I found this article but I don't think it is the right one: http://www.menweb.org/paglsomm.htm Apparently, there is a book written about this line of thought: http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp/product-description/0684849569 BTW, I am extremely skeptical of this "war against boys". I did not even realize this is a conscious debate.
Really? How american mens' dead and broken bodies litter the ground in Iraq? How many are mentally and physically cripped - likely 20-30,000, wilth 10,000 including contractors, are dead. kids are exposed to horrible violent killing and torture from video games and TV from an early age. This is cosidered 'normal' Then they are offered drugs in high school, in every high school. The results are predictable. WE have the most violent culture on the planet. By We I mean north america.
Come on, we are not even in the shadow to most of the African continent countries cultures that is not South Africa. Let's look at world culture in the last 100 years. Two WWs, 100 million+ dead. No video games in either of them. What excuse did they have? Drugs?
I found the article. Enjoy. ------------ What's good for women's basketball will be good for nuclear physics. To most Americans, that statement will sound odd. To President Obama, it apparently does not. In an October letter to women's advocacy groups, he declared that Title IX, the law that requires universities to give equal funding to men's and women's athletics, had made "an enormous impact on women's opportunities and participation in sports." If pursued with "necessary attention and enforcement," the same law could make "similar, striking advances" for women in science and engineering. That campaign pledge is hardening into policy, which ought to give people pause. In February, the Congressional Diversity and Innovation Caucus met with academic deans and women's groups to plan for the new Title IX deployment. Nearly everyone present agreed that closing the gender gap in the laboratory is an urgent "national imperative." What they failed to consider, however, is how enforced parity might affect American science. To get a better idea, let's look at President Obama's statements: "Title IX has had an enormous impact on women's opportunities and participation in sports." Indeed, Title IX has contributed to significant progress in women's athletics -- but at what cost to male student athletics? Consider the situation at Washington's Howard University. In 2007, the Women's Sports Foundation, a powerful Title IX advocacy group, gave Howard an "F" grade because of its 24-percentage-point "proportionality gap": Howard's student body was 67 percent female, but women constituted only 43 percent of its athletic program. In 2002, Howard cut men's wrestling and baseball and added women's bowling, but that did little to narrow the gap. Unless it sends almost half of its remaining male athletes to the locker room, Howard will remain blacklisted and legally vulnerable. Former Howard wrestling coach Wade Hughes sums up the problem this way: "The impact of Title IX's proportionality standard has been disastrous because . . . far more males than females are seeking to take part in athletics." Title IX could make "similar striking advances" for women in science and engineering. Indeed it could -- but at what cost to science? The idea of imposing Title IX on the sciences began gaining momentum around 2002. Then, women were already earning nearly 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees and at least half of the PhDs in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences and education. Meanwhile, men retained majorities in fields such as physics, computer science and engineering. Badly in need of an advocacy cause just as women were beginning to outnumber men on college campuses, well-funded academic women's groups alerted their followers that American science education was "hostile" to women. Soon there were conferences, retreats, summits, a massive "Left Out, Left Behind" letter-writing campaign, dozens of studies and a series of congressional hearings. Their first public victim? Larry Summers, who was forced to resign as president of Harvard University in 2006 after he dared to question the groups' assumptions and drew a correlation between the number of women in the sciences and gender differences implied in math and science test data. Is it true that women are being excluded from academic science programs because of sexist bias? Some researchers agree that bias is to blame; others, perhaps a majority, suggest that biology and considered preference explain why men and women gravitate to different academic fields. But researchers who dispute the bias explanation played little or no role in the Title IX conferences, summits or congressional hearings. Title IX must be pursued with "necessary attention and enforcement" in the sciences. This is nearly certain to happen. But the president should note the level of partisanship in the groups monitoring the enforcement. For example, in a 2008 briefing statement, the American Association of University Women, one of the more combative advocacy groups and a leader in the Title IX movement, issued a warning to "adversaries" who get in the way of its equity initiatives: "Our adversaries know that AAUW is a force to be reckoned with. . . . We are issuing fair warning -- we ARE breaking through barriers. We mean it; we've done it before; and we are 'coming after them' again . . . and again and again, if we have to! All of us, all the time." Federal officials have conducted occasional equity investigations of engineering and physics programs since 2006. But these have been haphazard and far less results-oriented than what Obama and Congress have in mind. The new Title IX initiative, modeled on athletics, will gratify women's advocacy groups. But will it help American science as much as it helped women's basketball? Activist leaders of the Title IX campaign are untroubled by this question. Some seem to relish the idea of starkly disrupting what they regard as the excessively male and competitive culture of academic science. American scientific excellence, though, is an invaluable and irreplaceable resource. The fields that will be most affected -- math, engineering, physics and computer science -- are vital to the economy and national defense. Is it wise, to say nothing of urgent, for the president and Congress to impose an untested, undebated gender parity policy at this time? Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the forthcoming book "The Science on Women and Science" (AEI Press).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/world/europe/18iht-women.html I don't understand how society survived for 10,000 years without these changes, and now this new "reality" is spin'd as tautologous as if there were no other choice. Our axioms must be all fucked up if these are the logical conclusions we are reaching. The corporation is the new God.
The simple fact of the matter is women ARE inferior to men in most, if not all positions in life. If you had cared to look at that 70%/30% population figure, you would have noticed how F*^&ing stupid most of those women are compared to the men. The disparity is quite obvious at my school (large state school with 60%f/40%m) or about that figure. The fact of the matter is that school is pretty much worthless in anyway other than the fact that it provides a potential to become a better worker in the future. Men, being the least inferior of the species, DO NOT need to go to college as much as a typical stupid female. There was a study done not long ago showing that, although the average IQ of males was higher than that of females, Females got better grades and were more academically focused. This is a very important fact. Men, who are intelligent and productive members of society find a better use for their working hours than women, who waste time writing papers and "researching" worthless subjects in an attempt to get an "A", while the men in the class(using their superior intelligence) have figured out the basic fact that grades have no meaning in reality in any way. Since men are logical creatures, they focus on useful skills and majors that are bound by the confines of realistic demand. On the other hand, females (who are illogical and think only in non-realistic ways) on average tend to go to college for "liberal arts" majors than anything else. This basically entails writing poems and crafting pottery....essentially useless skills to the world. They continue the "mouse chasing the cheese" function inherent in schooling. Now, I admit I am in college, but my grades suck and I have spent more time trading and watching financial news/reading than going to class. So ask yourself this simple question... Am I worse off than the typical dumb female trapped in a class going over the "time value of money" if she is even a finance major, or am I better off for actually learning about real things in a learning environment(college) with access to resources I would need to achieve those goals? Not to mention the fact that I am neck deep in 18-21 year old puss, doesn't seem like a bad move. Women, who can't cope with the fact that they are going to spend a good chunk of their first 50 years of life trying to understand why Robert Frost decided to use the wording he did in a random piece of writing, will predictably enter in a sense of denial as reality nips at their consciousness. They will talk about how they are treated so poorly, how evil men are for letting them be as stupid as they are, and take pride in the fact that they are in college when most of the boys they know aren't. All I can say to them is this simple question: "Who is dumber, the 30 year old female with $400,000 in student loans, a piece of paper stating what she studied once in college/grad school and a job potential that maximizes at $80,000 a year around age 45, or the 22 year old male who already has $150,000 in savings, $80,000+ in potential salaries and actual skills that are demanded in the labor force?"
I might get a harsh typing to, but it's still only a typing to. Some dumb broad with a Degree in English is going to use all the "big words" she learned over the last 10 years to make me feel "wealllyyyy bawwwd" about myself
Seems like you can't help but use the word 'dumb" or "stupid" to describe women. Maybe Im jumping the gun here but it sounds like you have a personal thing towards women in general. Are you upset bcuz they are getting good grades in school and you are struggling with yours? Hmmmmmm......