"...girls strip to their underwear and get wet sliding through water on a plastic sheet."
Okay, I know you're just reading this post to find out why girls are doing this but I'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about a good article by Joe Manthey, educational consultant and trustee for the Boys Project, in the Press Democrat in California entitled, "What about helping boys?"
Manthey also points out that 2 out of 3 students who drop out of high school in California are boys. Does anyone there care? Apparently not, perhaps pandering to girls and women is more important than whether or not boys get an education. But in the long run, those who let boys go by the wayside when it comes to education may be harming the girls in the end.
Richard Whitmire, writer of the whyboysfail.com website, had a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently entitled, "A Tough Time to Be A Girl: Gender Imbalance on Campuses." The article is hard to access so I will describe the gist of it. The shift of American colleges to predominately female is resulting in more of a hook-up culture as described in author Laura Sessions Stepp's Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both.
Why? Because fewer men are attending college, they are in high demand and young women have to compete for their attention. Girls are so desperate at some colleges where girls outnumber guys that they will do anything to get a guy's attention--including stripping to their underwear and getting wet sliding through water on a plastic sheet, according to a senior at James Madison University.
Bureaucrats, politicians and women's groups may think they are doing the right thing for girls and women by looking the other way when it comes to boys and education--or lack of it, but when their daughters are slip-sliding away, or just not able to get a date in college, they may not be so happy with their decisions.
We as a community, as well as a nation, need to ask the next obvious question that was not asked by any news reporters or editors who covered the National Science Foundation-sponsored math study: If girls are now the equal of boys in math, and that fact is due to the boost the schools gave to girls through teacher trainings, curriculum development, conferences, and programs for the girls themselves, then why are there not similar efforts to close the biggest gender gap of all in K-12 education -- language arts -- where boys are behind girls at every grade level?
When girls were thought to be in trouble academically, we said "There must be something wrong with the schools," and we changed them to be more girl-friendly. But there is no similar push to assist boys academically. Instead, when boys don't do well in school, we blame the boys.
Manthey also points out that 2 out of 3 students who drop out of high school in California are boys. Does anyone there care? Apparently not, perhaps pandering to girls and women is more important than whether or not boys get an education. But in the long run, those who let boys go by the wayside when it comes to education may be harming the girls in the end.
Richard Whitmire, writer of the whyboysfail.com website, had a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently entitled, "A Tough Time to Be A Girl: Gender Imbalance on Campuses." The article is hard to access so I will describe the gist of it. The shift of American colleges to predominately female is resulting in more of a hook-up culture as described in author Laura Sessions Stepp's Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both.
Why? Because fewer men are attending college, they are in high demand and young women have to compete for their attention. Girls are so desperate at some colleges where girls outnumber guys that they will do anything to get a guy's attention--including stripping to their underwear and getting wet sliding through water on a plastic sheet, according to a senior at James Madison University.Bureaucrats, politicians and women's groups may think they are doing the right thing for girls and women by looking the other way when it comes to boys and education--or lack of it, but when their daughters are slip-sliding away, or just not able to get a date in college, they may not be so happy with their decisions.
Labels: boys and education
posted by Helen at 2:03 PM
68 Comments:
While the substantive point is fine, I doubt that college girls stripping to their underwear and sliding through water on a plastic sheet is a sign of desperation. Sounds like good old-fashioned college fun to me.
Frankly, of all the reasons for women to worry about the new college gender gap, dating troubles have to rank near the bottom of the list.
What is the tone of that article? I ask because it looks like yet another article in which the failure of boys is referred to only in terms of how it harms girls and women. There are plenty of similar articles these days about how female college graduates may not be able (as is their right apparently) to marry up because more women than men are graduating college. The direct effect of low attendance and graduation rates on the men in question is important only insofar as women might be affected by it, it is not important in and of itself.
JMU is a bad example because for most of its history it was an all girls school. If what I saw there was any indication, it doesn't help the girls' case any that they wouldn't date any of the guys I knew our freshman year. I knew a wide variety of guys as a freshman, ranging from ugly nerds to handsome jocks; none of them could get a date because they all ran into the "boyfriend back home" issue. Then, things came full circle by junior year and girls were dating anything that was male and remotely sane.
Wet, desperate girls? That does it; I'm going back to college. :-)
AH, Randian
Its an endless leitmotif--
It seems women can never be expected to help men and/or boys because its the right thing to do or because there is a legitimate need... its as if women will only help men and boys IFF ( if and only if) the action somehow, and rather directly, benefits women/girls.
AH, Randian
Its an endless leitmotif--
It seems women can never be expected to help men and/or boys because its the right thing to do or because there is a legitimate need... its as if women will only help men and boys IFF ( if and only if) the action somehow, and rather directly, benefits women/girls.
That "study" published in Science by the tendentious Dr Hyde ( Professor of Women's Studies, no less) is the last salvo in her decades long political quest to deny that sex differences in psychological functioning exist.
She is a radical feminist who believes-- and has so written-- that meta-analysis ( a statistical method) should be used to advance the political agenda of feminism ! Rather stunning to openly enlist research tools to further your political agendas !
She is a propagandist.
She has been publishing utter rubbish since 1980 or thereabouts-- all denying what everyone observes-- sex differences in behavior, cognition, emotion, etc..
Science is a search for explanations for what we all observe... but in the hands of ideologues, it can become a rhetorical device to convince us that the differences we all see, are not in fact there at all, but are products of some evil conspiracy, aka, patriarchial oppression.
Hyde and colleagues/cronies have been publishing 'studies" claiming there are no sex differences in anything for decades-- because that fits the political agenda of feminism.
There are enormous sex differences in mathematical performance--eg-- at the upper tail
Barbe was right-- " Math class is tough"-- is a common feeling among girls.
And Barbe is a far more reliable source than the radical feminist Dr. Hyde
The central truth of race bigotry is the fact that we need each other and attempts to favor a group actually end up an act of self-sabotage.
Trey
randian,
The article is mostly about girls having problems, but it also mentions that boys do not learn how to build real relationships later in life because they do not learn the skills that one needs to have a long lasting and good relationship. But, in my opinion, one can learn this later than in college.
I agree that the real issue here should be that men and boys are harmed by problems with education today--how girls are affected is not the issue. However, I find it ironic that the very PC types who are trying to give girls every advantage while sabotaging boys, have in the end, hurt girls anyway. This was the point of my post, although perhaps not made clearly enough.
it also mentions that boys do not learn how to build real relationships later in life because they do not learn the skills that one needs to have a long lasting and good relationship. But, in my opinion, one can learn this later than in college.
That does not surprise me, though I approach such a conclusion with some caution. Frequently the author of such prescribes the following solution to the problem: make boys/men learn how to be like women and relate to women more like women. Never mind the implied insult that a relationship is not "real" unless it's approached they same way women are said to, it's also a recipe for failure. If a man relates to a woman like a woman he'll be put in the "friend" bucket instantly, and nothing kills a man's chance with her faster than than the one-way trip to the "friend" bucket. As they were doomed to fail, it is inevitable that many of the men trained in this way will become bitter, angry men, and little is more dangerous to women than a cohort of bitter, angry men.
However, I find it ironic that the very PC types who are trying to give girls every advantage while sabotaging boys, have in the end, hurt girls anyway.
That's what I understood too, even if I poorly conveyed that.
Giant meteor set to hit the earth. Millions of women and children could be killed.
A telling paragraph from Manthey's article:
I had a Petaluma City Schools trustee -- a man -- tell me that the reason boys are behind girls academically is "because they're stupid." I had another man from the Petaluma City Schools -- a teacher -- tell me the reason was "because they're lazy."
It's quite obvious that in our society pleasing women ranks at such a high priority that the only purpose of males is to please women. Thus, we can only argue that the plight of males needs to be improved by showing how that plight negatively effects women.
Great stuff randian
Men and boys are just fine having relationships as they are. There is nothing that needs to be fixed, based on the assumption that women have "deep", "real friendships"-- when was the last time you saw a woman jump on a grenade ( or the equivalent) to save her buddies ?
Madison is only a couple hours drive from here........
Dr. Helen --
Can you cite any research supporting the view that boys can learn how to build lasting and good relationships after College? The research I remember on learning and behavior seems to indicate that adults particularly post College (i.e. older than 22) have a hard time shedding attitudes and behaviors, and learning new ones.
I do think that the gender imbalance is an issue, though it's better at some places than others. Ivy League and top tier schools seem to have a near 50% balance. Lesser schools tend to be more female skewing, some approaching 60%.
HOWEVER, there is one big red flag in the article and the website's assumptions. Girls/women post Sexual revolution mostly date boys and men, that have high relative status / social power, and lots of testosterone (indicated by high-rish and low reward activities). The indie guitarist, the BASE jumper, the motocross racer, etc. Or the I-Banker, Business Consultant, Master of the Universe type when older.
Gender imbalance will make that WORSE, but clearly girls and women's complaint is that the pool of high status, high social power, high testosterone men is small and they have to share (which they mostly do).
I think Randian's views on relationships being set up for failure, and men's bitterness, is spot on. Yes women will have to deal, collectively, with the result of that process.
Whiskey,
The average age of marriage for men in the US is 27, meaning well after college. Men with graduate and professional degrees tend to marry even later--around early thirties. Surely, some of these men are not marrying their college sweethearts--they must have learned to build a relationship somewhere along the line--and not necessarily in college. People find relationships at all ages. To assume that one's attitude and behavior is locked in at 22 seems pessimistic.
That men have low standards is what guarantees every woman is worth something.
Realizing that those low standards have value to women in general might stop the maligning of men.
Men are as much victims of their low standards as anybody; but it starts the whole game of sexual difference, without which nobody has anything.
Okay, I know you're just reading this post to find out why girls are doing this
I'm pretty sure, Madame Doctor of Psychology, that many of the people that clicked on your husband's link were just looking for *pics* of girls doing this, and really didn't give a darn on the why's, wherefore's, or whathaveyou's.
But not me of course. I am reading because I am only interested in the anthropological/sociological "why".:)
Perhaps college is, for most people, an all-around waste of time. Most certainly it is a terribly poor preparation for functioning in the real world of 21st Century America.
Fortunately, the corporate or entrepreneurial world usually smartens a lot of them up by age 35 and America can continue to move forward.
The ones who can't hack it? -- they gravitate towards teaching and academia, the media, or the bureaucracy ... all places where sheer idiocy carries no penalty.
Guys have started to figure that out and head straight for doing things like maintaining F-15 fighter jets, becoming police officers, or starting their own landscape business.
That men have low standards is what guarantees every woman is worth something.
Can any man, even a high status one, afford to have standards as high as the average woman?
The common thread, and the fundamental error of leftist thinking vis-a-vis groups is the zero sum. If one group does well, at has to be at the expense of another, and if one group does poorly, it has to benefit someone. Until this basic falsehood can be debunked, members of groups will always focus on their narrow, specific perceived advantage.
We debunk this notion, or go the way of the Romans.
Err...a better analogy would be go the way of Yugoslavia.
"While the substantive point is fine, I doubt that college girls stripping to their underwear and sliding through water on a plastic sheet is a sign of desperation."
This is old news. They were doing this as far back as the 80's, when it was an elegant and nuanced sight gag in such cinematic classics as "School Spirit."
I think humanities professors are a much more likely source of campus desperation...
for all those disappointed there's not pics:
Young bathing beauty on waterslide!
The problem with the schools is that they are not relevant. The males ascertain very early, High School in fact, that they are wasting their time and so the interest level nose dives. The females more hooked into 'experience of process' just cruise thru on that basis oblivious to the irrelevance of it.
Teaching at a tech school I see the pattern. The day students having arrived from the public system feel the need but don't understand why. The night students , mostly in their late 20's, early 30's 'wised up' and tackle the issues in earnest. Being out in the real world has made put them in focus.
Till the elementary and collegiate systems deliver relevance in a meaningful manner the males are just going to tune out.
Isn't there a similarity between this story and the article I read a short time ago (can't remember where) discussing the lack of eligible men in inner-city black communities? The significant imbalance between eligible men and women meant that the women (really teenage girls) had to have sex in order to compete for males?
..girls strip to their underwear and get wet sliding through water on a plastic sheet.
Sounds like a typical summer day in my front yard, but with a seven and four year old.
Thankfully, they are now in the habit of changing into bathing suits first.
CS Lewis once noted that a society which rewards beauty in women above other virtues must of necessity become unfair to women.
Combine that thought with the sexual display-competition that women increasingly face from popular culture...
To somewhat echo what 'MikeT' stated, girls in college it seems are not competing for guy attention, but for older-guy attention. When you're a freshman guy, you are in fact competing for girls. As a senior guy, girls are coming after you and senior girls your own age are unattractive.
I saw this in my 4 years at JMU and my friends saw it at their colleges too. I guess JMU makes a decent example, regardless of its history, due to its gender imbalance... but don't judge JMU, its just the era we're in.
randian asks:
"Can any man, even a high status one, afford to have standards as high as the average woman?"
That is and absolutely brilliant question, to which I would answer: A man of any status can afford to have as high a set of standards for women... as he is willing to pay the price for.
If a man views sex as a need versus simply a desire, for example - a view I have always considered ridiculously wrong-headed - then he has no chance of attaining any set of standards for women that is anything that I would consider high.
On the other hand, if a man is willing to pay the price of a lifetime of solitude, then he can afford to be as idealistic as he wishes.
Remember: If you are not an idealist, then you are less than ideal. LOL!
"While the substantive point is fine, I doubt that college girls stripping to their underwear and sliding through water on a plastic sheet is a sign of desperation."
This is old news. They were doing this as far back as the 80's, when it was an elegant and nuanced sight gag in such cinematic classics as "School Spirit."
I think humanities professors are a much more likely source of campus desperation...
JohnMc said...
The problem with the schools is that they are not relevant. The males ascertain very early, High School in fact, that they are wasting their time and so the interest level nose dives. The females more hooked into 'experience of process' just cruise thru on that basis oblivious to the irrelevance of it.
Teaching at a tech school I see the pattern. The day students having arrived from the public system feel the need but don't understand why. The night students , mostly in their late 20's, early 30's 'wised up' and tackle the issues in earnest. Being out in the real world has made put them in focus.
Till the elementary and collegiate systems deliver relevance in a meaningful manner the males are just going to tune out.
I find it ironic that during the 1960s, there was a demand for college education to become "relevant". As far as I can tell, that led to the founding of many "studies" departments (e.g. Women's Studies, Left-handed vegatarian Buddist studies, etc.) that allow someone to spend several years and a lot of money to become an unemployable malcontent. Outside of the sciences, health care professionals, math and engineering, a very high percentage of college as we know it today is irrelevant, so why should boys attend?
Dr. Helen, et. al.
The utilization of sex as an inducement based on perceived statistical competition is not limited to college women on campuses.
Last year I had occasion to try one of the online dating services. This site had a marked disparity similar to that on college campuses: More women than men (on the order of many multiples) are registered users in my local area; while men are far more active in messaging women for e-mail chats and dating opportunities.
I went on a number of dates and was appalled at the number of women who outright suggested sex on the first date. So puzzled in fact, that I inquired fairly overtly as to WTH was going on. Though successful and in a good place in life, I know I'm not in any realm in terms of looks or money where this should happen. More than one of the women outright conceded that with so much "competition" from other women on the site, they felt the need to "distinguish" themselves, or as one woman (a successful professional) put it, "to show" me what she "was all about in that area guys care about."
Needless to say, when I told them I'd rather get to know them and that sex could be for later, they were visibly and noticeably relieved. It did not stop me from wondering how many guys they had slept with on first dates, however, and ultimately left me uninterested.
I can see why men looking for quick sex go with these sites, but I feel that when women are made to feel (including by each other and by men) as if they need to compete on a sexual level because of the sheer number of competitors, it diminishes them substantially as women and as potential "marriage" material.
This is probably what is referred to as happening on college campuses to some extent.
With regards,
Gonzo
I have always thought of college as a really expensive dating club where upscale Americans send their kids to find a mate. I have always guarded this opinion in order to avoid the predictable hurricane force criticism it invokes from most women. This system is breaking down because the "expensive" part is getting worse while the "mate finding" part is not being delivered. And now the knock out punch IMO is here in the form of internet social networking. I predict colleges will adapt by returning to their back up function of preparing people for careers which will clean out the fru-fru departments like women's studies.
for all those disappointed there's not pics:
Young bathing beauty on waterslide!
Umm, docweasel, I think that may be a bit too young for the bulk of this blog's readership. Anyone have a picture that won't get us arrested just for viewing it? ;-)
For those interested, these "JMU slip and slides" do occur from time to time. Here is a link to photographic evidence:
http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:45601
I was born at the wrong time. ;-)
However, I can only try to educate my son, who I hope will get into college, how to act like a gentleman while his hormones and peer pressure scream otherwise.
cw/chsw
The demographic effect is well known.
Only it doesn't take a large imbalance. As little as 5% difference in M/F ratios will have an effect.
Demographics
The article is from 1996 or 1998 and it concerns imbalances caused by the drug war.
Amazing that the geniuses making social policy for America are ignorant of this.
And how about Title IX? And the idea that you can get sex equality in everything and every where. Why aren't all sports co-ed? Where are the female Fields Prize Winners?
Based on the fact that about 1% of women and 3% of men are interested in fetishistic sex we can say that there is about 1/2 standard deviation in the difference between the sex drives of men and women i.e. not much. Just enough so that under balanced circumstances men have to court women. i.e. sellers advantage.
"Umm, docweasel, I think that may be a bit too young for the bulk of this blog's readership. Anyone have a picture that won't get us arrested just for viewing it? ;-)"
Don't be a friggin' idiot. It's a joke. The girl is not naked, how the hell are you going to get arrested for viewing that pic. It's an innocent pic of a young girl and a young boy on a water slide, in a very modest bathing suit that only shows her arms and legs. It was a joke on whoever would click on it hoping to see a scantily clad bathing beauty.
Some people can be stupid over anything. Congrats on finding a way to be stupid about an innocent pic of a two kids having fun. I think it says more about you than anything, that you would see that pic as "illegal".
Got just the place for an exchange program -- 5 blokes for every gal. Beer goggle capital of the world.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24193460-2,00.html
I'm offended by the way the article starts out, which capitalizes on the female sexuality of young women making poor choices.
Young men need to turn off their videogames, which are probably killing off their sexuality as well as their interest in higher education.
Doc, the sad thing is that there are people who would call the cops if they saw a photographer taking that picture, because "everybody knows" only pedophilic perverts would be taking a picture of a kid in a bathing suit.
Especially if the photog is a man, because men are presumptively guilty of sexual deviance in the minds of many.
But compared to the stuff on your blog, yeah, this is Sunday-School picnic stuff.
Oh C'mon, not every gal who enters college is there to meet a man.
All the throngs of 'four-year lesbians' at such places as: Sarah Lawrence, Vassar , Wellesley (Hillary) and Bennington....clearly those women weren't there solely to find a hubsand.
Indeed, Shitlery met Bill at Yale, and she rode that stupid mule right to the top!
She probably realized, while at Wellesley, that rugmunching wasn't the best route to world power.
And, Diana, young men don't need to anything... except live life to their hearts content. Oddly, this most often means excluding women from their lives.
Women have been making poor choices for decades. Now we will see "the other side of the story."
I have my bag of popcorn ready!
yes, a surfer on our blog is like a sewer-rat swimming in a cesspool of depravity. However, we only have those terrible vices on our blog as a warning to people as to what not to look.
Plus, the latest post, you must admit, has legitimate artistic merit, and I'm being serious. MT and Kim, our photog and writer, respectively, are quite talented and I find their work completely lacking the prurient issues of which some of our other stuff might be guilty. However, most of it is satirical in nature and not merely gratuitous whoremongering. But that's just my opinion.
Schools, even down to the Jr. High level have become silly and irrelevant. They have become bastions of liberal social policy (quite directly--you wouldn't believe the number of forms you fill out to register your kids in school) and a highly misguided focus on teaching things that can easily be measured; i.e. the top-down obsession with testing.
To top this all off you have a combination of the infantilization of society and the worship of adolescence, which now extends well into college. (It has gotten so bad, that I now hear even conservatives say an eighteen-year-old girl isn't ready for marriage, let alone childbirth. This is really perverted.)
I once again propose that we terminate public education after the tenth grade. While at it, make anyone sixteen or older emancipated.
@Whiskey: I generally agree with you; yet this is questionable:
The research I remember on learning and behavior seems to indicate that adults particularly post College (i.e. older than 22) have a hard time shedding attitudes and behaviors, and learning new ones.
This "research" suffers from a flaw: the belief that men are a bunch of calcified ignoramuses. I can only assume that these "researchers" believe women are the changeable ones of the human race.
Can one even make the assumption that a sentient, spiritual creature is incapable of its changing attitudes and behaviors. Yes, most people in an unchanging environment do not change: why should they? When circumstances or needs change, attitudes and behaviors by necessity change. Some die. Stress is another changer: disease or events break a person's complacency and demand a change.
There is thread in Protestant thought that considers an uneventful or stress free life one where God is not acting to change you. An entire life led this way likely means God has set you aside or you're not one of God's children. I remember hearing ministers state that if you want more trouble in your life than you already have, become a Christian.
I just watched my brother who I considered, at best, a nominal Christian just get his ass kicked a mile down the road: he was able to raise two kids through college with the only stress in his life a feminist for a wife. Once he began to indicate to me that he took God seriously, I sat back and began to suspect that at some point when his kids were out of the house and on their way, God was going to deal with him. And a near death experience from having a prostate biopsy was a the kick.
Some foolish priest years ago wrote a book titled "Why do Bad things Happen to Good People". If the fellow had any understanding, he would have written "Why don't More Bad things Happen to Good People".
I was happy just imagining girls getting wet and sliding through plastic.
NJartist --
The research I remember reading through addressed language skills -- that kids before puberty can pick up multiple languages, often through immersion, far easier than adults and can speak without accents much easier.
Dr. Helen --
Could the learned behavior of simply ditching relationships be part of the high divorce rate?
I wonder.
If you want to empirically look at the effects of gender imbalance in society, I would suggest looking at European (particularly French) society in the 1920s. The gender imbalance due to the First World War was quite serious, on the order of 20%, due to the very large number of young men killed during the war.
Whiskey,
I certainly think that our society stresses that relationships are just for show at times, hence the starter husband etc. It's easier to get out of marriage and people feel entitled to the "best," whatever that means in their eyes. People are always told never to settle, which I think is good advice, frankly, but sometimes they leave a relationship more quickly than is warranted due to a lack of tolerance for human flaws and limits. This is learned through a society that says people are entitled to a good life, coupled with a lack of understanding how to cope with adversity. What is left are human beings with little ability to make compromises and learn that not everything goes their way.
All this serious commentary is too much for my small, single-threaded guy brain at this hour of the morning, especially while wading through the airport; I think I'll just sit here at the gate with a goofy grin and ponder the phrase "...girls strip to their underwear and get wet sliding through water on a plastic sheet."
Hmmm....now where'd I put my Animal House/25th Anniversary Double-Secret Probation Edition DVD?
Ah, college..... ;)
I am reminded of something that Kathleen Parker said in a podcast:
Who will the girls marry?
J. Bowen said...
I am reminded of something that Kathleen Parker said in a podcast:
Who will the girls marry?
Each other, apparently -
Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1833572,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
"Who will the girls marry?"
Themselves, hopefully.
Help Save The Males! Encourage Lesbian Marriages!
I'm just waiting for the day that men start putting their foot down when the girlfriend tries to worm her way into his nice home for some free common-law mooching, and he insists that she may only move in if she first marries her best-girlfriend, heh, heh.
With a little more legal manipulation, perhaps men can have it declared that if he lives with two women married to eachother, and one of them gets pregnant, that the non-pregnant one is automatically declared to be the legal "father" of the child, and must assume all legal and financial obligations implied of one in such a situation.
This shouldn't be too hard, as feminists have been trying their damnedest to hold men to the very old rule of Common Law which declares that any child born into a marriage is automatically that of the husband's, including all responsibilities, regardless of the female's infidelity.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
With a little more legal manipulation, perhaps men can have it declared that if he lives with two women married to eachother, and one of them gets pregnant, that the non-pregnant one is automatically declared to be the legal "father" of the child, and must assume all legal and financial obligations implied of one in such a situation.
That's a great strategy. Imagine a world where men were used as sex objects by millions of lesbian couples. I do, however, see a flaw in your theory. If you've ever spent time around lesbians you would know that in many lesbian couples one of the women looks and acts like a woman while the other makes every effort to look and act like a man. Is it really worth it to drive women to lesbianism if half of them are going to take every step towards a sex change short of the operation? It isn't to me. Even if I can't have sex with them I still like to look at them.
Young men need to turn off their videogames, which are probably killing off their sexuality as well as their interest in higher education.
Yeah! And turn off their TVs and that awful music, stop reading those awful comics and pulp fiction, and for God's sake lose those zoot suits and wear some decent clothing.
Also, get off my lawn!
If you've ever spent time around lesbians you would know that in many lesbian couples one of the women looks and acts like a woman while the other makes every effort to look and act like a man.
She can sleep in a corner of the basement and make sure the boiler runs properly.
Somebody has to do it! Why should it be a man?
Actually, I've thought about this a lot. And, why not?
In Canada, (where I am from), the push is on to have "all families declared equal."
Usually, that is meant as an assault against men.
Single Moms, Gay families that can't reproduce... etc. (The push is also on to have "affirmative action" adoptions & foster children, cause, you know, nature is an unfair bitch to these "equal" families.)
So, if all things are androgynously equal, as fembots screech from their MSM pulpits daily... does it not make sense that if two married lessies move into your house, and you knock one of them up, that the short haired one has to become the slave that provides?
That is the rule of law for "equal" heterosexual relationships.
I mean, even the N.O.W. supports that a man should not be able to shirk his responsibilities after being duped into paternity fraud... and... all families are equal.
Plus, how can two married lessies possibly sue a man for his common-law property, as is done often here in Canuckistan, if they are already married? I mean... if you are married, how can you possibly imply that I am responsible to pay you for the appreciation of my home, which, had you not been married to your best friend, would have become "communal property" due to "common-law marriage laws" which were taken to the ridiculous by our feminist sisters? (spit)
Nope, married couples can't make claims on other people's property as "marital" or "common-law" property.
Too bad.
So sad.
And once a year, I would have to throw a mercy hump to the short-haired chick.
I could cope.
That's why Safeway made paper bags.
Anyone else getting the "carnival barker" vibe from this? Who really loses out when guys don't sign up for college?
Uh, how about the colleges. If guys don't go there is no tuition money thrown to the colleges.
I remember being inundated with all sorts of studies/suggestions that a degree would be required to earn a decent living. Maybe to reach the top percentile. But, guys started landing in the upper middle class and this was their life's landscape:
A mountain of college loan debt; once they managed to beat that down cupcake would decide to divorce them and ass rape them in court; now the guy loses half of his income and his assets, putting him roughly where somebody who DIDN'T go to college would be financially.
So who is the winner in this scenario? That would be the colleges, by getting tuition, and cupcake, by getting half.
Who loses in this situation?
Anybody?
Bueller?
Combine the younger generation of guys witnessing this pattern firsthand, and the increasingly feminized school system, this is what you get. Guys downscale their lives and lower their expectations. Trade school/experience replaces college, and single life with lower financial standards replaces marriage.
Note to diana. Nice try with the shaming language. That is an old tactic that is no longer effective.
Our sexual needs can be taken care of without you. You are free to visit ivillage.
Back to the topic. So what do these college do? They open up a can of "diana". Shaming language followed by sexual attraction. Let's see, from the time a young boy is 5, and enters the school system, he hears that he is nothing but trouble/stupid/lazy, etc. So, colleges/media begin publishing articles stating the reason for the "guy shortage" in colleges is because males are stupid and lazy, expecting us to rush to the enrollment center.
Motards.
Realizing that this isn't working, the colleges/media appeal to our penises. "Come on in, lot's of single and horny women who will do anything to get a date".
Anything you say, huggybear. We aren't buying your bullshit.
The system is getting what it deserves.
Arthur:
You can go to college, just don't marry Cupcake.
If you DO go to college, major in something real (engineering, medicine, law, hard sciences etc.).
I ran across a woman once who had a doctorate and even some fancy post-doctorate titles in something like cross-disciplinary social sciences or some stupid thing like that. She didn't seem to know very much either for an Important Doctor (TM).
The kicker: She had around $200,000 in student loans and no real job prospects.
THAT woman needs a husband, I would say. And someday the sucker is going to come along.
"Anyone else getting the "carnival barker" vibe from this? Who really loses out when guys don't sign up for college?"
"I ran across a woman once who had a doctorate and even some fancy post-doctorate titles in something like cross-disciplinary social sciences or some stupid thing like that. She didn't seem to know very much either for an Important Doctor (TM).
The kicker: She had around $200,000 in student loans and no real job prospects. And someday the sucker is going to come along."
Just as long as it isn't me - which it isn't going to be.
"Bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox, born and bred there."
I just want to congratulate Joe Manthey for a making the case so well for how unfairly boys are treated in the workplace.
It's a shame that the mainstream media so censors pro-male perspectives that that outstanding article, worthy of publication in a major national publication, ended up published in the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat.
Thank you, Helen, for disseminating this fine article. It and your male-fairness-oriented blog is especially to your credit, of course, that you are a woman. So many women seem to care only to advocate for their own group.
Few acts are more praiseworthy than advocating for a group other than your own, believing that it is in the larger societal interest to do so.
Marty Nemko
www.martynemko.com
http://martynemko.blogspot.com
mnemko@comcast.net
@jg
Dude, I am 45 years old. I took a few semesters of college back in 1985. I ain't goin' back.
Not now, not ever.
Read and understand what Zed posted. If you have questions, ask him for further explanation. Basically he is speaking to and quoting, our generation's reaction to this so called "freedom" that current female twats are prattling on about. His explanation will no doubt be more eloquent than mine.
On another of Helen's posts I referenced an impending "hell", which was disputed. One poster discussed a "transfer of wealth" which would somehow balance out and nullify any potential hell. Just one problem. Nobody can transfer it if us guys ain't makin' it. So much for that theory.
Helen, the "hell" that I refer to is the limited choices that today's entitled cunt will have to choose from. Wimp, player, or carpet muncher. The rest of us guys don't give a flying fuck. To me, hell is not some fire and brimstone scenario. The hell that I refer to is the reality that today's twats will face when they realize that their pool of cap'n save a ho's has dried up. It won't happen tomorrow. Probably won't happen next Tuesday. Female, government, and mangina myopia will be their downfall. One day critical mass will be reached and there won't be a damn thing that any of these groups can do about it.
I will be drinking a beer and watching from the sidelines.
And I won't be the only one.
Its a great post..well done..i really like it..
Sexy Underwear, Mens Underwear
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home