of pupils so that 50%+ COULD even qualify for
University entrance, in short what has happened in PRACTICE is
that year on year exams have been deliberatley 'dumbed down'
through increased contributions of coursework to A Levels and
GCSE'S and many Universities have obligingly reduced their
criteria to 'get the numbers in' - now it seems that some
Universities have not liked the results of this surreptious
lowering of standards and are now seeking ways to establish the
quality of entrants in other ways outside the dumbed down system.
Finally your example highlights a valuable point - that BOYS
especially do not like homework - and their reluctance to engage
fully with homework\coursework is certainly NOT a reliable
indicator of their competance or aptitude, in fact one guy in our
class who consistently failed to hand in his assignments wiped
the floor with the rest of us when it came to the final exams
scoring well in the high 90's in most subjects.!
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
|
| Hanuman
|
| --
| "Free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of
mass
| terror, and don't blackmail the world."
| - George W. Bush on "Meet the Press"
|
| I guess that settles it. The USA is not a free society.
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.654 / Virus Database: 419 - Release Date: 06/04/2004
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Phil wrote:
> The (labour) government set itself a target of getting at least
> 50% of all school leavers into university -
Wow! Is there a reason why they want such a high percentage of students to
go on to university? Is this so they can delay people from entering the job
market at *this* time and/or in the near future?
Is it projected that what the universities can offer as career training are
indeed the kinds of jobs the country will need?
What is it the universities offer that cannot be handled by colleges or
trade schools?
It boggles the mind to find out your country wants 50 percent of the
population to be *university* educated.
Is McDonald's or Burger King demanding their burger flippers require Master
Degrees and/or Ph D's?
Take care,
Heidi
Philip Lewis
|
| >"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:c530ov$2n4lnv$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
| >
| (snip)
|
| >Phil wrote:
| > The (labour) government set itself a target of getting at
least
| > 50% of all school leavers into university -
|
| Wow! Is there a reason why they want such a high percentage of
students to
| go on to university? Is this so they can delay people from
entering the job
| market at *this* time and/or in the near future?
Not being a socialist (this target was in the Labour parties
election manifesto) I am not privy to their internal thinking
behind this - but broadly I'd say that this fits in well with
socialist aims of 'inclusion' and their ideals of stamping out
all forms of social 'elitism' and 'class' - already many uni's in
the UK have been pressurised
to make special provisions for those applicants from poorer
backgrounds and state schools (these 'special provisions' of
course involve lowering of their standards so as to 'include'
those who would otherwise not have sufficient qualifications for
entrance). The irony is of course that even if they reach their
vaunted goal they would still be creating a massive social divide
with one half of leavers having a university education and the
other half having to make their own way through life without the
'benefits' or cache' of a university degree. This (policy) has
also created other problems because when the proportion of
leavers going to uni was much lower the state burden on funding
students was naturally also much less - now we have had to
introduce 'top-up fees' the result of which most graduates can
expect to leave uni somewhere between £10k - 15k in debt.
|
| Is it projected that what the universities can offer as career
training are
| indeed the kinds of jobs the country will need?
|
| What is it the universities offer that cannot be handled by
colleges or
| trade schools?
|
| It boggles the mind to find out your country wants 50 percent
of the
| population to be *university* educated.
|
| Is McDonald's or Burger King demanding their burger flippers
require Master
| Degrees and/or Ph D's?
From my perspective this all mainly driven by a socialist agenda
and NOT common sense - the year on year dumbing down of curricula
and exams, relaxing of university entrance criteria and even the
dumbing down of many degree courses themselves have resulted in
devaluing and undermining confidence of the results of our
educational system. About 8 years ago an aquaintence of mine
(doing casual work as a painter and decorator) took time off and
went to university as a 'mature student' he graduated later with
a degree in psychology - when I last met him he told me this half
way through his latest contract - another painting and decorating
job!
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
|
| Take care,
| Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Phil wrote:
> I am not privy to their internal thinking
> behind this - but broadly I'd say that this fits in well with
> socialist aims of 'inclusion' and their ideals of stamping out
> all forms of social 'elitism' and 'class' - already many uni's in
> the UK have been pressurised
> to make special provisions for those applicants from poorer
> backgrounds and state schools (these 'special provisions' of
> course involve lowering of their standards so as to 'include'
> those who would otherwise not have sufficient qualifications for
> entrance).
I'm all too familiar with the "inclusion" philosophy at the elementary and
highschool levels. I found "inclusion" stretched and distorted to such an
extent that special ed students were not being served at all. It also had a
negative impact on some regular students. The gifted in our district were
completely ignored.
When I think of equal opportunities to education, I think of inclusion as
providing an education appropriate for the individual in a manner that is
best for that person. If gifted, give them that gifted education, if
mentally handicapped give them the appropriate education suitable to their
needs. This means a broad range of services have to be provided that does
*not* dilute the eduction for the "typical" population. This has nothing to
do with ueberclass or underclass, but providing an education for all. What
seems to be happing in your country is a drive for *egalitarianism* which I
think is totally different from having access to equal *opportunities.*
>The irony is of course that even if they reach their
> vaunted goal they would still be creating a massive social divide
> with one half of leavers having a university education and the
> other half having to make their own way through life without the
> 'benefits' or cache' of a university degree. This (policy) has
> also created other problems because when the proportion of
> leavers going to uni was much lower the state burden on funding
> students was naturally also much less - now we have had to
> introduce 'top-up fees' the result of which most graduates can
> expect to leave uni somewhere between £10k - 15k in debt.
Yes, our university grads can expect to carry a debt load of anywhere from
$30,000 to $60,000. The summer jobs available to students just don't pay
enough to cover tuition, living expenses and text book fees. Government is
quite prepared to heap these debts onto poorer students. I think this is
unconscienable. How are these students going pay back all this money? If
they're lucky, they'll find a job in the field they actually studied.
They'll pay back the loans, but will have to delay saving up money for a
downpayment on a house.
What concerns me is that so many students are falling for it. They think
nothing about accumulating such huge debts *before* having a full-time job!
We can quite realistically expect a young couple who graduated from
university to be in debt $100,000 on their wedding day! How is this couple
go to get ahead? I can't see it.
>. About 8 years ago an aquaintence of mine
> (doing casual work as a painter and decorator) took time off and
> went to university as a 'mature student' he graduated later with
> a degree in psychology - when I last met him he told me this half
> way through his latest contract - another painting and decorating
> job!
Oh well...at least now he is a painter who can psyche out his clients. Is
he earning more now? ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
Turin
past, and neither of you seriously want to confront reality anymore.
You want the world to conform to yourselves.
You've settled on great little outlooks about life that make you feel
comfortable with yourselves, and it's all bullshit. Technology has
advanced, with social ramifications, but you haven't. Blueblood rants
for private school education, the world of upper management, and
nepotism fall on deaf ears in Men's groups....
"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c530ov$2n4lnv$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de>...
- - -
This has been another enlightening moment, with:
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_First/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Men_Politics/
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Sven Olafsson
HEY BOY! Get your worthless black arse back on AFN. No mouthing back
to your Human superiors.
Massa Sven.
Ann Morgan
> >"OffLine" <off...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:40730675$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > maybe then this may 'level the playing field' in men's favour..for once.
>
> women.
> Or, it may indicate *nothing* of significance....that male and female IQ's
> are too similar to impact greatly on entrance eligibility. So, if a boy has
> marginally met the minimum requirement to attend university, while the girls
> exceeded expectations, if both have similar IQ's, I don't see how this will
> greatly impact eligibility for the boys.
My understanding is that although men and women have the same AVERAGE
IQ (100), men have a greater VARIABILITY in their intelligence; men
produce more geniuses, but they also produce more idiots.
Ann Morgan
> Key words being *most intelligent men* while more men than women fall below
> the "average" IQ. So, if what you say holds true, we can expect *few*
> exemplary men at university, while the rest of the spaces are made up of
> more women than men...a situation that exists right now, does it not? (Or,
> if not right now, is fast approaching the overrepresentation of women as
> opposed to men).
Actually, I would not count on this. For whatever reason, in our
culture, the majority of women do not USE their brains, prefering to
think with their glands and act like spoiled bitches (I am a woman, so
don't accuse me of 'sexism' here). At any rate, like any other part of
your body, if you don't use your brain, it will eventually atrophy,
which will probably result in a lower IQ score.
Ann Morgan
>
> One of my friends has a son who refuses to hand in assignments, although he
> consistently does well on tests. The assignments he figures are too much
> work. That boy is facing failure and may not graduate this year.
>
> If only his tests were counted, he would appear brilliant. If only his
> assignments counted, he'd have been thrown out of school for "seat warming."
>
> His combined scores make him appear marginal.
>
> That marginal grade is the rightful grade to assign to such a boy. Why?
> 'Cause if I were his employer, I'd have a lazy, though bright employee. I
> can't afford to have such a person at my work place. Corporations value
> productivity. They want hardworking and bright people.
Heidi, you are operating under a number of mistaken assuptions. Having
had similiar behavior to this 'boy' myself in highscool (great test
marks, didn't hand in homework) it sounds extremely likely to me that
he may be being abused by his classmates. It is really hard to apply
your mind to daily homework when you are trying to keep your sanity
after having been knocked down in a locker room and having obscenities
written on your naked body in magic marker, or having pencils shoved
down your pants into your genital area, especially when this is
repeated several times a day. Such a person may turn out to be a very
good, hardworking employee (my boss says he wishes he had 10 more
people like me) since unlike our so-lovely public schools, places of
employment do not get away with sweeping harassment under the rug.
You are also, mistaken, however, that all corporations 'value
productivity'. I would say that at least half of the companies out
there value a person's cute little personality, and are basically
organized like a popularity contest, the same way our schools are.
Being 'productive' while working for such a company is likely to get
you punished and fired. Case in point, I was punished at a former job
of mine for thinking of an idea that saved them $15,000 a year.
>
> This student also does not deserve to attend university. He hadn't
> demonstrated that he can organize his thoughts in writing, hasn't
> demonstrated he can write essays, hasn't demonstrated he can do research and
> glean important facts to come up with ideas of his own. He hasn't
> demonstrated critical thinking skills. Doing well on tests only tells me he
> has memory skills, that's all.
Depends on the nature of the test. You really can't pass a math test,
for instance, based on 'memorization', since there are basically an
infinite number of possible questions that could be posed on such a
test. And if anything, doing well on a test is a better indication of
intelligence than doing well on homework, since homework basically
just involves looking up the right answers in a book and regurgitating
them immediately onto paper.
Philip Lewis
Yes - the whiff of communism in action no less!
|
| When I think of equal opportunities to education, I think of
inclusion as
| providing an education appropriate for the individual in a
manner that is
| best for that person. If gifted, give them that gifted
education, if
| mentally handicapped give them the appropriate education
suitable to their
| needs. This means a broad range of services have to be
provided that does
| *not* dilute the eduction for the "typical" population. This
has nothing to
| do with ueberclass or underclass, but providing an education
for all. What
| seems to be happing in your country is a drive for
*egalitarianism* which I
| think is totally different from having access to equal
*opportunities.*
Yes all attempts to 'level the playing field' run counter to
reality - equality is largely an alien concept where nature is
concerned, but we are also a social species where if we are smart
we can always be seeking better ways of leveraging our
differences in a co-operative way for the greater benefit of all.
I go along with your definition of 'equal opportunities' -
unfortunately your definition differs from those who make policy
in that name - for an indication of this disparity consider the
defintion of that phrase as found in dictionaries - the example
below is from MSN Encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861689841
e·qual op·por·tu·ni·ty
noun
equal treatment for all: the availability of the same
rights, position, and status to all people, regardless of gender,
sexual preference, age, race, ethnicity, or religion
the implementation of a more comprehensive equal
opportunity policy
As you can see - this definition implicitly espouses an
attempt to 'level the playing field' i.e. a dumbing down
influence in the name of 'inclusion'.
Well for SOME it wouldn't be much of a problem - for example
those who get jobs as city brokers or high flying IT specialists
(over here IT network consultants can earn several hundred pounds
sterling an hour) others like those who want work as teachers say
would be in financial difficulties.
|
| >. About 8 years ago an aquaintence of mine
| > (doing casual work as a painter and decorator) took time off
and
| > went to university as a 'mature student' he graduated later
with
| > a degree in psychology - when I last met him he told me this
half
| > way through his latest contract - another painting and
decorating
| > job!
|
| Oh well...at least now he is a painter who can psyche out his
clients. Is
| he earning more now? ;-)
I don't know - I left the city shortly afterwards for the seaside
village where I now reside, I am curious tho' and I have the
phone number of a mutual friend who still lives in the same
city - I will ask about him when I phone later this evening.
Phil
|
| Take care,
| Heidi
|
|
|
Jayne Kulikauskas
[]
> Additionally, homework is like punishment to boys. My sister had a lot
less
> of a problem with it, as did most of the girls in my schools. It
> disadvantages boys, and advantages girls, and serves little if any purpose
> to the top 25% of the class.
There was an article in this month's issue of _Today's Parent_ about
different learning styles of boys and girls. This article talked about the
evidence, not only for brain and learning differences, but the corollary
that boys and girls do better in sex-segregated classes that can cater to
these differences.
I was disturbed by one statement quoted in this article:
======================
What worries educators like Paula Bourne, a teacher of gender equity at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, is
that segregated classroooms don't prepare kids for the real world. "I can
buy into the theory that boys and girls approach certain subjects
differently and that there may be academic benefits," she says, "but I think
it's really important for both sexes to learn to work together. I think
boys, particularly, need to be in a coed setting to learn to respect girls
and women."
=====================
Apparently this woman, while not questioning the academic benefits, feels
that these are secondary to using school for social engineering. She seems
to think that the purpose of school is to teach boys her idea of the right
attitude to females. It makes me feel glad to be homeschooling.
Jayne
J Fowler
My question where is her concern for reciprocal respect for boys and
men?
"Everyone seems normal until you get to know them."
Jayne Kulikauskas
"J Fowler" <n...@duffus.com> wrote in message
news:tjvi70lomo7r4be7s...@4ax.com...
[]
> >I was disturbed by one statement quoted in this article:
> >======================
> >
> >What worries educators like Paula Bourne, a teacher of gender equity at
the
> >Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto,
is
> >that segregated classroooms don't prepare kids for the real world. "I can
> >buy into the theory that boys and girls approach certain subjects
> >differently and that there may be academic benefits," she says, "but I
think
> >it's really important for both sexes to learn to work together. I think
> >boys, particularly, need to be in a coed setting to learn to respect
girls
> >and women."
> >
> >=====================
> >
> >Apparently this woman, while not questioning the academic benefits, feels
> >that these are secondary to using school for social engineering. She
seems
> >to think that the purpose of school is to teach boys her idea of the
right
> >attitude to females. It makes me feel glad to be homeschooling.
> >
> >Jayne
> >
>
> My question where is her concern for reciprocal respect for boys and
> men?
Exactly. Her concerns seem pretty one-sided. It sure makes it hard to
believe that feminism is about equality as so many people like to claim.
Jayne
Sean Maccloud
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> I was disturbed by one statement quoted in this article:
> ======================
>
> What worries educators like Paula Bourne, a teacher of gender equity at the
> Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, is
> that segregated classroooms don't prepare kids for the real world. "I can
> buy into the theory that boys and girls approach certain subjects
> differently and that there may be academic benefits," she says, "but I think
> it's really important for both sexes to learn to work together. I think
> boys, particularly, need to be in a coed setting to learn to respect girls
> and women."
>
> =====================
>
> Apparently this woman, while not questioning the academic benefits, feels
> that these are secondary to using school for social engineering. She seems
> to think that the purpose of school is to teach boys her idea of the right
> attitude to females. It makes me feel glad to be homeschooling.
>
> Jayne
Homeschooling is the only way I would raise the multigenerational vectors of war
crime called kiddies.
But the point I wanted to make is that paula chick needs to be.. needs to be ...
er..um how in the fuck do you spell "gee oh teened"?
(I could look it up easily but that is not the point)
Ooh... I hate the french. :-)
That cunt wants to "prepare children for the real world" of her, et al,
conspiratorially gerry mandered creation.
The education machine should be teaching the gender separated girls how to
respect boys and men. The mainstream politicans should make speeches to that
effect. There should be classes of "gender-equity" education from the pro man
perspective. Then we'll be one, one hundreth of the way towards the very
beginnings of "equality".
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Sean Maccloud" <s...@y.com> wrote in message news:4079B0CB...@y.com...
"guillotined"
> (I could look it up easily but that is not the point)
>
> Ooh... I hate the french. :-)
>
> That cunt wants to "prepare children for the real world" of her, et al,
> conspiratorially gerry mandered creation.
What I find especially disturbing about this is that, as a teacher at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, this woman has a lot of
influence. This is not just some kook on the street saying this, but a
person with the ability to affect educational policy.
> The education machine should be teaching the gender separated girls how to
> respect boys and men. The mainstream politicans should make speeches to
that
> effect. There should be classes of "gender-equity" education from the pro
man
> perspective. Then we'll be one, one hundreth of the way towards the very
> beginnings of "equality".
That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach girls about
respecting boys and men than the other way around. I am appalled by the
general attitude to men in this culure.
Jayne
Jeanne de`Arc
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> skrev i melding
news:c5cdi7$5qaq$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach girls about
> respecting boys and men than the other way around. I am appalled by the
> general attitude to men in this culure.
>
> Jayne
>
You are the most sexist pig I have ever seen.
Jeanne of Arc
/\,,,/\
(*-*)
````
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0Viec.24555$zf6....@news4.e.nsc.no...
I find that it is more productive to talk about issues than to make personal
attacks. Do you have any observations you would care to make on education
and the attitude toward men in this culture?
Jayne (intelligent real woman <g>)
Jeanne de`Arc
I know you are a troll and a man, and I know something more too.
>
>
KrosRogue
engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>> That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach
>> girls about respecting boys and men than the other way around. I
>> am appalled by the general attitude to men in this culure.
>>
>> Jayne
> Why don`t you just shut up your stupid fake of a woman, You are the
> most sexist pig I have ever seen.
I find it odd, and rather amusing, actually, that when the occasional
woman *does* post something even remotely pro-masculine, there is
usually at least one feminazi out there who would think her to be a
man. Why is it so difficult for you Fourth-Reichers to believe that
ALL women HAVE to be the same kind of misandrist bull-dike lezzie that
you are?
--
KrosRogue
Jeanne de`Arc
"KrosRogue" <Kros...@SoftHome.net> skrev i melding
news:KrosRogue20040412071621@KrosRogue...
Dear Kros
he is a troll not "the" occasional woman in the street.
If you don`t belive me take a look around. and as I understand you agree
wuith this troll, if you were a little more inelligent you would have
reacted to his answer as well:
"That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach
girls about respecting boys and men than the other way around. "
See, the best would have been:
"How it looks to me. I see a clearly need to respect each other equal,
if not the sexwar between women and men will continue."
KrosRogue
engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
> Dear Kros
> he is a troll not "the" occasional woman in the street.
> If you don`t belive me take a look around. and as I understand you agree
> wuith this troll, if you were a little more inelligent you would have
> reacted to his answer as well:
You think she's a troll probably because you have only seen her
postings to this forum. I have seen her postings to other forums as
well, forums where she would have no need to "pose" as a woman. From
what I have seen of her postings, she is a happily married mother of
at least four children. From what I assume of her postings, she is
still married to her first and only husband, who apparently also has
never been married before. At least two of her children are adults
now, which apparently testifies not only to the quality of her
marriage, but also the longevity as well.
> "That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach
> girls about respecting boys and men than the other way around. "
That's not as lopsided as it sounds. Boys are *required* to show
respect to girls in school. However, girls are encouraged to treat
boys as inferiors. I'm quite sure she gets this information from her
own children as well as other sources.
> See, the best would have been:
> "How it looks to me. I see a clearly need to respect each other
> equal, if not the sexwar between women and men will continue."
I think she sees the problem as it really is. The required behavior
for boys and girls are radically different, and it is all due to the
poisonous feminazi influence, not only in the school systems, but in
our entire society.
--
KrosRogue
Jeanne de`Arc
news:KrosRogue20040412085306@KrosRogue...
I am not stupid.
"KrosRogue" <Kros...@SoftHome.net> skrev i melding
news:KrosRogue20040412085306@KrosRogue...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, "Jeanne de`Arc"
> engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>
> > Dear Kros
> > he is a troll not "the" occasional woman in the street.
> > If you don`t belive me take a look around. and as I understand you agree
> > wuith this troll, if you were a little more inelligent you would have
> > reacted to his answer as well:
>
> You think she's a troll probably because you have only seen her
> postings to this forum.
No i have seen him posting to a lot of forums. He has a rather rough
language.
Why don`t you read the headers. You might leran something new.
Those women he represent does not excist. Visit alt,
troll,alt.fan.scarecrow,alt.usnet.kooks,
soc.men and so on.
You will find him rather disgusting under different names.
I belive he is the real Zack, but I am not sure.
>I have seen her postings to other forums as
> well,
Were ??????????
give some examples:
I am waiting...
>forums where she would have no need to "pose" as a woman. From
> what I have seen of her postings, she is a happily married mother of
> at least four children. From what I assume of her postings, she is
> still married to her first and only husband, who apparently also has
> never been married before. At least two of her children are adults
> now, which apparently testifies not only to the quality of her
> marriage, but also the longevity as well.
Prove it !!
> > "That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach
> > girls about respecting boys and men than the other way around. "
Idiot !!
Boys are more respectles both in school, in society and against girls.
Nothing wrong with it because they are born different and need a different
education.
Again..its the society you should blame not the women or the girls.
..and over and over again men rule the society, the schools and at home.
Boys develope later than girls.
When men understand and andccept it, boys will get it easier when growing
up.
>
> > See, the best would have been:
> > "How it looks to me. I see a clearly need to respect each other
> > equal, if not the sexwar between women and men will continue."
>
> I think she sees the problem as it really is. The required behavior
> for boys and girls are radically different, and it is all due to the
> poisonous feminazi influence, not only in the school systems, but in
> our entire society.
I agree, but what the "she troll" and you are saying here is quite different
to:
"That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach
girls about respecting boys and men than the other way around. "
So you are twisting the facts here to make it your way.
/\,,,/\
(*-*) Jeanne of Arc
```
Ian
> >
>
> ...just a further note, Phil...
>
> One of my friends has a son who refuses to hand in assignments, although he
> consistently does well on tests. The assignments he figures are too much
> work. That boy is facing failure and may not graduate this year.
>
> If only his tests were counted, he would appear brilliant. If only his
> assignments counted, he'd have been thrown out of school for "seat warming."
>
> His combined scores make him appear marginal.
>
> That marginal grade is the rightful grade to assign to such a boy. Why?
> 'Cause if I were his employer, I'd have a lazy, though bright employee. I
> can't afford to have such a person at my work place. Corporations value
> productivity. They want hardworking and bright people.
He's just not being pushed. Women work to impress the people they
hero worship, like dogs. Men work for the money. Once he gets out
there in the big wide world, he'll be competing against other men,
and suddenly, all the women's contributions, will be marginal at best.
>
> This student also does not deserve to attend university. He hadn't
> demonstrated that he can organize his thoughts in writing, hasn't
> demonstrated he can write essays, hasn't demonstrated he can do research and
> glean important facts to come up with ideas of his own. He hasn't
> demonstrated critical thinking skills. Doing well on tests only tells me he
> has memory skills, that's all.
What are you talking about? Absolutely any fucker can write it down.
That's why I have a secretary. It's the thinking that's the difficult
bit. I recognise though that even people who can't think, think writing
about something is actually thinking, but they aren't.
It's a waste of time sending women to university, a quick look at
Friends reunited, shows that, instead of doing something useful
with that ever so useful er, um, "History of Art" or "Media Studies"
degree, all we find is that the pretty ones have married a rich
guy, and had kids and stopped working, and the notsopretty ones
have married an ordinary guy and work part time.
In an inventive, productive society, girls go to college to provide
comfort for the men, and to make up the numbers at parties. That's
why liberal arts degrees are worthless. If they were actually worth
something, they'd cost too much to provide.
>
> Heidi
Jayne Kulikauskas
This does not say much for the accuracy of your knowledge.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
"KrosRogue" <Kros...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
news:KrosRogue20040412085306@KrosRogue...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, "Jeanne de`Arc"
> engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>
> > Dear Kros
> > he is a troll not "the" occasional woman in the street.
> > If you don`t belive me take a look around. and as I understand you agree
> > wuith this troll, if you were a little more inelligent you would have
> > reacted to his answer as well:
>
> You think she's a troll probably because you have only seen her
> postings to this forum. I have seen her postings to other forums as
> well, forums where she would have no need to "pose" as a woman. From
> what I have seen of her postings, she is a happily married mother of
> at least four children. From what I assume of her postings, she is
> still married to her first and only husband, who apparently also has
> never been married before. At least two of her children are adults
> now, which apparently testifies not only to the quality of her
> marriage, but also the longevity as well.
Good guessing, KrosRogue. I have 7 children, ages 22 down to 2. I am very
happily married and we will be celebrating our 24th wedding anniversary next
month.
> > "That's how it looks to me too. I see a greater need to teach
> > girls about respecting boys and men than the other way around. "
>
> That's not as lopsided as it sounds. Boys are *required* to show
> respect to girls in school. However, girls are encouraged to treat
> boys as inferiors. I'm quite sure she gets this information from her
> own children as well as other sources.
>
> > See, the best would have been:
> > "How it looks to me. I see a clearly need to respect each other
> > equal, if not the sexwar between women and men will continue."
>
> I think she sees the problem as it really is. The required behavior
> for boys and girls are radically different, and it is all due to the
> poisonous feminazi influence, not only in the school systems, but in
> our entire society.
Jeanne D'Arc seems to feel that my writing something with which she
disagrees makes me a troll and a man. My opinions on the treatment of boys
in the school system are similar to those of Christina Hoff Sommers in her
book, _The War Against Boys_. While I am not especially interested in
trying to prove that I am who I say I am, Mrs. Sommers book proves that it
is certainly possible for women to be critical of the way that feminist
influence in schools has been detrimental to boys.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
> I can read headers you silly fool. You are a troll too
> news:KrosRogue20040412085306@KrosRogue...
> I am not stupid.
I have to wonder what you think a troll is, if KrosRogue fits your
definition. I find his posts thoughtful, sincere and articulate.
> "KrosRogue" <Kros...@SoftHome.net> skrev i melding
> news:KrosRogue20040412085306@KrosRogue...
> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, "Jeanne de`Arc"
> > engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
> >
> > > Dear Kros
> > > he is a troll not "the" occasional woman in the street.
> > > If you don`t belive me take a look around. and as I understand you
agree
> > > wuith this troll, if you were a little more inelligent you would have
> > > reacted to his answer as well:
> >
> > You think she's a troll probably because you have only seen her
> > postings to this forum.
>
> No i have seen him posting to a lot of forums. He has a rather rough
> language.
Apparently English is your second language. My writing is noteworthy for
its refinement. The level of grammar, spelling and courtesy are unusually
high.
> Why don`t you read the headers. You might leran something new.
> Those women he represent does not excist. Visit alt,
> troll,alt.fan.scarecrow,alt.usnet.kooks,
> soc.men and so on.
> You will find him rather disgusting under different names.
> I belive he is the real Zack, but I am not sure.
I have never heard of this Zack person. However, if you are convinced that
I am a man and a troll, feel free to persist in that belief. The
recommended way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. You are quite
welcome to ignore me.
Jayne
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> "J Fowler" <n...@duffus.com> wrote in message
> news:tjvi70lomo7r4be7s...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:51:57 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >Apparently this woman, while not questioning the academic benefits, feels
> > >that these are secondary to using school for social engineering. She seems
> > >to think that the purpose of school is to teach boys her idea of the right
> > >attitude to females. It makes me feel glad to be homeschooling.
> > My question where is her concern for reciprocal respect for boys and
> > men?
>
> Exactly. Her concerns seem pretty one-sided. It sure makes it hard to
> believe that feminism is about equality as so many people like to claim.
Is this what you mean by boys' respecting girls?
URL:http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/01/26/Teen_Boys_Pimp_Even_Younger_Girls_in_Oakland.html
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Sacrament R2-45 <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Jeanne de`Arc
life by a mistake ?
>
>
Jayne Kulikauskas
>
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> skrev i melding
> news:c5ejs2$o3md$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:Bhrec.24632$zf6....@news4.e.nsc.no...
[]
> > > I know you are a troll and a man, and I know something more too.
> >
> > This does not say much for the accuracy of your knowledge.
> >
> > Jayne
> news.uni-berlin.de...says everything. Have you been calling me in the real
> life by a mistake ?
It says that I get my news through a free newsserver based in Germany as do
thousands of people all over the world.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <j...@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
news:10817929...@news-1.nethere.net...
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
<news:c5c0t6$1aed$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> > "J Fowler" <n...@duffus.com> wrote in message
> > news:tjvi70lomo7r4be7s...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:51:57 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > > <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > >Apparently this woman, while not questioning the academic benefits,
feels
> > > >that these are secondary to using school for social engineering. She
seems
> > > >to think that the purpose of school is to teach boys her idea of the
right
> > > >attitude to females. It makes me feel glad to be homeschooling.
>
> > > My question where is her concern for reciprocal respect for boys and
> > > men?
> >
> > Exactly. Her concerns seem pretty one-sided. It sure makes it hard to
> > believe that feminism is about equality as so many people like to claim.
>
> Is this what you mean by boys' respecting girls?
>
>
URL:http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/01/26/Teen_Boys_Pimp_Even_Younger_Girls_in_Oakland.html
That is a disturbing story. I'm not sure how it is relevant to the current
discussion, but I see it as just the sort of social breakdown to be expected
when so many children are raised without the input of their fathers.
Jayne
Sean Maccloud
Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster wrote:
> Is this what you mean by boys' respecting girls?
URL:http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/01/26/Teen_Boys_Pimp_Even_Younger_Girls_in_Oakland.html
In a world of whores, you survive by becoming a better pimp.
I totally support pimpdom and the beating of females when they're 'out'a pocket'.
Notice that the story is about are non whites. Typical of left hipocrisy. And Typical of the distopia it created
and the right foolishly fought and worked for and still foolishly does.
Jayne Kulikauskas
It occurs to me that since you seem to have a suspicious nature you might
want more information on this newsserver. Look at
http://news.individual.net and you can learn all about it. Note that it is
run from the University of Berlin.
Another useful url for you might be www.google.com which you can use to
look up a person's posting history. Using this you can discover that I have
been posting to various newsgroups for 12 years.
Jayne
KrosRogue
engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
> Good guessing, KrosRogue. I have 7 children, ages 22 down to 2. I
> am very happily married and we will be celebrating our 24th wedding
> anniversary next month.
Well, happy anniversary, and I hope for many more to come. :-)
As for the guesswork, JdA could have found the same info as I did if
she were really interested in the truth. Google Groups is a very
useful tool. When I first saw your postings in "soc.men" I too had my
doubts about you, but I kept them to myself. Then "Grizzly Antagonist"
posted something to the effect that you were "too good to be true". I
agreed with him, but I wanted proof before I haphazardly posted
something potentially slanderous. I did a quick search for your name,
and that's when I replied back to him that you were for real.
> Jeanne D'Arc seems to feel that my writing something with which she
> disagrees makes me a troll and a man. My opinions on the treatment
Well, if you recall, she hasn't been the only one. The one who posts
under the name "Hyerdahl1" apparently still holds that opinion. I
would guess that just about any feminazi that has seen your posts
probably feels the same.
> of boys in the school system are similar to those of Christina Hoff
> Sommers in her book, _The War Against Boys_. While I am not
> especially interested in trying to prove that I am who I say I am,
> Mrs. Sommers book proves that it is certainly possible for women to
> be critical of the way that feminist influence in schools has been
> detrimental to boys.
There is a certain peculiarity about the truth. It is only available
to those who sincerely search it out. Many folk are quite content to
nurture their own lies, and by so doing condemn themselves to
isolation from the truth. This can and in many cases does result in
injury to innocent people, such as the boys in schools today, or the
American native-born Japanese descendents in WW2, the German Jews, the
Blacks. The list of people victimized by widespread social lies is
quite long, and all because the folk who believe those lies refuse to
interest themselves in the truth enough to search it out.
--
KrosRogue
KrosRogue
engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
> I can read headers you silly fool. You are a troll too
> news:KrosRogue20040412085306@KrosRogue...
> I am not stupid.
Hmm, OK. I roll my own headers and I pop my own "Message ID". And
because of that you choose to believe that I am a troll. I won't argue
the point because you seem to have no interest in the truth.
>> You think she's a troll probably because you have only seen her
>> postings to this forum.
> I belive he is the real Zack, but I am not sure.
I have never heard of anyone posting under the name "Zack", and from
your description, I don't particularly care to.
>> I have seen her postings to other forums as well,
> Were ??????????
> give some examples:
> I am waiting...
Do what I did. Use Google. It's interesting. It's fun. As a side
effect, you may accidentally learn something from the experience.
>> forums where she would have no need to "pose" as a woman. From
> Prove it !!
Search for her name in Google. I have no reason to do your work for
you.
> Idiot !!
Now that's an odd name of endearment. ;-)
> Again..its the society you should blame not the women or the girls.
True. And the media controls society. The feminazis control the media,
and they are the ones that abuse the power of the media.
> Boys develope later than girls.
That's a separate argument which has nothing to do with respect.
> So you are twisting the facts here to make it your way.
You choose what to believe in spite of the facts.
--
KrosRogue
Philip Lewis
"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <j...@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
news:10817929...@news-1.nethere.net...
| "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
<news:c5c0t6$1aed$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>...
|
| > "J Fowler" <n...@duffus.com> wrote in message
| > news:tjvi70lomo7r4be7s...@4ax.com...
| > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:51:57 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
| > > <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
|
| > > >Apparently this woman, while not questioning the academic
benefits, feels
| > > >that these are secondary to using school for social
engineering. She seems
| > > >to think that the purpose of school is to teach boys her
idea of the right
| > > >attitude to females. It makes me feel glad to be
homeschooling.
|
| > > My question where is her concern for reciprocal respect for
boys and
| > > men?
| >
| > Exactly. Her concerns seem pretty one-sided. It sure makes
it hard to
| > believe that feminism is about equality as so many people
like to claim.
|
| Is this what you mean by boys' respecting girls?
|
|
URL:http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/01/26/Teen_Boys_Pimp_Even_Younger_Girls_in_Oakland.html
I think you will find that most of those boys were raised by
their mothers.
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
Jayne Kulikauskas
"KrosRogue" <Kros...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>
> > Good guessing, KrosRogue. I have 7 children, ages 22 down to 2. I
> > am very happily married and we will be celebrating our 24th wedding
> > anniversary next month.
>
> Well, happy anniversary, and I hope for many more to come. :-)
Thank you.
> As for the guesswork, JdA could have found the same info as I did if
> she were really interested in the truth. Google Groups is a very
> useful tool. When I first saw your postings in "soc.men" I too had my
> doubts about you, but I kept them to myself. Then "Grizzly Antagonist"
> posted something to the effect that you were "too good to be true". I
> agreed with him, but I wanted proof before I haphazardly posted
> something potentially slanderous. I did a quick search for your name,
> and that's when I replied back to him that you were for real.
It isn't that hard to figure out for those who are truly interested in
finding out the truth.
> > Jeanne D'Arc seems to feel that my writing something with which she
> > disagrees makes me a troll and a man. My opinions on the treatment
>
> Well, if you recall, she hasn't been the only one. The one who posts
> under the name "Hyerdahl1" apparently still holds that opinion. I
> would guess that just about any feminazi that has seen your posts
> probably feels the same.
The evidence that I am who I say I am is so clear that it seems likely
Hyerdahl is willfully choosing not to see it.
> > of boys in the school system are similar to those of Christina Hoff
> > Sommers in her book, _The War Against Boys_. While I am not
> > especially interested in trying to prove that I am who I say I am,
> > Mrs. Sommers book proves that it is certainly possible for women to
> > be critical of the way that feminist influence in schools has been
> > detrimental to boys.
>
> There is a certain peculiarity about the truth. It is only available
> to those who sincerely search it out. Many folk are quite content to
> nurture their own lies, and by so doing condemn themselves to
> isolation from the truth. This can and in many cases does result in
> injury to innocent people, such as the boys in schools today, or the
> American native-born Japanese descendents in WW2, the German Jews, the
> Blacks. The list of people victimized by widespread social lies is
> quite long, and all because the folk who believe those lies refuse to
> interest themselves in the truth enough to search it out.
At least when people say these absurd untruths about me here it does me no
harm. On the contrary, it benefits me by immediately identifiying them as
people who are not very concerned with the truth. This lets me know not to
waste any time on them.
Jayne
KrosRogue
engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
> It isn't that hard to figure out for those who are truly interested
> in finding out the truth.
Ahh, yes, and that's the rub. To find the truth one must be interested
enough to put forth the effort.
> The evidence that I am who I say I am is so clear that it seems
> likely Hyerdahl is willfully choosing not to see it.
With extreme effort I will restrain a tirade of vulgarities and simply
say that is a gross understatement. ;-)
> At least when people say these absurd untruths about me here it does
> me no harm. On the contrary, it benefits me by immediately
> identifiying them as people who are not very concerned with the
> truth. This lets me know not to waste any time on them.
It's easy to adopt that attitude here on Usenet, but it is far more
difficult to deal with such a person face-to-face, especially when the
exchanges threaten to be physically abusive.
--
KrosRogue
Jayne Kulikauskas
"KrosRogue" <Kros...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>
[]
> > The evidence that I am who I say I am is so clear that it seems
> > likely Hyerdahl is willfully choosing not to see it.
>
> With extreme effort I will restrain a tirade of vulgarities and simply
> say that is a gross understatement. ;-)
What a coincidence. Thinking about Hyerdahl has that effect on me too. <g>
> > At least when people say these absurd untruths about me here it does
> > me no harm. On the contrary, it benefits me by immediately
> > identifiying them as people who are not very concerned with the
> > truth. This lets me know not to waste any time on them.
>
> It's easy to adopt that attitude here on Usenet, but it is far more
> difficult to deal with such a person face-to-face, especially when the
> exchanges threaten to be physically abusive.
I've led a pretty shletered life and not had to deal with such people
face-to-face. That's something to be thankful for.
Jayne
KrosRogue
engraved the following on the Usenet Stone:
>> It's easy to adopt that attitude here on Usenet, but it is far more
>> difficult to deal with such a person face-to-face, especially when
>> the exchanges threaten to be physically abusive.
> I've led a pretty shletered life and not had to deal with such
> people face-to-face. That's something to be thankful for.
Consider yourself fortunate. It is not a pleasant experience to have
someone threaten you with a weapon because you happen to disagree with
him about something very trivial. One such confrontation sticks in my
mind right now about a disagreement of which colors were primary. We
agreed on red and yellow but he insisted the third one was green. I
was prepared to give him proof about the third color, but his face
turned so red I thought he would pop a vessel. I told him that it
really didn't matter to me what he believed.
I really can't fathom how someone could get so worked up over
something like that. That sort of thing is not an isolated incident,
either. There are folk that get absolutely rabid over such
insignificant things.
--
KrosRogue
Society
>
> There was an article in this month's issue of
> _Today's Parent_ about different learning styles
> of boys and girls. This article talked about the
> evidence, not only for brain and learning differences,
> but the corollary that boys and girls do better
> in sex-segregated classes that can cater to
> these differences.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/25ujh
>
> I was disturbed by one statement quoted in this article:
>
> a teacher of gender equity at the Ontario Institute
> for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto,
> is that segregated classroooms don't prepare kids
> for the real world.
<laugh>
Hmm. How much do I wanna bet that almost all
schools in Toronto have age-segregated classrooms?
That is, that all the children suffer the very unnatural
situation of being herded into groups of approximately
the same age -- hardly their experience outside of
school (aka the real world).
Paula Bourne is part of the 90% of academics
that give 'em all a bad name.
> "I can buy into the theory that boys and girls
> approach certain subjects differently and that
> there may be academic benefits," she says,
> "but I think it's really important for both sexes
> to learn to work together. I think boys, particularly,
> need to be in a coed setting to learn to respect
> girls and women."
>
> Apparently this woman, while not questioning the
> academic benefits, feels that these are secondary
> to using school for social engineering. She seems
> to think that the purpose of school is to teach boys
> her idea of the right attitude to females.
Paula Bourne seems to be the sort of woman who
missed out on learning to respect boys and men
when she was a schoolgirl. Sheesh. Being an
instructor of "gender" anything on a campus marks
her as part of a herd of cows who waggle their
scolding fingers and tounges in denigration of
anything male. They believe 'equality' means
making boys into girls and girls into female
supremacists.
> It makes me feel glad to be homeschooling.
Truly wise decisions enable long run happiness.
And somebody's children have to be properly
educated to be the future bosses of other people's
kids -- the ones who plod off to the government
schools to clock seat time. Those future executives
might as well be your children, Jayne. ;-)
Prediction: Within ten years, the mainstream media
will take notice of post-secondary homeschoolers
as an alternative to college studies.
--
The power to create commerce, build factories, and establish
spaces safe from the harsher forces of nature, is the power
of civilization. It is the power to live.
This requires political freedom... intelligence, creativity,
vision, determination and cooperation. Women and men who
understand this are the heroes of our time: they nurture
civilization. But pop-feminists do not understand this. ...
Because they do not understand, they envy the creative and
economic power men earn, and so promote the idea men have
all the power. If men have all the power, then men must be
responsible for everything that goes wrong. Consequently,
their power must be taken away. And that is precisely
what pop-feminists are doing.
Rod van Mechelen, "Power"
http://www.backlash.com/book/power.html
Society
news:85e55c59.0404...@posting.google.com...
>
> RogueStar wrote...
> >
> > Philip Lewis wrote...
> > >
> > > Just heard on the news that Universities
> > > in the UK have called for permission to use
> > > Intelligence tests in their selection criteria -
> > > apparently they have lost confidence in the
> > > A levels and their grading alone as a sufficient
> > > guide to potential competence for University
> > > entrance - this could be bad news for women
> > > candidates [...]
> >
> > First, IQ test are only useful in detecting mentally
> > incapacitated individuals.
Uh, if that's so then those folk who aren't at least
a couple of sigma above the mean IQ score are
"mentally incapacitated individuals". Hmm. Your
remark fails the basic sanity check, RogueStar.
Btw, Phil did not say an IQ test was being
specified but an "intelligence test" and that
was of an unknown sort. Likely what is
intended by the universities in the UK said
in the pop media to be an "intelligence test"
is a g-loaded test of some sort. The old
style A-level exams are examples of that.
> > Second, IQ is not a good factor when deciding
> > college admission;
Compared to what? Drawing straws? Melanin
content of skin? Eye color? Heaviness of menstrual
flow? Graphological analysis? C'mon, RogueStar,
show your hand -- reveal your preferred alternative.
(Bet'cha you end up with a g-loaded criteria. ;-)
> > a person with a 140 IQ can just no go to class
> > and do the work, thereby failing school, whereas
> > a person with am 87 IQ could try very hard and
> > committ themselves and still graduate in high standing.
...from trades program at a two-year college.
Maybe.
Get real. Your claim is pregnant with an assumption
that if hatched out just a bit more will lead one to
the absurd conclusion that if your 87 IQ person
just applied oneself diligently enough, that person
could match Einstein's accomplishments.
> HEY BOY! Get your worthless black arse
> back on AFN. No mouthing back [...]
See, Sven there just failed an intelligence test. ;-)
[alt.flame.niggers removed]
--
Feminists do not care about women. The only reason
why they came after women is because it is easier
to make women hate men than it is to make men hate
women.
Amber Pawlik
_Gender Healing: Seeing Bees, Not the Swarm_
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/pawlik/03/pawlik092803.htm
karen
> Apparently English is your second language. My writing is noteworthy
for
> its refinement. The level of grammar, spelling and courtesy are unusually
> high.
>
>
so, want some kind of award or something?