The price that women will pay for feminism.
For decades now, women have been reaping the harvest of double special treatment. They have been treated like ladies and like men. There is a price due for dancing with the devil and it is about to come due. How it will be implemented, who all will go down and how far, and other basics will be based upon women's actions from here on. Should they, as a group, surrender, terms could be rather slight. If they decide to fight to the last for their right to kill men's children, act like spoiled brats while being treated like mature men, and keeping other new "rights" they have "earned", the price will be quite high.
The first shots are being sent over their bow. The first two were quiet, in many ways. The appointment and soon to be appointment of two Supreme Court Justices, neither of them female or any other minority was a test case and the first shot. The next shot is the impending fall of Roe v. Wade. This shot is truly the most impressive one so far, and has implications that have been all but unimaginable for all of my 40ish years of life. Soon, the shots will be like the sky fireflies of a close encounter with a comet.
In discussing the minor issue of toilet seat etiquette with kiwi the geek and then seeing the article above, I realized the dots I was seeing were coming together to form a stark picture for feminists and really all women in general. The mommy state and most 'isms' are about to be circular filed and the one and true lords are rising. My suggestion, ladies, is to find a good man, a principled man, and hold on. The very cement that has held the floor under you is about to drop.
The first shots are being sent over their bow. The first two were quiet, in many ways. The appointment and soon to be appointment of two Supreme Court Justices, neither of them female or any other minority was a test case and the first shot. The next shot is the impending fall of Roe v. Wade. This shot is truly the most impressive one so far, and has implications that have been all but unimaginable for all of my 40ish years of life. Soon, the shots will be like the sky fireflies of a close encounter with a comet.
In discussing the minor issue of toilet seat etiquette with kiwi the geek and then seeing the article above, I realized the dots I was seeing were coming together to form a stark picture for feminists and really all women in general. The mommy state and most 'isms' are about to be circular filed and the one and true lords are rising. My suggestion, ladies, is to find a good man, a principled man, and hold on. The very cement that has held the floor under you is about to drop.
posted by Doom at 7:26 AM
10 Comments:
Gerry Anglin, Doug Anglin's father, said the school system should compensate boys for the discrimination by boosting their grades retroactively.
Sounds like this article is proposing more affirmative action, this time in favor of boys. Unfortunately, I don't see that solving the problem, and at least in this case, I don't see that anybody even understands the problem. I don't think society as a whole has half enough wisdom to look to the past for answers.
I agree that more affirmative action in the opposite direction is the wrong solution, as has been noted though, it is the only system available in the short term. The real problem is with how teachers and administrators themselves have been tainted by the liberalism of the colleges from which they receive their bon afides. As well, pay back is a bitch, pardon the French (because I don't).
Like I said on your blog, the reversal of fate is going to be very expensive for women. It isn't necessarily going to be fair or even principled, even if that is my personal choice. As a college grad who is now essentially a full time mom and wife, you are certifiably qualified to understand the problems that are occuring by pushing men out of an education they would use for a living and to support their families to educate women who do not. As far as the government's involvement in education, I think that is as good of a social program as is out there (along with government support of research and development, if tied to practical study) as long as it leads to the creation of wealth. The current problem is that a larger chunk of that money is spent on a portion of the society that doesn't create wealth. Once that is amended, the program will be more useful.
As for societies wisdom, that is based on who is included and how you look at that. Fifty to five years ago, I would have agreed with you. Today, I think I would have to disagree. I think Americans and, to some extent, our government and military have been litening up, and changing their impetus from heavy and slogging to fast, effective, and flexible. Yes, the government has spent more, not all of it wisely, but then there are costs associated with all change.
All I can say is, Vive la Revolution!
pushing men out of an education they would use for a living and to support their families to educate women who do not.
That's not even the point. Everybody has the right to pursue education, for any purpose they want. Also, education makes me a better wife and mother, which is good for society, even if I don't earn money right now.
Everybody should be allowed to pursue education equally, but that doesn't mean it should be served to them on a silver platter. People rarely value what they don't work for.
All I can say is, Vive la Revolution!
For sure. Hope the rebels use their brains.
Kiwi the geek,
The last time we discussed this, I let it pass. It wasn't that I was trying to be nice or that I was caving on my beliefs, it was that I needed to think about it. After having thought about it, my thoughts and beliefs lead me this way...
I do think I want the government to be supportive about college and graduate level work. I think that is a social investment, much as investing in research and development. Both lead to the creation of wealth, if done correctly. It is clear from our economy, how it works, and what it is based on that these programs have more than paid for themselves with the exception of the female element. At this point, that element is more than half of the upper level education and some significant part of the the R&D. Women must be cut out of that.
As far as allowing a woman to go for an education she pays for, that can only be offered fairly once the education system has been fixed to remove the bias in it created to at first advance then now to advantage women in education (lots of work here, but it's about to fly). Once that transition has happened, then women who wish to pay and are competitive in a man's system could and should be offered a chance.
As far as upper level education making you a better mother, if true, you are an exception. Most women who obtain an advanced degree become lousy mothers and wives. Statistics are pretty solid on this. Therefore, that particular argument of yours holds nothing but air.
I'd guess that the women whose education made them worse mothers had the wrong attitude about being mothers in the first place. Unfortunately, that's most mothers nowadays.
Are you saying that women should be prohibited from pursuing higher education even if they pay for it? By law? If so, I don't even know where to start in expressing my distaste, so I won't go there.
kiwi the geek,
Not exactly, though perhaps temporarily. A moratorium in order to clean up academia and reset the system wouldn't be a problem. Long term or permanent ban, no. However, once the system is fixed, so few women would go due to achievement issues, the reassessment guidelines, and cost issues that it almost wouldn't matter anyway. Imagine what would happen to doctor visits if welfare mothers were forced, suddenly, to pay full price for medical treatment. My guess is that the real price of, even a public, education, after stripped of federal, state, local, charitable, and whatever other outside aid starts in the neighborhood of $60k a year.
kiwi the geek,
Oh, I will give a bit on women acting as allies to an extent. The extent is that through being model women, wives, and especially mothers they will help to guide other women to this settled social norm and to bring men back to their places (the ones of both sexes who are currently at odds with their biology, social place, and righness are who you can be an example for).
However, I believe we have had this discussion at Vox's. What SB, Arielle, yourself, and other women have indicated is that the blame for much of the social disharmony currently inculcated into modern society has been create by men, in two ways. The first is the opening of voting to women because of the known outcome and the other part has been from the caving of men and the shying away of men from their position in life. Therefore, if what you all seem to agree is true, this is a man's problem and must be solved by men. In this way, you cannot be an ally, even if supportive. (I don't necessarily agree that it is a singularly men's problem, as women have run with it once released, so currently are at more fault. However, I stand by my belief that only men can fix it.)
Oh, I will give a bit on women acting as allies to an extent. The extent is that through being model women, wives, and especially mothers they will help to guide other women
That is exactly what I meant.
However, I believe we have had this discussion at Vox's.
IIRC, I agreed more with you than anybody in that discussion. I just didn't see any point in continuing once they got so feisty.
I think the problem is caused more by women than men, and therefore I don't think men can put women back in their proper place without other supportive women. Not that men are weak, but the feminists whine too much.
A moratorium in order to clean up academia and reset the system wouldn't be a problem.
That would be the end justifying the means. I think changing the dynamics would squeeze out time- and money-wasters without such an odious policy.
My guess is that the real price of, even a public, education, after stripped of federal, state, local, charitable, and whatever other outside aid starts in the neighborhood of $60k a year.
I don't know why, but the price of higher education has skyrocketed in the past 20 years or so. I think changing the dynamic might drive prices down again. And either way, there would always be private organizations funding education for those they believed should be educated. Society would do what society thought necessary.
Most women who obtain an advanced degree become lousy mothers and wives.
For the average homeschooled student, 12 years is plenty of education to become a good parent. For the average government indoctrinated student, twice that long may not be enough. Knowledge isn't enough, you need wisdom and understanding. I had a decent level of those at 18, and used college to gain more. Unfortunately, most don't, so they won't.
"11RC" or "llRC" or "IIRC"... What is that?
As for ends justifying the means, that would only be true if it was a permanent ban. I think the effect of two to four years of women being ineligable for college would do wonders for the academic evironment. Especially if it was not announced before or during the ban just exactly when or if the ban would end. Seriously, pacify your emotions and imagine an undefined ban of female students in upper education coming down the pike. Think what schools and students would do. Imagine what industry and business would do. Now, think would foreign countries would also do. Yes, when the big dog barks, the chihuahuas start barking too. Now, once the effect on those things have been obtained, and the effect seems set, then invite women back.
The price of an education has traditionally been quite high. Actually, until the '70's college education were only affordable by the upper-middle class on up. One might even say it was even only the truly wealthy who could afford it before WWII. Some of what opened it up was the GI Bill, which paid for a lot of us "lowly" folk's education. What it also did was stripped priveledged status away from the sole reason to be received into higher education. In other words, with the flood of new students, for colleges to be competitive they had to start comparing students by, initially IQ then other scoring methods. It was a beautiful thing to see the rich kids actually have to compete, or so I've heard. I think I wrote this before. I should have coffee before I begin to write.
{one thing, when I say "until the '70's", it's a give or take licking the hand sort of thing. There is some cut-off, I just haven't always recently looked at that particular detail. If it was '65 and you complain, I'll pretty much ignore a complaint, verstehen Sie?}
No, I think advanced education is a definite mark against most would-be mothers. You might counter that so many women get advanced degrees, to which I will say look at the world we live in. And yes, it is mothers. Fathers have traditionally been a 'visiting parent' in that they haven't been around as often. The mother, the cornerstone, used to be but isn't and doesn't want to be around. It isn't because the family needs the money, it's because she is bored out of her skull with a brat or two, dinner, dishes, and laundry when she is so certain she understands physics, business principles, or whatnot. What was it about two masters? In sooth, we know there can only be one.
IIRC = if I remember correctly
I think I wrote this before.
I don't remember reading it before.
I've read many stories, and talked to many people, who put themselves through college before the '70s. Maybe they were the exception. But before the '70s, college was also not considered necessary for the average person. HS grads were more knowledgeable, and many jobs didn't require more than that.
A mother with a physics degree doesn't have to be bored with children and housework. That's what I meant about attitude. I have a degree in computer science, minor in physics, near minor in math. Thinking of ways to solve discipline problems with a child whose other parent teaches & models wrong behavior is a great challenge to my creativity and wisdom. I exercise my brain a hundred ways every week, in parenting, marriage, hobbies, and general life. And I'm not even homeschooling yet!
Post a Comment
<< Home