In a first, women surpass men in advanced degrees

[Liberal_in_LA]

In a first, women surpass men in advanced degrees

For the first time, American women have passed men in gaining advanced college degrees as well as bachelor's degrees, part of a trend that is helping redefine who goes off to work and who stays home with the kids.

Census figures released Tuesday highlight the latest education milestone for women, who began to exceed men in college enrollment in the early 1980s. The findings come amid record shares of women in the workplace and a steady decline in stay-at-home mothers.

The educational gains for women are giving them greater access to a wider range of jobs, contributing to a shift of traditional gender roles at home and work. Based on one demographer's estimate, the number of stay-at-home dads who are the primary caregivers for their children reached nearly 2 million last year, or one in 15 fathers. The official census tally was 154,000, based on a narrower definition that excludes those working part-time or looking for jobs.

"The gaps we're seeing in bachelor's and advanced degrees mean that women will be better protected against the next recession," said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint who is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

"Men now might be the ones more likely to be staying home, doing the more traditional child rearing," he said.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/04/26/national/w075412D17.DTL#ixzz1KgPtefTa

[WorseBeforeBetter]

1. This ought to push Allen West right over the edge.

Good.

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. Scott Adams (Dilbert guy) will go over the edget also

[seabeyond]

15. i was thinking the same. but... i think it is kick ass because i know men that are more nurturers

and that works out well. the more comfortable men get with staying at home is fine with me. i have an aunt that had a break down staying home with four little girls. she was much better off at work. a brother who is the nurturer and wife should have worked. what ended their marriage ultimately.

i am all for fathers staying home. and all for the woman working and creating a new norm

[WatsonT]

24. Men shouldn't be expected to stay home

anymore than women should be.

Whichever parent feels best suited to doing so should. And it shouldn't be foisted on any gender due to lack of other opportunities.

[seabeyond]

26. and i said they should be "expected" to stay home, ... where? clearly

in my post i think it states choice.

[WatsonT]

27. "i am all for fathers staying home. and all for the woman working and creating a new norm"

"I'm all for mothers staying home and fathers working."

How would that be interpreted?

Also the word "choice" was never mentioned in your post.

[seabeyond]

28. are you fucking serious. i LIKE the idea of men being able to stay home....

it goes against the grain and our culture and sociatel norm. YET, there are men that really want the job

and i am ALL FOR IT.

work harder to make it an issue. this is damn stupid

[WatsonT]

32. If you intended to say that you'd prefer everyone have an equal opportunity

to pursue whatever dream they might have that would be a different issue.

But you said you'd prefer if men stayed at home and women worked. You didn't say anything about choice, or some men should stay home, some women should work and vice versa.

Had someone said basically the same thing but in reverse that would have been condemned as sexist.

[seabeyond]

36. there is noway you can get this shit out of what i posted. you say... if i do not word my post

like you insist.... then

and then further you tell me what i would do in a reverse situation.

how the hell did you become the all knowing.

you are so full of shit.

i think stay at home is an excellent job. i dont see it as an insult. i dont see it as something to criticize. i see it as HUGELY favorable to a family environment. but to keep going on and on and on demanding a misinterpretation of my post, with a lot of wiggling around on your part is asinine.

i will not reword what i said to accommodate you. my post is fine as is. you are creating a really hairy shirt.

[WatsonT]

86. Look it was clearly there for all to see

If I'd said "I think women should stay at home and men should work" and nothing else, what would you take from that?

[seabeyond]

92. but that is not what i said. YOU changed the language. whatever dude....

cause really, to take the whole post where i say not all women are nurturer and those men that WANT to raise kids

yes watson

it is clear for other posters to read. i am not concerned. but your unwillingness to let go and continue to push a stupid point is beyond telling

[WatsonT]

96. You said:

"i am all for fathers staying home. and all for the woman working and creating a new norm"

And I am merely responding to you. You can acknowledge that your post was, at best, misleading. But you refuse to do so. I guess any admission of fault on your part is verboten?

[seabeyond]

100. my posts were clearly stating roles should not be confining and you refuse to

acknowledge or recognize the whole of the post so you can slant it your way to have a argument that does not exist

[seabeyond]

104. i am all for fathers staying at home, i think fathers should stay at home, two different things.....

you really dont see the difference.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

99. wrong place

[ecstatic]

74. lol! nt

[Bunny]

3. The MRAs will be out of their minds over this.

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. yep, just like the righties that get out of sorts over increasing ethnic percentage of population

[demmiblue]

8. +1 n/t

[madrchsod]

5. women are now the majority of the work force.....

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. They were until late last year.

The recovery has put many of the unemployed men back to work.

Women are, however far less likely to be unemployed.

[WatsonT]

25. Oddly enough people were triumphant

when women became more than half the workforce due to men being fired at higher rates, then became outright distraught when men got most of the new jobs in the recovery.

[Pithlet]

61. People triumphant at men being fired!

Wow! Those bastards... Libtards sure are evil, aren't they?

[seabeyond]

62. distraught along with "vapors". i have never seen women cheering men being fired... also,

women were pretty aware the reason women were keeping jobs as opposed to men is their packages were smaller and they were being paid less. cant see where the celebration would be.

[Pithlet]

63. Oh, no, Seabeyond.

It couldn't be that. Sorry, your invitation to the evil liberal party must have been lost. All the feminists, acorn members and the rainbow coalition, union members, you name it, we were all there. But especially feminists. It was a hoot. We just laughed and cheered at all the fired men. We drank the nectar of their sweet, sweet tears. I'll make sure you get the next one, though.

[seabeyond]

65. good.... cause i get kicked out of all the groups and never get to be a part.

package smaller.... duh. lol

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. They sure do get worked up over men getting rehired though.

like this

[Pithlet]

142. Those are threads about women being left behind.

*scratching head*

[lumberjack_jeff]

144. The article in question was a complaint that most recovery jobs went to men.

Which stands to reason, since they were the ones unemployed.

[Pithlet]

147. Well, for one thing

That's a heck of a lot different then "Men unemployed! Wahoo!" Number two, it was a criticism that the efforts to improve the economy focused on jobs for men. That doesn't mean those making the criticism don't' want jobs for men. That's a huge twist right there. Number three, what's wrong with wanting a balanced approach? You don't' have to necessary agree. But to assign nefarious reasons to those that are requesting it is beyond a stretch.

[seabeyond]

154. that is getting "worked up". two women on the thread, the rest men. one women simple kr

the thread

doesnt sound like a good representation of all those women getting worked up

[WatsonT]

69. Um yes actually

many were.

[seabeyond]

94. many? prove it. link. nt

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x706807

[Pithlet]

143. These are supposed to be proof that people were rejoicing the laying off of men?

Not seeing it.

[seabeyond]

156. i commented on that thread above. and i am not seeing women cheer the demise of men. nt

[jtown1123]

71. The reason women weren't fired as much is because they still make around 30 cents less

they are cheaper and do the same jobs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. Compared to the guy who got laid off?

80% of zero gives my calculator a seizure.

[jimlup]

6. I'm a high school teacher and as such, I can relate to you that this trend will continue

... and become dramatically more significant in future years. Our education system is failing our boys. Our boys are really in trouble now folks and they are sinking fast. Don't get me wrong. Celebrate the rise of women and their success in obtaining college degrees, but temper that enthusiasm with an understanding that something else is going seriously wrong in our education system and we don't entirely understand what it is.

[Igel]

7. Won't happen.

Say that women are 45% of the undergraduate population and there are cries of outrage mingled with rejoicing. It's only just and proper that there be parity. The old calls that perhaps men were better suited for college, had more dedication, etc., etc., were decried as sexist and atavistic. If there's no parity, there's a structural or institutional factor oppressing women and something--all kinds of things, until one works--must be done. Now.

Say that women are 55% of the undergraduate population and there are cries of unalloyed rejoicing. It's obvious that women are just better suited for college, have more dedication, etc., etc., and to say otherwise is sexist and atavistic. Obviously there cannot possibly be any structural or institutional problem because it's a good thing to have more women than men at college. There's no oppression, and only a sexist or avavistic Neandertal would dare suggest doing anything about it.

It's of note to look at the distribution of degrees by discipline. It's easy to expand an English department. It's a lot harder to expand an engineering department.

A number of years ago Sa'udi Arabia was proud of the number of advanced degrees it issued. One could only be amazed that it wasn't a leader in scientific and humanistic research--until it came out that a huge number of them were in Islamic Studies.

[jimlup]

9. If you are saying that there isn't a problem with our boys in academics you are just flat wrong

I don't really follow what you are trying to say "won't happen" but the evidence is rather significant. Universities are having to advance male admissions significantly to try and hold a 60 to 40 gender balance. It is not a statistical fluke it is an alarming trend.

[defendandprotect]

198. What is wrong beyond females being better students?

Even in the days when schools/teachers catered to males -- and presume they

no longer do that -- females were still the better students!!

It's pretty much true in every family --

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. +1

[WatsonT]

23. +1

It's not entirely that women are succeeding more (although that is happening some and good for them).

But that is also coupled with men failing more.

The goal should be to rise everyone up to some high level of equality, not drag everyone down.

I wonder if, in 50 years or so the trend reverses itself and more men are graduating with higher degrees than women will we again see a public outcry against institutions that are clearly failing women?

[Liquorice]

205. Women now make up 50% of people enrolled in medical school, so your

indirect implication that women are probably only pursuing non-science degrees in large numbers falls flat. There is still a great deal of sexism in many of the sciences, but women will eventually overcome those limitations as our society continues to strive for equality. We're not there yet, but women have made great strides, especially in medicine.

Men long sought to limit women from getting a higher education, and of course it was sexist. Women, on the other hand, have never tried to limit male access to higher education. That is why your other argument is just as flat-out wrong.

I find your whole post to be incredibly ignorant of the institutionalized historical exclusion of women in higher education. It is an obvious triumph when there is clear evidence that our society has evolved and women have overcome the incredible limitations placed on them throughout history. That you don't celebrate this obvious fact, and in fact belittle it and whine about men being treated poorly says a lot about you. Also, comparing women in a free country pursuing advanced degrees to people in a closed theocracy (Saudi Arabia) pursuing degrees is beyond idiocy.

[eridani]

19. Nothing about American intellecuallism has really changed in 200 years

The only thing that has changed is that it now differentially harms men and boys. They used to be protected against contempt for sissified book larnin' by having law and custom reserve better paid work for them. With that protection gone, contempt for education is costing men a lot.

[hifiguy]

35. Indeed

The jock and the idiot party mook seem to be the main images presented for most young men to aspire to these days. I got news for you young fellas - stoopid doesn't get you very far.

[seabeyond]

37. exactly. it starts really really young with the sponge bobs, ed ed adn eddy and

anything stupid is attributed to being boy.

my boys and i rejected that from the youngest of age. only took me making them aware of how often society protrayed males as stupid, for them to say

fuck that

[hifiguy]

41. Actually I kinda like Ed Edd 'n' Eddy

But then I was an Edd kind of kid - the nerdy, brainy one who tried to talk his friends out of doing the really dumb shit they thought was cool.

The Axe commercials, beer ads and endless idiot "buddy" films really grind my gears though.

[seabeyond]

43. agreed, stupid continues. but though you may have liked ed ed and eddy

it was about stupid

good to know there was a smart one there though, and you could identify. you were of the generation it sounds like. in our house, no stupid, mean (power puff?), sexist (johnny bravo).

[hifiguy]

50. I am an old goat

in his 50s who watched a lot of cartoons during an extended period of unemployment a few years back. Grew up with Bugs, Porky, Daffy and company and never lost the taste for animation.

Loved the PPG and could never see Johnny Bravo as anything but an often hilarious sendup of Elvis and the sheer buffoonery of macho. I did miss "Cow and Chicken" and "I.M. Weasel" when those disappeared.

I've never taken most teevee cartoons very seriously. Good slapstick is good slapstick to me and nothing more. When I was a little boy my mom explained that no matter how funny I thought the Three Stooges were (and I still dote on the Stooges), it WASN'T REAL and I couldn't bop my nextdoor neighbor little Stevie Swanson on the head just because Moe smacked Curly around. Being a sensible kid, I accepted that at face value.

I think it's the stuff kids see as tweens and teens that has a far more lasting effect than kids' cartoons. When you're eight something is funny or it isn't.

[seabeyond]

57. that is a hoot....

i do disagree with you. having watched child development for so many years, i do think the beginning is important in instilling a foundation and course.

[GillesDeleuze]

226. tell that to george w bush

[seabeyond]

22. i dont think it has to do with educational system. i think they are working their ass off to

help the boys and all students. i think it is a societal issue that is failing our boys

[Modern_Matthew]

10. Nothing to celebrate. I find news like this to be divisive.

A human is a human is a human.

[seabeyond]

17. post 15. i think you can see it in a positive light if you chose. your create divisiveness. it is

not like anyone is making anyone do anything. unlike the past.

[Odin2005]

11. Young women are taught to value education far more than young men are, nowadays.

[Cerridwen]

16. In a reply in the LBN thread about this, the poster, who is a high school

teacher, says that the young men act as though studying and school would "make their dick drop off." The attack on education has resulted, in part, in education being portrayed as emasculating. It's the flip-side of the 19th century Harvard 'research' that reported that higher education would result in a woman's uterus atrophying.

In the 19th century they used women's fear of being too 'masculine' and in the 20th and early 21st centuries, the anti-education cabal uses men's fear of becoming too 'feminine.'

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Then the question is how to counter it, right?

Programs like the womens educational equity program, (which demonstrably achieved its goals about 20 years ago) girls are now fully accepting of education.

There are many possible solutions to this, but as this thread shows, there's ample evidence that equality is no longer considered a virtue.

[WatsonT]

33. Even considering this a problem is deemed sexist

Women *should* be outperforming men.

Boys failing at higher rates than girls is acceptable.

Anyone who tries to get equal rates of graduation is either a hero if that means improving womens performance or a sexist if it means improving mens.

I had thought the ideal was total equality. I am apparently wrong.

[Pithlet]

34. No one says that women should be outperforming men.

Bullshit.

[seabeyond]

39. of course they dont say that. but it is much more fun to create an issue that isnt there

than being honest

for some

[Pithlet]

47. Yep.

If it fits into grand, evil, feminist conspiracy against men, it makes more sense, of course.

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Yes, they do.

And you've been here long enough to see it.

More to the point, it's official government policy.

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/equity/index.html

[Pithlet]

48. They do.

If we're living in evil, everyone hates men fantasyland.

[Pithlet]

52. Your problem

Is that you equate feminism's focus on women with not caring about or outright hostility for men. It's ridiculous and nonsensical. It makes as much sense as blaming feminism for the global warming problem because they don't focus enough on that. You know, it's not a zero sum game. Yes, a big reason for women's gains in areas like education is because of the feminist movement. That doesn't have to mean that women in the movement don't care about or are outright hostile toward or are at fault for any problems men face. Limbaugh and his ilk are great at exploiting this logical fallacy, and you and others fall for it hook line and sinker. Women don't have to suddenly say "Oh! It worked! We'd better stop now!" Sorry. No. Hey. Guess what? Women are human. We're mothers and wives and sisiters and we do care about men. I have sons. I see these stories and I care, too. You don't have to put on your Limbaugh goggles and say "Feminisssssts". Don't look at the feminists. Look at the parents and we can all work togehter and say let's solve this problem. The solution is not "Bash feminism and drag the women back down" That's dumbassery and exactly what the Limbaughs of the world want.

[Bunny]

54. Thank you!

:applause:

The level of angst when the balance of power shifts, no matter how small the increment, would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and, as you say, zero sum-ish.

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. the increment isn't small.

Our daughters are 50% more likely to go to college.
By age 4, boys and girls both believe that girls are better.
http://www.parenta.com/2010/09/09/girls-boys-age/

There exists a big and obvious problem for anyone who has any interest in boys wellbeing.

[WatsonT]

68. So feminists should be expected to focus on women

and mens issues be damned.

But mens rights groups are always derided here as by definition sexism.

Meaning it's ok to have groups that focus on womens issues, and ridiculous to expect them to focus on mens issues. But it is not ok to have any group that focuses on mens issues.

See the double standard?

If the only acceptable group to discuss gender inequalities are feminists then it's fair to expect them to discuss all gender inequalities. If they don't want that job then it should be acceptable for others to chime in.

[Pithlet]

70. Yes. Feminism is for women's issues.

And no, men's rights groups shouldn't be expected to focus on women's issues. But they do. That seems to be one of their main reason for existence, in fact. To see the demise of women's groups. But no one claims they have to focus on them. Not at all. In fact, most feminists would probably agree with me that we'd just like MRA groups to go away.

No, it's not that it's not okay for groups to focus on men's issues. It's what those groups tend to focus on. The dissolution of women's groups, because the men in those groups think feminism is bad for men.

[WatsonT]

73. Ah so . . .

feminsts are good because they look out for women.

MRA types are bad because they hate women.

Flip those statements and you and rush would be in perfect sync.

Maybe you could come up with a name for them that incorporates -nazis somehow. Something catchy.

[Pithlet]

76. But why would you flip them around?

I mean, it would be fun if you could twist and distort reality any old way you want to. But it doesn't change things.

[WatsonT]

78. You start with the assumption

that group A hates all members of group B and use that as proof that they are evil and should go away.

This differs from Rush's thinking in that . . . . well not at all.

Fact: there are members of both camps that hate the other gender.
Fact: those members are in a minority.
Fact: both have reasonable concerns that should be heard and discussed and addressed rather than shouted down by ignorant bigots from the other camp.
Fact: women do not have a lock on gender inequality issues.

[Pithlet]

80. Right, as if the MRA were the equivalent of the feminist movement.

Nope. Sorry.

[WatsonT]

83. Ah well at the very least you keep an open mind about these things

:rofl:

First off there is no national organization of men (NOM!) to compare against. You're likely referring to some blogs you've read or random comments. I could find equally hateful blogs from women and it would prove . . . exactly nothing. Other than there are jerks on the internet.

You're lumping anyone who would dare utter that men maybe are not better off in every way in with the absolute worst, most bigoted anti-female men you can find quotes from.

This is exactly what Rush limbaugh does with his feminazi statements.

Let me repeat that: you are doing exactly what Rush Limbaugh is doing.

If I cared to I could find hate-filled comments from women and use that to label all feminists as hate-filled bigots with no valid concerns.

But that would be unfair, inaccurate, unhelpful, and frankly I have better things to do.

If your goal was to prove that there are hate-filled men who do not care for women, then yes, that is absolutely true. If it was to prove that those describe all or most men or that their bigotry negates any real issues that may come up then I'm sorry but I will have to disagree with you. Respectfully of course.

[Pithlet]

84. Yeah, I'm sure you have better things to do than defend a hate orginization.

Because you know you'll lose here. I don't blame you. One thing you can do is imagine that we're all here imagining the unemployed men and getting giddy again.

[WatsonT]

87. Defending a hate organization?

What are you talking about?

List the organization I've defended.

[Pithlet]

90. You're talking about Men's Rights Groups.

The Men's Rights movement is a hate movement against women. They really like to pain us as other than human. The type that would take joy at unemployed men.

[WatsonT]

95. First off there is no such group

it's a catch-all term that can mean whatever you want it to.

Second off I am not a member of any such group, if it existed, nor have I defended it.

I used the term in response to you using it because you seem to lump everyone who ever raises such issues in together using broad strokes.


You consider everyone who raises any issues about mens rights as being equivalent to the worst "MRA types" you've encountered.

No doubt you get offended when Rush lumps all women who speak about womens rights together as "feminazis" and equates their views with the most extreme views from that side of things.

[Pithlet]

98. No, I don't.

Just the ones that claim we cheered on unemployed men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. It's advocacy.

If you want to advance a cause, the benchmark against which your progress is measured shouldn't progress.

It's not a double standard in that sense. Men's wellbeing is immaterial except as a ruler against which to measure your own.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. The feminist movement is advocacy.

Officially; "Equality for women". If you think that this implies that feminism would seek to reduce the number women in college, you're mistaken.

It's been massively effective. The feminist movement has no interest in global warming because there's no antagonistic relationship.

Unlike your global warming example, the perceived problems women face are unavoidably described in comparative terms. E.g. women make 70 percent of men. How do you fix that? Well, the easiest way is to depress men's wages and isolate them in marginal occupations - exactly what has occurred. Women's long lives make their health care more expensive? Let's reform healthcare "so that men pay the same". Thanks to health care reform, during their comparatively short lives, unemployed high school educated men now subsidize better educated and wealthier womens' health care.

The best advice I've been given on DU is don't bitch about what the feminist movement has done for women, but do the same thing for men. Part of that is pointing out some of the artifacts of the patriarchy which everyone else seems perfectly happy with; "Stop helping. You do know that's a guy".

[Pithlet]

139. Yes. It is.

And what exactly is wrong with that? And why on earth would I think that it would imply such a thing? Why would feminists want to reduce the number of women in college? Does not compute.

Whoever gave you that advice was moistly right. Stop bitching about the feminist movement. Yeah, the whole thing with the McDonalds thread and insinuating your agenda about men. That was crap. That's where following whoever gave you that advice would have really been good for you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

151. Nothing at all. Just like being an advocate for men is worthwhile.

I advocate for my sons wellbeing. I expect you to obstruct because you perceive their wellbeing to come at the cost of women.

I think they should live longer than they will. Therefore I think that some of the majority of health care dollars that goes to women's care be spent on increasing their lifespans.

I think that their jobs should be safer, because 90% of workplace fatalities are men, therefore I think that money should be diverted from sensitivity programs into workplace safety. Those dangerous jobs break down men's bodies at a young age, so I think that they should pay better to compensate for the shortened career.

I think they should be better educated, so I think that men should be aggressively recruited into primary teaching, just like teachers are recruited to serve in disadvantaged districts so that young boys see role models other than the janitor who can relate to them.

If a McDonalds manager had said "don't help that person, it's just a woman" I'd fully expect people of conscience to object.

When the shoe is on the other foot, I appear to be the only one equipped with that kind of conscience.

[Pithlet]

153. I do no such thing.

I don't play the zero sum game. That's the Men's Right's movement's schtick. I don't obtruct a damn thing. I only call out Men's Right's men on their bullshit. Nothing more. Of course men have issues that are valid and important. I've never claimed otherwise. Ever. As this issue with boys and men in college. I've never obstructed it. Ever.

Workplace fatalities for men are higher because they tend to have the more dangerous jobs. It it because women insist it be that way? Are women generally in positions of power placing men in that danger. Of course not. Men take those jobs willingy because they generally pay better. Not because men are in an inferior position of power.


Men aren't attracted to teaching overwhemlinly. because it's not a powerful position that pays well. Period. When it is more of themm willl teach. It's that simple. Again, not an issue of men in weaker position.

The McDonalds issue didn't happen because men are considered inferior in our society. It happened because the people involved are trasnphobic assholes. Period. She was not a man. Your making it a men's issue was pathetic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

170. Yes, actually.

I have heard teachers on DU tell me that college is more important for girls because men can always get "men's work".

Those women, in positions of power, are placing men in that danger.

The assailants were sociopathic scum. They aren't the issue. The bystanders were advised to not intervene because the victim wasn't a woman.

[Pithlet]

Yeah, and I've had teachers tell me that evolution is bunk!

So what? I've had crap teachers. That doesn't mean feminists have infiltrated their ranks and are holding our boys back. It's nuts.

[Pithlet]

180. And the victim was a woman.

They didn't see her as a woman. But not because men are seen as inferior by everyone everywhere because of the evil feminist manifesto thrust on everyone. Sorry, but it isn't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. Why are you working so hard to avoid the point?

Because she wasn't seen as a woman she wasn't worthy of rescue.

[Pithlet]

184. Right! Because she was transgendered!

You seem to be the one who wants to avoid that and twist it to your pet cause. It's also offensive because it plays into those asshats. She's not a man.

[WatsonT]

67. Really? What was the mantra before

when women were performing at lower rates?

Something like:

Institionalized sexism, we need to work towards getting women to do better and so on.

And now that the situation has reversed:

Women rock! Men don't appreciate education.

The obvious assumption is that men should be doing worse than women. There are very few people who say we should now work towards improving the quality of education available for men. And those that do are generally criticized for taking away from womens' success.

To create true equality the goal should be to lift everyone up, not drag certain groups down.

[Pithlet]

72. Who says that everyone shouldn't be lifted up?

You are the only one under the misguided assumption that there are people saying that. :shrug: But see, feminism focuses on women. So the logical fallicy is "That means they aren't focusing on men!" Silliness. Why feminists are being blamed for this issue is beyond me.

[WatsonT]

75. So the goal of society shouldn't be continued improvement and progress?

Um . . ok.

And feminists would be ignored here if they weren't the ones screaming "sexism" at those of us who would like to now work towards addressing the academic shortcomings of males.

[Pithlet]

77. You'd have a point

If feminists were actually doing that.

[WatsonT]

79. Read this thread

see how many people are outright derisive towards the notion that some people might not like the idea of that men are falling behind.

What would you call that?

Not that they're pissed women are doing better, but that they're maybe a bit concerned that women are doing better *due to the fact that men are doing worse than before*.

[Pithlet]

81. I'd call it you reading this thread through your lense

of Feminists hate men and want to see them fail. Because I'm not seeing what you're seeing at all.

[WatsonT]

85. Well for instance

post 3 and the responses to it.

The implication being that everyone who sees an issue with declining male academic performance is a rightwing, MRA type (which is always used derisively) and so on.

The possibility that this may raise legitimate concerns is never raised by them and when it was by others you go on the offensive.

Does the declining academic performance by males over recent decades bother you at all? I have to ask because you seem not in the least concerned. If women were to all of a sudden start performing poorly I would be concerned not because I am a woman but because they represent about half the population and that is a trend that needs to be addressed.

But I have not seen you make any statements to that affect (I know I know, feminists only care about women and men can deal with their own problems except they can't because anyone who raises such issues is by default a sexist and why should we listen to a bigot?).

[Pithlet]

88. No, what that was likely referring to

was how the Men's Rights groups will jump on it and use it to blame us. Because they do. All the time. And look what happened! LIke clockwork.

You ask me if it bothers me. Why would you even ask me that? Of course it does. I just don't see what feminism has to do with it.

[WatsonT]

91. Good, so you believe it is a problem that should be addressed

(I assume if it bothers you you think there should be a solution).

Who should raise the issue of addressing it?

Not feminists.

Not anyone considers male inequality issues.

So only the purely apathetic?

You have created what is referred to as a catch-22: the only people who care to address this issue are disqualified from addressing this issue.

And I asked because you didn't seem at all concerned. Your first thought was to attack "MRA" types.

[Pithlet]

101. Gee. How about parents and educators. Duh.

It has to be only feminists or only men who think feminists suck? Uhh. Don't think so.

[WatsonT]

105. Well you said

feminists shouldn't be concerned with such things. Ok, so they're out.

Then you equate everyone else with people who think "feminists suck" which defines my catch-22.

If a bunch of dads were to get fed up that their sons are doing poorly, band together nationally to address this, you'd write them off as MRA types who just hate women.

Hence the catch-22.

Which really sucks because as indifferent as you are to this having half the population struggle academically will hurt everyone, even women, in the long-run.

That's why it was not only morally right but intelligent to support better education for women when they were behind.

I just wish that lesson hadn't been lost.

[Pithlet]

109. IT's the Men's Rights Groups who are grousing about it!

And other men who generally seem to be sympathetic with that cause even if they deny openly joining that cause. And I really don't know why. It isn't the feminists who are really directly contributing to what's happening now anyway. Do you think it's feminist groups picketing and marching into schools on a daily basis and sitting next to girls and women at their desks, and spurring on the teachers on a daily basis? No. It was the feminist movement in a broader sense over a larger scale of time that led to these successes, yes. It can certainly be said that without the movement we likely wouln't be seeing the successing we're seeing. But men grousing "It's those darn femernists!" about this problem is just laughable. It really is. I think anyone concerned with this really should look elsewhere.

[WatsonT]

157. Really?

So feminists had nothing to do with changes in curriculum, the law, and the approach to education that have benefited women disproportionately?

So feminists have been a complete failure but women are still succeeding more because . . . natural superiority I guess?

You see that speck in the distance? That was your first goalpost.

[Pithlet]

161. It's a conspiarcy. Yep.

They went into the classrooms. And whispered into their ears. Only the giiiiirls. Not the boyys. The goal? More unemployment for men.....

[WatsonT]

167. Right,

so let's ignore your sarcasm for a minute: obviously feminists have had successes in altering our approach to education that has benefited young girls (hurray for them).

Now, who should lead the charge for men to improve education for young boys? Not feminists. Obviously. Not men, because any man who says anything about this is a sexist.

So who? Disinterested women? Young children? Who can have a say without being thrown in with the "MRA" types you so despise?

And how are you still not capable of understanding the double standard?

I know you think this is fun now, but after a few generations of an education system that only serves half the population things will be significantly worse, even for women.

[Pithlet]

168. Oh, so my idea for parents and educators doesn't sit well

because you're conspiracy minded. That explains it. You actually really do believe it's a conspiracy. Sad.

[WatsonT]

171. Nope, it doesn't sit well because you've already defined a situation

where anyone who organizes and advocates on this issue is by definition sexist and should be ignored.

"You actually really do believe it's a conspiracy"

Sure, just like you believe by attributing lies to someone else often enough they become truths.

Also, there have been concerted efforts to get more minority teachers particularly for minority classes. I assume you've heard of this. The idea is that they can more effectively reach out to and teach those students.

There have been no efforts to get more male teachers despite the fact that males make up half the classroom.

Interesting isn't it?

[Pithlet]

173. Oh, I did? Where?

Must have missed that.

[WatsonT]

176. You really don't remember your constant references to the

MRA boogieman?

Are you lying or do you have a memory disorder?

[Pithlet]

178. Oh, yes, I remember that.

Not the same thing. The Men's Rights movement is crap. I stand by that. Perahps you missed my posts where I expressed my concern for the issue and support change. I just don't buy the "Feminits are to blame" crapola.

[WatsonT]

179. And you equate it with anyone who raises such issues

I've been over this before, you are getting this aren't you? You're just screwing with me.


Well this is getting pointless. I point out what you've said and you divert. I do it again and you divert. Repeat ad infinitum.

I will repeat this one more time: you may think dragging men down is fun and the road to success. But just like dragging women down hurt this country, you will find that this is a grave mistake.

And for your homework: consider a world where 90% of teachers are male. And in this world the teachers view women and female students in general as an obstacle to overcome when teaching. Something to be avoided if possible, otherwise tolerated. And in this world women have lower than average graduation rates.

Would you consider that something worth fixing? Because I would, even though I know you don't give a damn that the situation is reversed.

You seem to prefer a fragmentation of the genders, men versus women with your "feminists shouldn't give a damn about men" spiel. I was kinda hoping both genders would work together for mutual benefit. But that's not your thing. Well ok gender-warrior, enjoy your world. I want no part of it.

[Pithlet]

182. Yep, I pretty much am.

It's how I deal with off the wall out there fringe stuff. There's no point in dealing with it seriously.

[WatsonT]

192. Well there it is

Men being failed by our academic system = off the wall out there fringe stuff . . . no point in dealing with it seriously.

Good thing a great many people, even hated males, felt differently when the situation was reversed or you would have been relegated to illiteracy.

[Pithlet]

202. No, it's the off the wall conspiracy

that women are just so awful and hateful that they're the reason. Kooky stuff, I tell you. Why, I heard an awful rumor that woemn don't like boys in the classroom. I was aghast, I tell you...

[WatsonT]

214. Curriculums have been rearranged

such that it tends to benefit girls more than boys, yes.

Boys like to move around and do stuff outside. That is normal and has been known for thousands of years.

Now it has been declared a diseased mental state and so boys are drugged in to a vegetative state. Boys are more than twice as likely (10% to 4%) to be drugged as a result of having the severe mental disorder of not being able to sit perfectly still for 8 hours in a row. And when not treated pharmaceutically the crime of having a Y chromosome is treated with higher rates of detention and expulsion.

Can you imagine the outcry if overwhelmingly white teachers were pushing for the drugging and punishment of predominately non-white students? People would make not-unfair comparisons to the nazis.

Instead we have overwhelmingly female teachers drugging and punishing predominately male students. For that to be acceptable you must either believe A) male is a disease state to be controlled and contained or B) men are evil and need to be kept down at any cost.

As you seem to find this acceptable and attack those who don't, which is it?

[Bunny]

97. And thanks again! As the author of the infamous post #3,

you've caught my drift exactly. :thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

102. hey... if you really believe MY post was men must stay home and women work (against their will

and because they were fired, not by choice) why the hell didnt you give my post as an example. like way the hell worse than post three

oh, i know. cause you know you were full of shit

lol

geez

[WatsonT]

106. Ok, and your post

as well.

[seabeyond]

110. right watson. give it up.... nt

[WatsonT]

160. Then stop asking for direct responses from me

For someone who wants to be left alone you go out of your way to pursue this fight with me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. it would be ideal if everyone could have as wide an array of choices as possible.

This isn't the case. Most men who are "staying home" are doing so because they can no longer find living wage employment, and living with moms who resent the need to work to support the family.

[seabeyond]

159. i am sure there are both genders in bad situations with this economy. i also know there are men

that love the idea of being stay at home and the women love the idea of bringing home the bacon. that is what i cheer. anyone in a situation that they dont want, is not good for anyone.

[seabeyond]

38. you really make up your own stories. you are saying all the moms raising boys are fine

with their failure?

then where are the fathers kicking the moms ass (not literally) cheering on their own boys failure.

[eridani]

209. American anti-intellectualism has been around forever

Any ideas for countering it would be very welcome.

[hifiguy]

42. That sounds more than a little right.

Brains are for "sissies" in modern culture. Look at the effin' fweepers for a shining example.

[seabeyond]

44. i blame it on bushco era. lots of bashing smart and educated and embracing the stupid

i watch it have an effect on the kids here. what they would say, emulating bush.

[seabeyond]

18. that is what my boys have found to be the issue in school and it pisses them off

that their peers feel being stupid or do poorly in school is "cool". they dont see it as cool at all. nor part of manhood, like what is happening with youth today

[eridani]

20. I don't agree. Young men have always devalued education. What has changes is that education

--has become far more necessary than it used to be.

[Pithlet]

31. Exactly. When has it ever been cool to be smart?

There needs to be a major effort to counter that. A major culture shift needs to happen.

[gkhouston]

103. In some ways, I think it was quasi-acceptable right after WWII, when so many men

were going to college on the GI bill. A lot of those men had their lives turned so completely upside down, that it sort of dumped them off the usual "grow up, go to high school, get a job, settle down" track. It was okay, even common, to be a college freshman who'd finished high school several years earlier.

I sometimes think that many young people, but especially men, would do better in college, if our culture thought it was normal/okay to work for a while before going to college. There are some teenagers who are well-motivated and ready to succeed in college immediately after high school, but too many kids drift into college without truly wanting to be there and subsequently drop out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. A major public policy effort would be a good start.

In 1950, 75% of college graduates were men. 65% in 1960.

Our fathers considered smart, cool.

[Pithlet]

152. Heh. True colors... n/t

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

158. Those gull durned women and their fancy feminisismizin'!

OOOOOHHHH!!!!!!

Like I said. True colors. Your fathers were smart then. The numbers told the truth, didn't they? Oh, the good old days. Got your number.

[seabeyond]

162. that is such bullshit. it is not the women teachers telling boys stupid is cool. so wrong

that is NOT where i have heard it in my boys life. it is the manly men in my family that i love dearly that tell me i am sissifying my boys because they LOVE to read. and my men that use poor language like aint, just for the boys to establish the i know nothing but am a man attitude. certainly not coming from a single female teacher i know.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

165. all of tv representing the stupid male is from male. the bushco was all about stupid to be a manly

man. it was the kerry's and the "girlie man" that encourages the boys to education and they are effeminated for doing it.

[Pithlet]

166. It's not only males. Plenty of women can be sexist, too.

I just have to laugh at the evil women teachers hypothesis. The womenfolk damanging the boys and spreading the feminist agenda. It's rich.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

175. Making your little head spin apparently, is what I'm doing.

Ha!

[WatsonT]

169. "all of tv representing the stupid male is from male"

Interesting.

All writers, directors, actors and audience members are males?

It certainly couldn't be that the majority of viewers are women and women want to see men portrayed as stupid and women as intelligent?

[seabeyond]

181. i cannot make the conclusion you do. we dont allow, have never allowed the conditioning of stupid

male in our house. i have actively and aggressively fought against it.

so no.... i dont. i dont watch tv. it is all crap narrowly conditioning each gender to a particularly harmful agenda

[WatsonT]

190. Individual households are remarkably useless when determining overall trends

In general women watch more of those shows than men, your household excepted.

They are the audience directors are catering do.

Or do you suppose men are just clambering for shows that predict them as inferior to women?

[seabeyond]

200. no. instead without facts you declare the women are making, watching, wanting the shows of stupid

men

[WatsonT]

195. It is interesting though

that when womens magazines (for instance) enforce a bunch of stupid stereotypes about women, men are to blame even though we don't read the damn things and couldn't care less what's in them.

But when TV shows denigrate men and push stupid stereotypes about men . . . men are to blame even though we aren't the target audience.

Hypothetically, could a woman be to blame for anything, ever? (hypothetically of course, I'm not expecting you to name any real examples, just state if you could conceive of such a situation).

[seabeyond]

201. MEN are writing, producing and directing these shows. nt

[WatsonT]

215. Some are men, some are women

and they're responding to the demands of a predominately female audience.

The fact that most fashion, health, beauty, etc advice is written by women for women doesn't prevent the "patriarchy" for being blamed for unrealistic expectations for womens' appearances.

[seabeyond]

218. very few women are the money makers in hollywood so that takes the some men, some women

out of the mix. and until you can show the few women that are in hollywood is making the sop, i am not buying it

[WatsonT]

221. Interesting, there are no wealthy women in hollywood?

I'm sure there are a lot of people who will be surprised by such a revelation.

[seabeyond]

222. especially since that is not what i said. hey... play dumb. feign ignorance. nt

[WatsonT]

225. You claimed they were so few that

it could effectively negate any impact that women had on the industry, making it in your mind an entirely male dominated field.

Hey, maybe when you get your wish and make it so men have to stay home and women work it will switch. Meaning women will produce shows for male consumption that will all focus on the stereotypical idiot wife and the patient but exasperated husband who constantly has to fix her bungling mistakes. I wonder if you will still blame the patriarchy should that come to pass.

[lumberjack_jeff]

177. Every fall, 3 kids. 21 times total, I've attended open house with my kids teachers.

17 of those 21 times, the teacher has complained about how tough the upcoming school year will be, based on the gender balance of her class.

The other four times? Male teachers.

Of course the boys pick up on the idea that school isn't for them. They're an obstacle to education.

[seabeyond]

185. so as a parent, what are you going to do? let kids fail because a teachers says

a class will be tougher for her if there are more boys? i have never seen you quoted how boys are called on more, boys are put in leadership role more, boys opinions have more importance. these are all studies done early years of education thru out the system. plenty pointing to where the boy is treated special. and still.... i have not seen any real issues in the school. the only thing i see that sides with the girls is they hit, kick, bite, pinch, push and get away with it. and that is more than enough to be pissed about.

but what i never allowed was my children using excuses for failure. it is never about the teacher. it is not the teachers future we are looking at. it is theirs. so figure out a way to succeed. character.

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. Because they're not.

Take math for an example. Boys consistently test higher than girls on math skills, yet they get worse grades from the (predominantly) female teachers. Those teachers are obviously grading on something other than apprehension of math skills.

The issue isn't the students, it's the teachers. They're the grownups who are paid to do a job. The expectation on boys to transcend the negative influence of the teachers, as if the teachers are the ones who are entitled to be there, is both unrealistic and essentially sexist.

Besides, if the "called on more often" phenomenon was of any relevance, you'd see greater success from boys rather than horribly worse.

The best experiment for your theory is single sex classrooms.

Researchers at Stetson University in Florida have completed a three-year pilot project comparing single-sex classrooms with coed classrooms at Woodward Avenue Elementary School, a nearby neighborhood public school. For example, students in the 4th grade at Woodward were assigned either to single-sex or coed classrooms. All relevant parameters were matched: the class sizes were all the same, the demographics were the same, all teachers had the same training in what works and what doesn't work, etc. On the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), here were the results:
Percentage of students scoring proficient on the FCAT

boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient
girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient
girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient
boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient.
Remember, these students were all learning the same curriculum in the same school. And, this school "mainstreams" students who are learning-disabled, or who have ADHD etc. Many of those boys who scored proficient in the all-boys classes had previously been labeled "ADHD" or "ESE" in coed classes.

2008 update: in a recent report on NBC Nightly News, Professor Kathy Piechura-Couture of Stetson University , reported that over the four years of the pilot study, 55% of boys in the coed classrooms scored proficient on the FCAT, compared with 85% of boys in the all-boys classes. Same class size. Same curriculum. Same demographics.

Taking the girls out of the classroom helps boys far more than taking the boys out of the classroom helps girls.

[WatsonT]

191. "so figure out a way to succeed. character."

Ah yes, the old bootstrappy diatribe.

Why are you stupid kids failing? Can't be anyones fault but your own. Try harder and succeed!

[seabeyond]

193. i had a teacher email me monday telling me my son didnt turn in his paper

when he came home that night, he spent the afternoon and evening, into the night doing the paper. he turned it in the next morning. who failed. the teacher? she emailed me. me? had his ass do it as soon as he came home. HE was the one responsible for the failure. damn straight.

[WatsonT]

197. Interesting

You didn't take stats at any point did you?

I ask because several times now you have tried to pass your own personal experience (n=1) off as a general trend relevant to the conversation (covering an n in the millions).

Also I'm sure you point out to inner-city kids or those from bad schools elsewhere that they should just work harder and succeed in spite of it all, that the school system and resources available to them have nothing to do with it. Character, that's what those lazy poor people need.

Damn straight. Get er done!

/I ask you now to consider a situation where girls are constantly told they are stupid in school and disciplined far more heavily than the boys. Will some overcome it? Sure. Will it have a net affect on the population though, that's the real question. And I think, yes, it would. Your answer: suck it up. My answer: fix the problem.

[seabeyond]

203. firstly, i was addressing a person talking about personal experience. secondly, teachers are NOT

singling out the boys and calling them stupid.... and if so fire their ass, but before you tell me that is what the female teachers are doing, prove it. is is society and cultures telling the boys that stupid is cool

low income school environments have a LOT of issues. tons of issues. and it is not the female teacher picking on the boy teacher.

and no stats cause i am cooking dinner..... dont have time to google. later

[WatsonT]

216. Here's an interesting stat:

Boys are diagnosed with hyperactivity disorders at greater than twice the rate of girls. As boys are about 49% of the population that means those rates are way out of whack (10% vs 4%).

Do you think drugging a tenth of a population in to a vegetative state might have any sort of impact on that populations performance?

And somehow we got by without such drugs for generations meaning either A) some unexplainable evolutionary event occurred within the span of a generations defying all understanding of the subject or B) schools switched to a curriculum that doesn't favor males and are using drugs to make it work.

Boys are also far more likely to be punished, expelled, or put in remedial classes than girls. You can either assume that is because boys are naturally stupid and violent, or that the school is not catering well to their needs.

Consider a world where black students are largely drugged in to obedience, but not their white counterparts, and are expelled at incredible rates compared to whites. Would you blame them for their lack of character when as a population they don't do as well? Are they stupid and lazy by nature? (oh btw, 90% or so of teachers in this scenario are white and don't really get or care to get where the black kids are coming from)

Funny how that changes things, isn't it?

[seabeyond]

219. i guess we will jsut have to go to personal again. kindergarten drugging my child started being

suggest, and thru elementary school and i said NO.

isnt that amazing the power of the parent

i got the books, did the reading, was in daily contact with the teachers and we all (thru out all those years in early education) found different tools and awareness and understadning to allow son to have his challenges as part of his personality, .... again NEVER using it as an excuse for failure, but understanding why some things more challenging and here he sits in HS soph year, still with the issues, well aware of the challenges and meeting them towards success

do i believe in drugging all the kids

no

i believe the PARENT does their damn job.

[WatsonT]

223. Ah so now it's all on the parents

and when kids fail it's the parent's fault.

That's great and all but how do you fix that?

I know you're all about bootstrappy personal responsibility, the poor are poor because they're stupid and lazy and lack character route (seriously you and Oreilly should sit down and see where you differ, if at all).

But how does throwing your arms up in the air and proclaiming: lazy stupid parents are the problem! actually do anything to solve this issue?

Ideally every parent will be suited to the task. Meaning we have no need for child services right? Ideally every kid will do his best, meaning we have no need for special programs, after school assistance, etc. Ideally every parent will provide their kid with nutritious meals, meaning we have no need for school lunch programs.

Ideally we wouldn't need 99% of our government because people would just be intelligent and hard working and take care of each other.

So what do you suggest we do if, hypothetically, we didn't live in an ideal world and in fact some parents are not up to the task of being a parent? What shall we do when some parents are easily browbeaten in to getting their kids hooked on ritalin by doctors and teachers?

Your solution seems to be: have better parents. And I know, it's totally these kids' faults for choosing bad parents. Clearly their poor choice in parents is also reflected in their general laziness and lack of character and absolutely they should suffer for their entire lives for making this bad decision (sarcasm if you didn't catch that). But overall it's better if we can correct these problems early on rather than punish later.

[seabeyond]

196. my kids get to own their success. why the hell wouldnt they own THEIR failures. nt

[WatsonT]

199. Out of curiosity

what do you think of after school programs, scholarships, etc that exist to benefit females, but not males?

Are those bootstrappy, or are those unfair advantages?

[seabeyond]

208. i have told my kids that we can afford their education so those scholarships they will be offered?

i told them to allow them to go to people who are more in need.

are there scholarships for girls specifically? i dont know anything about it but whoever set up the scholarship has the right, like the white guy only scholarship that was set up recently.

after school programs? havent seen anything, i do not know anything about them. they dont have anything that is specifically to help girls, that i know of. when they have an AP study course, both gender welcome. when they have a SAT study course, both gender welcome. when they have a forum discussing college and finance, both gender welcome. i dont know what after school program is geared to girls only.

[WatsonT]

217. Again you are equating your household to a national trend

"are there scholarships for girls specifically? i dont know anything about it but whoever set up the scholarship has the right, like the white guy only scholarship that was set up recently."

Don't play dumb.

But since you're feigning ignorance:

http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/winter98/awlv2_gupton3final.html

http://www.fundsnetservices.com/women.htm

Now go ahead and reply with a homespun anecdote about how your kids don't use these, ergo they and their effects aren't real.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WatsonT]

224. You claimed you didn't know about *ANY* programs

that benefited girls.

As that's such a ridiculous claim there was no reasonable alternative other than to say you're feigning ignorance.

Like saying "I am not aware that water is wet".

[Pithlet]

187. Every single teacher

at every single open house complained about having boys in their class? Edit. Every single female teacher. Wow. What an extreme case of unluckiness. That is simply amazing. How very, very unfortunate for you. I'm flabbergasted. Just beyond comprehension how you got so unlucky. Really. The things I read on the internet just really make my jaw drop. I'm so, so sorry you went through that. Sincerely. I am.

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. I love ad-hominem.

It means "you win."

[Pithlet]

204. Edit look

My opinion of humanity makes me suspect. You bet. Sorry. Just don't buy it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

206. It doesn't appear that humanity in general is whom you have a problem with. n/t

[Pithlet]

207. Sure.

Just like DU cheered on unemployed men? I'm sure your appraisal of me is just as accurate. I'm sure you actually think those teachers don't want boys/want fewer boys in their class, too. I don't think you're intentionally lying. I think you really believe those teachers actually all actually said that to your face. What they really said is probably something entirely different, if they said anything at all. Much more likely, in fact.

[eridani]

210. That was due to specific policies that limited women's enrollment n/t

[ecstatic]

82. I think you're right

I think a lot of parents assumed that their boys would naturally do well in school; but with girls, beginning in the late 70s, parents began to verbally stress the importance of getting good grades in school/going to college so that they could support themselves with or without a man.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. This is for the population in general.

Young women are attaining far more advanced degrees.

[W_HAMILTON]

21. Go women!

Woohoo!

[MadHound]

29. So, will affirmative action programs for women being admitted to college and grad school now end?

If women now make up the majority of college grads, and are now earning the higher number of advanced degrees, why is there any need for affirmative action in this regard?

[eridani]

211. College affirmative action these days is for men

I don't have a problem with that--gender balance is a perfectly valid goal IMO.

[MadHound]

213. Really?

Not from what I'm seeing. If you have some evidence of that, I would love to see it.

[eridani]

227. See URl below

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/27/admit

When admissions officers gather to create a freshman class, there is a large elephant in the room, wrote Jennifer Delahunty Britz, in The New York Times last week: the desire to minimize gender imbalance in their classes. Britz, the admissions dean at Kenyon College, wrote that her institution gets far more applications from women than from men and that, as a result, men are "more valued applicants." Britz discussed a female candidate who was considered borderline by the Kenyon team but who -- had she been a he -- would have been admitted without hesitation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. I maintain that this, and the rise of anti-intellectualism in the Right, are somewhat related. -nt

[hifiguy]

45. Bingo.

Add traditional young male macho swellheadedness to a culture that devalues education/intelligence and what do you expect to get?

After all the reichwingers' favorite terms of derision for the educated are "effete" (read 'gay') and "elitist."

[momto3]

49. The real question is how well women do after earning advaced degrees.

I have an advanced degree in the biological research field. I can tell you that even though more women are earning advanced degrees in this field than men, a huge disparity still exists when it comes to promotion and tenure track positions. The way that the research funding and promotion track is set up in academia is unforgiving for women who want to start a family. Men greatly out number women in senior faculty positions and still earn more a year than a woman in a comparable position. Due to this, the science fields are losing many greatly talented women to non-research careers.

I really do not have the answers on how to fix these issues. But I live them every day.

Peace.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spike89]

60. Great point--trends show women not pursuing STEM jobs

Despite getting better grades and more advanced degrees, even within the traditionally male curriculum areas of engineering, math, science, and technology, women are choosing not to chase careers in those fields. Obviously some women are, but at much lower rates than men with the same degrees. Why? It, as much as any other factor explains part of the gender wage gap.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gkhouston]

89. Nothing can be done.

Universities need serious students willing to devote themselves to the work.

If men don't want to devote themselves to that, it's a shame, but life is about choices, sometimes they are painful ones.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

127. they used to use the very same excuse about women.

"universities need serious students" :eyes:

Universities are now using tentative and surreptitious outreach to recruit boys to maintain a 40% presence, because girls don't want to go to an all-girls school.

[gkhouston]

130. I'm well aware of that. As a women who's earned degrees in technical disciplines,

I've encountered plenty of that attitude over the years. If you'd been paying attention, you might have noticed that I was parodying someone's else argument which was essentially implying that women can either have children or do full-time research. It's another variant of the "serious student" bullshit and it's one that women face throughout the workplace, as childless women are more likely to be hired than women with children in pretty much any field.

In research, there's an attitude that one must give their all to research, but I've never seen any factual basis for that sacred cow. Since I've known more than a few dads who would also like to have saner work hours so they could spend more (i.e., some) time with their kids, a cultural change could benefit the entire family.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

107. I don't know, are they getting equal pay for equal work now?

And no, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

[gkhouston]

115. 80 cents on the dollar is the last statistic I heard, a few years ago.

That's for women with PhDs. I believe the disparity was slightly greater for women with master's and bachelor's degrees.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

118. So, houstonintc, do you agree the answer to your question is NO?

[gkhouston]

119. I'm not houstonintc, and very much disagree with that DUer's posts in this thread. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. Even though it was a reply to your post, I directed the question at houstonintc. -nt

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TriMera]

134. So far as you can tell? Link, please. n/t

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TriMera]

Hmmm.

There is something to be said for consistency. ;-)

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TriMera]

145. Interesting. The first article is from 2008 and

the second article quotes statics from the UK Labour market. You keep reaching, though. It's good exercise.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gkhouston]

146. The Gender Wage Gap By Occupation. (April 2011)

Note that women lag men in almost all occupations, including male-dominated ones, and that women are still being paid less for comparable skills.

http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-updated-april-2011/

[TriMera]

148. Oh, look. Recent stats from right here in the good ol' USA.

Thank you, gk.

[lumberjack_jeff]

194. Is the American Association of University Women a good source?

Discrimination cannot be measured directly. It is illegal, and for the most part, people do not believe that they discriminate against women or other groups. One way to discover discrimination is to eliminate other explanations for the pay gap. To uncover discrimination, regression analysis was conducted to control for the different choices women and men make. An analysis of weekly earnings one year after graduation was examined as a function of full-time employees’ characteristics, including job and workplace, employment experience and continuity, education and training, and demographic and personal characteristics.
5 If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay? The answer is no. The evidence shows that even when the "explanations” for the pay gap are included in a regression, they cannot fully explain the pay disparity. The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about onequarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn. Thus, while discrimination cannot be measured directly, it is reasonable to assume that this pay gap is the product of gender discrimination.

... or bias on the part of the study's sponsor.

And the fact that 33% more men than women are unemployed is also a factor. They take cyclic jobs.

[a la izquierda]

55. Proud to be one of those women...

I'm receiving my PhD in a little over 2 weeks. Woot!

[seabeyond]

56. yeah. good for you. and must be a huge 'about time". congrats. nt

[a la izquierda]

58. A giant Finally, that's for sure...

You should really ask my husband how long HE'S been waiting :)

[seabeyond]

59. lol lol.... yup

dont you have plans moving out of the area once you got your degree?

[a la izquierda]

64. I have a job at a university in Ohio.

Super excited!

[seabeyond]

66. oh, yea. thrilled for you

and hubby

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

113. Heads up: flaming misogyny up there, at post #51. Take a look.

:yoiks:

[seabeyond]

114. hey... you and i agreed, .... AGAIN, in that the stupid is bushco/rw shit.

ya, so flaming to the point of obvious, i dont even bother.... wink

but thanks for the heads up

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

116. It's a shame he didn't say he likes to look at pictures of naked women.

By avoiding that, he escaped the Wrath.

[seabeyond]

117. meh

he has, or buying for use. nothing new. as i say, the ones that are so fuckin in your face, why bother.

but, more important, isnt it so nifty we agree AGAIN. lol

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansDem]

164. Tell me you secret!

I have a job at a university in Ohio.

I have two masters and earned a PhD in 1996. I've applied to scores and scores of teaching positions at colleges and universities. Received three interviews but no luck.

I've all but given up! Friends and family tell me I've run out of time. I'm now working a job in an alternative career which I hate with a passion!

What's your secret? :hi:

[gkhouston]

93. Congratulations. It's okay to sleep, now. :-) :-) n/t

[a la izquierda]

111. Yeah, my dreams won't totally torment me

I'm printing my final copies tomorrow. That special paper is expensive, so I'm happy to get it done.

[gkhouston]

112. LOL, you won't know what to do with yourself once you turn it in.

Such a dilemma. :-)

[a la izquierda]

126. I know...

I think I'll tinker in the garden and clean my house in anticipation of mom and mom-in-law coming for graduation.
And have a beer.

[hifiguy]

122. Congrats!!

:toast:

I remember a few years ago when a good friend's wife finally finished her dissertation and defense. I asked, "what's she gonna do now?" Her hubby responded "sleep for a week then go to Belgium (where she'd done most of the research for her dissertation in medieval history) and sleep THERE for a month."

[Liberal_in_LA]

131. Dr. a la izquierda

congrats

[a la izquierda]

149. Thanks

;)

[w8liftinglady]

188. I am SO proud!!

congrats!

[a la izquierda]

212. Thanks!

My mom's going to bawl her eyes out at graduation...she cried the day I defended. I said "I'm the one who should be crying!"
:hug:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

228. I earned a doctorate in law 25 years ago. Whoopee.

The standard Doctor of Jurisprudence degree is 90 semester hours of pure hell. Took me five years working full time and going to night school. I was crazy. My dad had gone to law school on the GI Bill after WWII and worked rotating shift work.

I did it because he did it, and I thought I could do it. At the very same law school.

When I was in law school the ratio was about 1/3 women to 2/3 men. I went to a private school. I saw lots of bored rich kids who were good at regurgitating facts, bur had no background in law, and no appreciation for things like the history of the Supreme Court, and the changing decisions on social issues.

They went to law school to find themselves, or just to make money.

The BA in biology (from the best pre-medical college in the State of Texas) never helped me get a job and neither did the J.D. It's just a pretty, large, impressive framed piece of paper that looks like I really did something.

:shrug:

The parents insisted that my sister and I go to college. There was no question we were expected to go to college, get a bachelor's degree and since they thought i was brilliant, they would consider graduate school. I had no brothers, so there was no sexism of "The boy can go to college, the girl can't".

My Mom's cousin went to Incarnate Word and got a BS in Chemistry. In about 1940, she got a scholarship to Yale Nursing School for a Master's Degree. She was the only person I've ever known who went to an Ivy League School. If she had been born several decades later, I know she would have been a doctor instead of a nurse. She used to help me with my chemistry homework.

My grandmother had a Master's degree from Mississippi A&M and she was born in 1899. She was a County Extension Agent in Texas and Mississippi for decades.

My mom went to college for four years but didn't finish her degree. My daughter has a BA from North Texas State.