This is true only if you are talking about the colonial period (pre-U.S. Constitution), not the early 20th century, which is the period to which AHunter3 is referring. After 1787, woman lost the right to vote in every state except New Jersey, which didn’t remove it until 1807. No state granted women suffrage again until Wyoming in 1869. When the 19th amendment was adopted in 1920, only 15 states allowed women to vote.
As a Christian atheist who denies the divinity of Jesus (and loathes his neighbour), I wholeheartedly endorse this sentiment.
It seems inconsistent to complain that feminists are overreacting to what one guy said, and then attack feminism based on what one woman said.
A couple things:
-
It kinda is a zero sum game. Colleges can only take a finite number of students; every position that’s taken is one less that’s available to everyone else.
-
When women were underrepresented in colleges, was the attitude that they should just “have at it”? My recollection is that there was talk of different learning styles between girls and boys, and that primary and secondary schools should make more of an effort to cater to girls with more collaborative and peer group learning. Now that boys might be being left behind, it doesn’t seem to get as much attention.
-
Wikipedia lists three men’s-only colleges in the U.S., none of which I’d heard of before, and more than forty that only accept women. All of the Ivy League seems to have admitted women by the mid-'70s, but where are the calls to open Wellesley and Smith to men?
None of which is to say that men are victims, but they don’t seem to have many people championing their access to higher education, either.
I think what you mean is "as discrimination against women in developed societies gradually becomes less drastic and pervasive".*
There is still plenty of discrimination against women in developed societies, and still plenty of evidence of it. It’s just a somewhat more mild and less ubiquitous form of discrimination nowadays than it used to be, say, fifty years ago when there were literally separate Help Wanted sections in the paper for “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs”.
A few examples of stubbornly non-disappearing evidence of persistent discrimination against women:
The same essays are graded more harshly when the writer is believed to be female
The same math tests are graded more harshly when the test-taker is believed to be female
The same resumes are evaluated more harshly when the applicant is believed to be female
Emphasis added.
- Of course, discrimination against women in many developing societies is still at horrific levels; cites provided on request for anyone who’s been living under a rock on Mars for the past forty years and hasn’t noticed what life’s been like for many third-world women.
The issue here is that, even as nebulous as “Christian” can be, there’s still at least some basic rules about what it means in a generic sense. For instance, it’s hard for someone to say that he’s a Christian, but then argues that Jesus wasn’t actually a real person and wasn’t the son of God. Some Christians might argue about various aspects of belief, but at least there’s that core point.
Feminism, OTOH, seems to have a wide-range of possibilities. I’ve heard some feminists argue it’s about equality, some that it’s about righting historical injustices, some (admittedly very few) claiming women are inherently superior. The only one real consistent thing we can say is that someone who self-describes cares about issues that affect women. But that’s so vague as to be essentially useless and, worse, because it’s so broad, we end up with legitimate issues that really need to be addressed being conflated with other fringe issues.
That is, yes, to some extent a group like the WBC hurts the image of Christians as a whole, but I doubt anyone frequently hears the issues they espouse as just “Christian” issues, maybe “Extremist Christian” or “Extremist Right-Wing Christian”, but most often, it’s just tied to them directly. But conversely, ideas like the aforementioned issue with Greer, inability to consent after a single drink, etc. are often just “Feminist” ideas.
Frankly, I think that’s actually a big part of the problem is that the legitimate issues get seen as extremist because of the use of the term Feminist and that a lot of people, particularly those not actively part of the movement, end up seeing it all as extremist or fringe issues.
Point #1 would be true if there were a shortage of spaces available at colleges, but there really isn’t. In fact, colleges are competing for a shrinking pool of students. A lot of them are desperate to keep their numbers up. It’s safe to say that anybody with a high school diploma or GED who really wants to go to college can find a college that will take them.
There are a limited number of spaces available at top-tier elite colleges, but those are precisely the colleges that don’t have any real problem maintaining gender balance; Harvard, for example, is 53% male. There also isn’t any real gender gap in college attendance among the privileged students most likely to matriculate at such institutions, in general; Asian and white students whose parents are in the top income quartile are actually slightly more likely to attend college if they’re male.
Among low-income students, black students, and Hispanic students, there is a pronounced gender gap, but this demographic pattern suggests there’s something more complicated at work than just “boys being left behind.” Certain boys are being left behind. If we see this as a problem – and I am inclined to agree that it is – the solution almost certainly involves something other than paying more attention to boys’ learning styles, but rather trying to untangle the complex knot of racial and socioeconomic factors involved. Further, some of those factors may actually involve sexism against women – for example, it’s possible that boys from low-income backgrounds have more access to options that don’t involve college, such as working in the trades or construction, while girls feel like they have to get a college degree to have any shot at escaping poverty; it’s also possible that some boys perceive academic achievement as a “girl thing” and therefore deliberately avoid it.
The same trend is happening all over the Western world, also in nations without any black or Hispanic population. So if anything the common denominator seems to be the low-income, and a recent study from the UK came to the conclusion that white boys from low-income backgrounds were the group least likely to be going anywhere.
There an article on the BBC website a couple of days ago about the death rate increasing among white Americans. Suicide is a large factor in this and men tend to kill themselves at a much greater rate than women (5 to 1 I believe), so although the article doesn’t state it perhaps its white middle-aged American men who are experiencing an increased death rate than other groups?
As an aside, I tend to read this gender related threads but not participate as although I find the subject interesting there is usually a lot more heat than light being shown and a lot of group-targeted or individual-specific insults being thrown around.
A recent NPR story on the subject reveals some leading causes which include alcohol and drug addiction as well as poverty due to low level of education.
With the exception of a few individual states that, at the state level, had passed laws permitting women the right to vote, no they did not. Study your history. Learn some stuff.
OK, first of all, I must be a self-hating masochist for even reading this thread.
Wellesley is in a cross-registration program with MIT and Olin College (both co-ed).
Smith College is in a Five-College Consortium with Mount Holyoke College, Amherst College, UMass-Amherst, and Hampshire College (four of which are co-ed).
I myself went Bryn Mawr College (Class of '00). Bryn Mawr College is a women’s college (as of this year, they also allow transwomen to enroll; they do not allow transmen). Men have never been allowed to enroll in Bryn Mawr except during the post WWII-period, in order to accommodate veterans using the GI Bill.
But here’s the deal – Bryn Mawr is part of what a Tri-College Consortium; the other two members are Haverford College and Swarthmore College. Haverford used to be Bryn Mawr’s “brother school,” but they went co-ed in 1980. Swarthmore has always been co-ed (it’s one of the oldest co-ed colleges in the country, founded in 1864).
What being a part of this consortium means is that if you are a student at any one of the three schools, you can take classes at the other two schools, you can major at the other two schools, and you can even live at the other two schools. All four years. You just get your degree from the school in which you’re enrolled.
So, what this means speaking practically, is that Bryn Mawr (and thus Wellesley and Smith) is de facto co-ed. Men (and women) from Haverford and Swarthmore are welcome to enroll in any class, they can move freely about the campus without needing a tracking collar or anything, and they can live in certain designated dorms.
I personally lived in a “co-ed” dorm – meaning, there was one man who lived on my dorm floor. The only thing he was asked to do was to hang a sign on the communal bathroom that said “man in the bathroom” (or whatever) when he was in there, in case any of the women on the floor didn’t feel comfortable using the bathroom when he was in there. (This also applied to any male guests visiting the women on the floor.)
Any male student uncomfortable with the idea of hanging the sign was welcome to live off-campus or on his own campus and commute via dedicated shuttle to Bryn Mawr. Haverford is 2 miles (10-minute shuttle ride or a 20-minute walk) ; Swarthmore is 12 miles and a 30-40 minute drive away.
Feminist != feminized. Different discussion entirely.
It’s gotten so that I can’t watch To Kill a Mockingbird without seeing Atticus as a vile rape apologist.
Too many “meanwhiles”. But this appears to be witnessing, so witness on…!
It may be logically inconsistent, but it seems quite consistent as a pattern of posting.
I only link to what actual feminists are actually doing. If the slutwalkers and claims that maleness is a genetic defect reflect the views of extremists, then “mainstream” feminists would denounce them. That’s doesn’t happens though. In the last thread, feminists said maleness was in fact a defect. (Albeit, a common one.) (I’ll be expecting my Social Security disability check anytime now.)
Like what?
There are a lot of issues with education.
One of them is a lack of men in kindergarten through elementary school. Boys at that age - particularly those without fathers - need male role models. And they need people who understand what it’s like to be a boy.
There’s a study - which I’ll post for you if you want to see it - that says that boys are down-graded at young ages relative to the understanding as measured by objective tests. The author hypothesizes - and these are my words, not his - that the boys are too boyish. They don’t sit still like girls. They talk too much. They want to be active, instead of passive. Somebody somewhere needs to realize that sitting at a desk all day is not optimal for educating boys. Fuck. It’s not even that good for girls.
As far as STEM goes, I find it odd that men are falling behind in every area but one - and that’s the one feminists are concerned about.
My own opinion is that there’s no “need” for women in STEM fields. If they want to pursue those subjects, great. If not, there’s no need to force them into it. Personally, I’ve always been better at verbal than math. Trying to force myself into something I’m not good at, and not interested in, would be kind of pointless.
What you should understand is the driving force behind bias against men in domestic violence is feminism. Again, I can go into it in more detail, if you want. What feminists want people do believe is that domestic violence is always - or almost always - a male on female phenomenon. Despite the fact it’s not true. Google “Duluth Model” if you’re curious.
I’m in total agreement.
NOW, on the other hand, is not.
It’d be nice if feminists said that. But they don’t.
I’m in total agreement.
There is something you should take into consideration though. You may never have called the cops when your SO hit you, but if you had, there’s a decent chance the police would have taken you to jail. (Duluth Model.) Hopefully the next time a woman hits you is also the last time you’re ever around her.
By the way, you were right not to call the police. Getting arrested for domestic violence is far worse than getting hit by a woman.
Perhaps. The downside is fewer children with committed parents.
I agree, with one very specific and important caveat. Women are attracted to the masculine in men. Emasculating men creates dead bedrooms, and ultimately leads to divorce. Feminists may or may not know that, when the call for “reeducating men” or when they endlessly browbeat men for being men, but that is the consequence, nonetheless.
You’re right: men and women are complimentary. What hurts one gender always winds up hurting the other.
But feminism has been bashing and undermining men for 50+ years. They’re not going to stop. They’ll stop only when they are stopped.
Thank you for the info. I used to live near Wellesley and knew they had some kind of arrangement with MIT, but didn’t know the details.
What do you think it would be like if the genders in your description were reversed? If men could enroll and get their diploma from any college, and women only from some of them, if men could live in any dorm and women only in certain dorms, do you think we’d all accept that as equal enough?
Here’s the thing that people are forgetting : higher education used to be barred to women. No Girlz Allowed clubhouse-style. Women’s colleges were eventually founded as a way for the previously-marginalized to finally get a chance to attain a higher education degree.
So…the hypothetical “let’s reverse the genders” scenario has already happened. In, say, 1890, men in the US had hundreds of colleges to choose from. Women only had a few.
If you, a man, can indeed attend Bryn Mawr College in everything but name – you can get the full “what it’s like to attend Bryn Mawr” experience, including the fun of chanting “Hey hey, ho ho, the patriarchy has got to go!” at campus events – what does it matter if your diploma says “Haverford College” instead of “Bryn Mawr College”? What hardship does that bring you? They are equally high-ranking liberal arts colleges with some prestige. You lose no face or career opportunities having a degree from Haverford or Swarthmore rather than Bryn Mawr.
Is it just the principle of the thing? In that case, you can empathize with the millions of Western women of past centuries who had their college education options restricted to zero, and the hundreds of millions of women in developing countries of this century who are forbidden those options today.
I’m not forgetting that higher education used to be barred to women, but that’s also not the world we live in today. It seems hard to make the case that we need to perpetuate a system to guarantee them a chance to attain a higher education degree when they’re more than half of college graduates.
And yes, it somewhat is the principle of the thing. The central question of this thread, and the ones that preceded it, is whether there’s an element of hypocrisy to feminism, or at least a few double standards or blind spots. Principles matter.