Men's Memes: America poised to further degrade its further education

Saturday, March 15, 2008

America poised to further degrade its further education

Women earn most of America’s advanced degrees but lag in the physical sciences. Beware of plans to fix the "problem."

In a nutshell: a 1970s program called 'title IX' sought to equalize male and female participation in sports on American college campuses. But rather than encouraging more girls into sport, it resulted in forcing the closure of many male sports teams, so that colleges complied with the rules that there shouldn't be more male than female sports. In other words it held the boys back from exercising their natural inclinations and talents.

Now, a similar program is being planned to equalize the number of girls studying subjects like maths and physics. Whilst it may be humorous to imagine future feminist-run maths classes which involve creative dances to express how numbers make the students 'feel', the reality may not be that different, but is anything but funny if you are an American. This program could significantly degrade the quality of physical science education in American Universities - which has been one of the key contributors to technological innovations, and hence economic growth.

The feminists would have us believe that the reason girls aren't going into subjects like maths and physics is because there is cultural conditioning that makes girls think those subjects are not feminine. But when, these days, do girls shy away from anything on the grounds that its not feminine? Are we really to believe that teenage girls secretly read 'Physics today' under the bedcovers at night, by torchlight, scared that someone will catch them and it will impact negatively on their perceived femininity?

This nonsense can be torn apart from so many directions that one hardly knows where to begin. Just to make two of many possible points:

1. Why is it necessary to create multi-million dollar programs to increase the percentage of girls studying maths, but there are no programs to address the lower male percentages studying subjects like law, Veterinary science and medicine?

2. The article linked to above claims that on one maths degree course, asians and jews are over-represented. In other words there is an under-representation non-jewish whites on this course. So why aren't the feminists claiming that whites are discriminated against by society when it comes to maths and the physical sciences? Of course, I don't think there IS discrimination against whites in this area (if I had to guess, I'd say the reason mainly a combination of genes and family culture). But my point is that you can't just say that theres overwhelming evidence that its discrimination that is keeping girls away from these subjects, but then say theres absolutely no discrimination that is keeping whites away from them. At least you can't say this without some damn good evidence. And they don't have anything like damn good evidence.

Wake up everyone: there is a war being waged on us and our culture. We can no longer afford to sit back and shrug. Individually and collectively we must steel ourselves to fight back with at least the same energy and ferocity that they are attacking us.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: Funny that, the fields women are more likely to be good at and interested in tend to not be as profitable. They tend to be based more on human interactions, feelings or subjectivity such as art. In other words, skills that would help make home more comfortable or help dealing with children and family. (this is written by a woman with a degree in math - I'm just a mom and wife now - a married family man would have made better use of this same degree for himself and society at large)

I guess they figure if they keep trying to stick a square peg in a round hole they can force society to conform to their pathology. Most women won't gravitate to (or do well in) hard science like most men won't gravitate toward the humanities and arts when given freedom of choice. Could this be about restricting human beings' freedom of choice by the elites who know what is best for us? Hmmmmm.

You know, there is a very good reason they don't let women's studies majors design airplanes!; 6:09 pm
Anonymous said...: Later this year I'll be going to university to study physics, and lo and behold all the girls on my course will be getting 1000 pounds pa just for being them. That added to any other bursaries they get. Good old matriarchy.; 9:15 pm

Turn of the tide: feminists begin to regret

Cosmopolitan (The women's magazine that urges women to use men for sex) Editor Lorraine Candy has a change of mind and now urges women not to have "Soul-less sex":

"We didn't feel ashamed about one-night stands...this, we thought, is what feminism is about."

70s feminist Fay Weldon now says:

"It is the fault of me and my like, who... got it wrong.

So were we wrong, we feminists, setting women free? The results have been devastating – greater than we ever imagined.

We steamed ahead, changing the world with too little caution, and I hope the future will forgive us.

The pendulum has swung too far over. But it may yet swing back again. Societies, thank God, tend to be self-righting."

"Once a man could look forward to starting a family and the dignity that came from being the provider. Forget it. At best as a man you're decorative, look after the kids and earn a bit sometimes; at worst you're a write-off. Women are elbowing the men out. The boys get anxious, the girls swagger. The male suicide rate goes up, female down. Twenty-eight per cent of us now live in single person households - a lonely and unnatural state - and most of the 28 per cent consist of young men. It is strange that it is left to a woman to suggest, in the normal nurturing way, that men start some kind of movement to promote their gender's status and self-esteem - call it masculinism, brotherism, machoism, what you want - and some mark of the success of the feminist movement, that it needs to be done."

60's feminist Doris Lessing now says:

"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

An excerpt from an interview with Joan Rivers:

"She's not with the feminists when it comes to matters of the heart. For her, they're to blame for the current parlous state of our relationships, as depicted in these television Shows (Such as Sex in the city) and films. "I saw this coming. You cannot be equal to a man, you cannot make a man feel 'I don't need you' or 'I'll take my sex when I want it'. All these shows are so sad."

Camille Paglia :

"Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials.

But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper.

Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures.

I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant.

. . . Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."