People can never worry about girls too much, it seems. People worry that young girls don't eat enough (anorexia), eat too much (obesity), care about weight and appearances too much, do not play sports enough, watch TV too much, spend too much money on clothes, and show too much interest in English literature and social sciences, don not show enough interest in math and science.
Even valedictorians, but only the girl valedictorians, seems to suffer from too-low-ambition sydrome, and in need of immediate help.
Oh, the girls, the frail, always in need of help...
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Girl valedictorian Part II
Talk of twisted priorities....
People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.
I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.
This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.
People spend countless hours and pages and inks wondering how a small number of girl valedictorians, who were virtually assured of success in future one way ro another, could increase earning potential by another thouands of dollars, just so that they catch up with men.
I think it is more beneficial and practial for feminists to view the problem of boys failing schools more seriously. Those boys are far more likely to become criminals, and engage in criminal activities such as theft, burglary and oh yes, sexual assault. If feminists want (or want other women and girls-I know the welfare of men and boys are not in their radar screen in the slightest) to live in a safer society, and reduce sexual assault, etc., then it is also in their best interest to tackle the problem more seriously, not just looking at the problem with a gleeful smile.
This is much more practical measures if feminists really wish to reduce crimes against women. It is much more practical than attacking culture, mass media, TV and movie as inciting men and boys to be violent against women, or even social and (alleged) patriarchal struture as root cause of violence against women. But in reality of course I know they won't, because they need certain number of violent men and victim women if they were to keep portraying society as oppressing, victimizing women.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Urgent help needed in elevating career ambitions of girl valedictorians
Why we care about valedictorians? First of all, there are so many more girl valedictorians than boy valedictorians. Second of all, they are smart enough (-if they have enough brain to be the number one in the class) to see what jobs/career/major suits them best, without people like Ms. Steinberg telling them what suits best for them (or what suits best for Ms. Steinberg and other fellow feminists' grand strategy for social engineering - to statistically equalize wages between men and women), that they should be majoring not in English literature nor social sciences but in engineering and computer sciences. .
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
What about boys who were dropping out from high schools at a far higher rate than girls? Shouldn't this be a much more important issue than wondering the ambition level of girl valedictorians, who have bright fututre anyway, no matter what career they choose? What NY Times is spending so much space and readers' time for is whether girls with bright future could beat out equally bright boys in future earning power - I guess there are many more things in the world deserving more immediate attention. This clearly shows that prioroties and concerns of NY Times is so twisted and could only care about beating out males.
For feminists, boys falling in school system isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, it is a triumphant sign for girls, it is simply a proof that girls are smarter, that males are dumber, that more girls should be in higher positions and outearning males as a whole.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
"feminist self-defence" in public schools
I just can't love Sweden enough for its stupidity......
This story gives you a glimpse of a future of society run by militant feminists・
A "feminist self-defence" for all girls, money earmarked at compulsory and upper secondary levels, in order to "improve girls' self-confidence"
Left Party: teach all girls self-defence
Sweden's Left Party wants all girls to be offered 'feminist self-defence' training from the seventh grade, aged 13-14. Meanwhile, boys should attend courses in feminism.
The party is demanding that money be earmarked for self-defence for all girls, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, according to Svenska Dagbladet.
The proposal is part of a new programme for schooling and is a continuation of the decision made in 2001 by the Social Democrats and their political partners to invest five million kronor in self-defence classes "to improve girls' self-confidence".
The Liberal Party's education spokesman, Jan Bjklund, declared himself sceptical towards the idea of 'teaching violence in school'.
"Different feminist groups are competing to be the most militant. But equality cannot be about learning to beat each other up," he said.
This story gives you a glimpse of a future of society run by militant feminists・
A "feminist self-defence" for all girls, money earmarked at compulsory and upper secondary levels, in order to "improve girls' self-confidence"
Left Party: teach all girls self-defence
Sweden's Left Party wants all girls to be offered 'feminist self-defence' training from the seventh grade, aged 13-14. Meanwhile, boys should attend courses in feminism.
The party is demanding that money be earmarked for self-defence for all girls, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, according to Svenska Dagbladet.
The proposal is part of a new programme for schooling and is a continuation of the decision made in 2001 by the Social Democrats and their political partners to invest five million kronor in self-defence classes "to improve girls' self-confidence".
The Liberal Party's education spokesman, Jan Bjklund, declared himself sceptical towards the idea of 'teaching violence in school'.
"Different feminist groups are competing to be the most militant. But equality cannot be about learning to beat each other up," he said.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Gender imbalance in an Utah university (..not so common imbalance)
A few days ago I wrote my views on the Newsweek cover story about boys’ failing grades at schools. Maybe related or not related to this, not to be outdone, liberal mainstream media have found one university in the state of Utah, out of thousands in the nation, where enrollment of women is lower than that of men, and decided to counter-claim their cherished victim status. It is so rare that they decided to make it a story and claim discrimination against women.
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Of course, if you find just one university in some state in the Midwest where men’s enrollment is just 8 points higher than women (or mere 4 points above the absolute statistical parity of 50-50), you need to be in a crisis mode and the university and community need to “make it easier for women to go to school, as well as educate them on why they need a college degree” (start educating on the need to go to college before actually educating about knowledge, I guess some people need to start from there), and “(use) research and creative recruiting methods to draw more women, even more scholarships especially for women”. This after years of much higher enrollment of women in colleges and universities across the board in the whole nation and much higher achievement by girls in the entire school system from K-1 to high school.
No outcry back then. So much for equality. This is one of the best evidence that gender feminists are not concerned about equality between sexes, but superiority of females over males.
I don’t comprehend the sentence “most (universities in Utah) are much more balanced and mirror the national trend of more women then men”. Does it mean that it is “balanced” to be closer to 50-50 or be balanced to be closer to a national average (which is more lopsided to women than this college in question in Utah is to men)
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Failing boy's grade and Newsweek
Gender feminists have vested interest in keeping boys grades down. In short, it ensures that more girls than boys go to better colleges, more girls than boys will get better jobs, with higher salaries, social status and power, thus, gender wage gap will be narrowed and reversed, percentage of women in the Congress, CEO of Fortune 500 and partners of prestigious law firms will increase and eventually dominate majority. It will also create favorable (for feminists, of course) stereotype that girls and women are smarter, better and occupy high positions, while boys and men are dumber and languish in less-skilled jobs and overrepresented in prisons. In short, keeping the current situation will enable creation of feminists’ utopia.
That is why gender feminists will need to suppress or at least spin the discussions about boys’ failing grades in school. In this week’s Newsweek’s cover story, renowned feminists Carol Gilligan, who was very instrumental in raising the profile of problem with girls in school back in 80’s and 90’s in the first place, is now pretending to care about boys (she is a mother of three boys – was sex selection of babies not available to her back then?). It is profoundly ironic (or predicted?) that the Newsweek is turning to the very gender feminists who is the chief suspect of causing todays’ boy’s failure in school system by systematically slanting educational priorities, criteria and methodologies to benefit girls over boys.
Before discussing about boys’ failure, she reminds us that “We are only a generation away from the time when girls were effectively off the map”, and spends much time boasting the achievements made with respect to girls’ education. When she finally turns to the core issue, she continues her agenda by trying to foster sensitivity in boys, along the favored feminists’ line of immasculating males to achieve gender-neutral or blind society. Of course, as a devoted feminist; she does not forget to warn the readers of the danger of “trouble boys are having with school becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family” and whines that “men still outnumber women at the highest levels of academia, as well as in business and government”. She concludes by saying “we now have an opportunity to redress a system of gender relationships that endangers both sexes”. Feminists will always be feminists, aren’t they?
If the discussion on boys’ failing grade, a problem that deserves the highest attention, that finally made into the attention of major news media is so much spun along gender feminists ideology who had created this very problem in the first place, we are reminded that the problem of boy’s failing grade goes much deeper than simply a creating all-boy school or employing more boy-friendly educational methods. The Newsweek’s story is like turning to Hitler or Goeling for ways to redress the poor living and social condition of Jews in the Third Reich. Yeah, I’m sure you will get the right answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965127/site/newsweek/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ (main story)
That is why gender feminists will need to suppress or at least spin the discussions about boys’ failing grades in school. In this week’s Newsweek’s cover story, renowned feminists Carol Gilligan, who was very instrumental in raising the profile of problem with girls in school back in 80’s and 90’s in the first place, is now pretending to care about boys (she is a mother of three boys – was sex selection of babies not available to her back then?). It is profoundly ironic (or predicted?) that the Newsweek is turning to the very gender feminists who is the chief suspect of causing todays’ boy’s failure in school system by systematically slanting educational priorities, criteria and methodologies to benefit girls over boys.
Before discussing about boys’ failure, she reminds us that “We are only a generation away from the time when girls were effectively off the map”, and spends much time boasting the achievements made with respect to girls’ education. When she finally turns to the core issue, she continues her agenda by trying to foster sensitivity in boys, along the favored feminists’ line of immasculating males to achieve gender-neutral or blind society. Of course, as a devoted feminist; she does not forget to warn the readers of the danger of “trouble boys are having with school becomes grounds for reinstituting traditional codes of manhood, including a return to the patriarchal family” and whines that “men still outnumber women at the highest levels of academia, as well as in business and government”. She concludes by saying “we now have an opportunity to redress a system of gender relationships that endangers both sexes”. Feminists will always be feminists, aren’t they?
If the discussion on boys’ failing grade, a problem that deserves the highest attention, that finally made into the attention of major news media is so much spun along gender feminists ideology who had created this very problem in the first place, we are reminded that the problem of boy’s failing grade goes much deeper than simply a creating all-boy school or employing more boy-friendly educational methods. The Newsweek’s story is like turning to Hitler or Goeling for ways to redress the poor living and social condition of Jews in the Third Reich. Yeah, I’m sure you will get the right answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965127/site/newsweek/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ (main story)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)