EPT![[image loading]](http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/718/omfginvasionzy1.jpg)
Uh oh.
Are Women Taking Over? - Page 2
| Blogs > SiegeTanksandBlueGoo |
|
CFDragon
United States304 Posts
Uh oh. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24495 Posts
On September 24 2008 14:56 L wrote: Men drop out of high school in far larger rates than women because current teaching methodologies are focused on a female form of learning How are current teaching methodologies focused on a female 'form' of learning? edit: and where did you get that from? | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
These are not non-issue topics in light of massive amounts of men failing to start college or end high school. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
| ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
LOVE 'EM | ||
|
micronesia
United States24495 Posts
On September 24 2008 21:07 L wrote: Do you have a source for this? Both that learning is conducted 'that way' and that this favors girls?Non active passive sit and listen learning is directly in contravention with the active hands on preferred method of male learning. Additionally, you can read the article posted in the blog itself for an example of a benchmark which favors women discouraging men from proceeding in their studies. I saw it said children are pushed to read at an earlier age which favors girls because boys don't develop at the same pace in this regard. Is that what you meant? A third point is that the vast majority of teachers for young children are women. How does that favor girls? These are not non-issue topics in light of massive amounts of men failing to start college or end high school. Also if we are going to use these points to show how men are being put at a disadvantage, then how have these inequalities gotten worse in recent years? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 24 2008 13:52 SiegeTanksandBlueGoo wrote: Wrong.Are women taking over the world from the previous centuries? A little background. Every since civilization started as a hunter-gathering society, men and women took different social roles depending on the large development period of human fetuses. Men took the role as the hunter while the women tended the home. As cities grew in the river valleys and cities along with complex hierarchal structures grew, so did the separation and specialization of labor between males and females grow. This trend would continue well into the 1900s. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-09-12-census-college-enrollment_N.htm Women now comprise a majority in almost every college, with the average undergraduate population being 56% women on average. There are many pundits who attempted to explain this phenomenon one way or another, but it comes down to the one question. Has feminism gone beyond its self-stated goal of raising the social and culture views of women to the same level of men? Will we eventually see a world dominated by females? Does anyone have any idea what such a world would be like? What amazes me is that it took two writers for that typical USA Today crap. Feminism has very little to do with those college enrollment figures, and it hasn't accomplished any of its stated goals. Women are still underpaid and underrepresented in most high paying fields and they won't be taking over any time soon because of socialization and the inability to work and have a child at the same time. I think a large part of this is education inflation increasing faster for women than for men. There may be problems with teaching styles and cultivating interested male students, but there's also more opportunities (not necessarily restricted, but socially accepted) for men without a college degree than there are for women. If women ruled the world, it probably wouldn't be very much different than men ruling the world. | ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
The majority of the world is capitalist or in some way dependant on competition. Men are biologically more inclined to compete, mainly due to the effects of testosterone. The fact that women are starting to outnumber men in higher education is probably caused by some social factor, maybe because women (in general) are often more protected by their parents in the sense that they don't let them fuck up as easily as men (again:extremely general). Another cause may be the faster maturity of women which may lead to women having better grades early on and through that get ahead and stay ahead. But, if we would see the rise of a matriarchal society is that really a problem? I think it would be fascinating to see whether any immidiate differences would show. I doubt it though. | ||
|
Groslouser
France337 Posts
And women are (socially) educated to be under our influence, by themselves they avoid a lot of job. Little exemple: we are roughly 200 in college studying mechanical engeneering. 15 women, most specialized in civil engeneering, 2 specialized in manufacturing. And even with a degree its not sure a all compagny would hire a girl do to a job for men. How could they rule if they are excluded willingly or not from a lot of jobs? Finally most women just don't care about stuff like ruling other/ dominating people. Nah, there's nothing our balls should worry about. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 25 2008 00:36 Groslouser wrote: Proof? Finally most women just don't care about stuff like ruling other/ dominating people. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24495 Posts
I can't help but wonder how you could confirm or deny a claim like that lol. In a recent study by the University of Teamliquid, one thousand people were interviewed. 500 were adult males, and 500 were adult females. One of the questions asked: "Do you consider yourself someone who cares agout stuff like dominating other people?" More seriously, you can't use historical evidence really, because the reason why women weren't dominators as much might be for reasons besides a lack of interest (such as the topic at hand). | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome | ||
|
Scorpion
United States1974 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
"OMG the girls have better results than us ! WAR ON WOMEN ! " | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
| ||
|
Scorpion
United States1974 Posts
On September 25 2008 04:00 Nytefish wrote: No way. You don't say the chinese are taking over just because they have the largest population. It's still about the top places in government, business, education, etc. Which are all dominated by men. QFT. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Do you have a source for this? Feel free to read any of Dr. Sax's work on the topic. He's pushing for single sex public education nearly solely based on the fact that women and men have been proven to learn in different ways, and his position makes sense insofar as one considers an education more of an intellectual institution than a social one. I personally see the value of having education segregated with the aim of more efficient use of time in class, leaving greater time for unstructured social contact during the day. With regards to engineering in specific, here's another article highlighting the gender discrepancy of engineering: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/gender-differences-in-learning-style.html Engineering is one of the only fields to be maintaining a near complete male dominance, just to note that. Law, medicine, most grad schools have more women in them than men. I saw it said children are pushed to read at an earlier age which favors girls because boys don't develop at the same pace in this regard. Is that what you meant? That's one example of the larger trend, yes. How does that favor girls? Because teaching is coming from a source that can directly empathize with their experiences as a small girl. This is the same experience based deficit that pushes feminist groups to demand more women in legislature and more women in the judiciary; decisions and execution are biased by the experiences of those people involved in them, and if the experience is largely female (teaching) or largely male (Legislature), the results will be shown accordingly. Also if we are going to use these points to show how men are being put at a disadvantage, then how have these inequalities gotten worse in recent years? The inequalities have gotten worse because despite a poor education system, women were largely held back from attending higher education. Despite one of the problems with the system being removed (barriers to female success) the other (barriers to male success) haven't been dealt with, largely because its VERY hard to secure funding for scholarly work by being a pro-male reformer. There is very little research being done towards what's happening to men in an organized fashion at the academic level because there is no organized framework of pro-male organizations lobbying for it; most men are like inc and think that their place in the world isn't being erroded because they're currently doing well. The issue isn't that women shouldn't be trying to hit and surpass parity and do well for themselves; that's awesome. Its more that men are slacking under the sense of security that five thousand years of unquestioned dominance gives them. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
 | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
I think jibba is the only one I agree with thats how fucking horrible this thread is | ||
| ||
