oh my goodness, I take out a couple of hours to put the boys to bed and I see I am subject to yet more attacks. Will it never end?!!!!!!

Female said:
In Britain shortly after Trollope’s novel … appeared, the Jamaica Act was passed

In America, shortly after Female’s post appeared, Ted Kennedy got drunk.

It tempts me to create a new banner: “Save Ted Kennedy’s Liver: Stop women posting on MABTW!”.

Of course correlation does not imply causality, but then diamatik’s ably dealt with that.

Some people say the Bible is a novel

No one who’s spent more than 5 minutes reading a Bible would claim it is a novel. (They might claim it is fictional, but a single novel or even simply a collection of novels? No.)

I haven’t read the Da Vinci code but unless you have personally visited the Vatican archives and have some kind of theological training you perhaps know not what you say.

One does not need to visit Sandia labs to understand nuclear fission or believe that it exists.

Are you aware that a woman can have sex just once, with one man, and fall pregnant? And that there are such things as coercian and rape? Being a slut doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with having an illegitimate child

No, but there is both high correlation and causation. Moreover, most promiscuous women end up having lots of abortions.

Just now we also have DNA testing so lying and/or denying is a little more difficult for a man to do now.

Of course, it makes it a little more difficult for a woman to lie and/or deny as well. We can agree both are excellent results.

-wolfe

Female said:
In Britain shortly after Trollope’s novel … appeared, the Jamaica Act was passed

In America, shortly after Female’s post appeared, Ted Kennedy got drunk.

Some people say the Bible is a novel

No one who’s spent more than 5 minutes reading a Bible would claim it is a novel. (They might claim it is fictional, but a single novel? No.)

I haven’t read the Da Vinci code but unless you have personally visited the Vatican archives and have some kind of theological training you perhaps know not what you say.

One does not need to visit San

On the fact that her book provoked a riot, who knows, I would think that the people who would have been more likely to riot would have come from the largely illiterate classes, so then how could they have read the book? But then I’m not the person with the PhD that you should perhaps be taking this point up with. Wait one minute and I’ll find the encyclopaedia’s phone number for you.

diamatik said:2.3. If this is true, then Fanny was not the person responsible for the suffering of men and the destruction of virtue in women of the West. After all, that act didn’t turn men into financial slaves and women into irresponsible slutty whores who can sleep around while leaving the man with the financial consequences.

Are you aware that a woman can have sex just once, with one man, and fall pregnant? And that there are such things as coercian and rape? Being a slut doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with having an illegitimate child (though society doesn’t like this when it happens so it makes up a slur against women having sex outside marriage by proclaiming they must sleep with lots of men and thus be called sluts)

Of course, you are entirely right, the retraction of the Bastardy clause certainly didn’t create fearful, irresponsible men who refuse to acknowledge and provide for their offspring, these kind of men have existed for millenia, what the retraction really did was try to give protection to women (and infants, don’t forget, or would you prefer the baby to be dumped on the street?) unlucky enough to have been impregnated by a selfish git. And I say try, because even if a law exists to tell people how they should behave, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to, and hence, we still have deadbeat dads. Just now we also have DNA testing so lying and/or denying is a little more difficult for a man to do now.

Your willingness to support flawed, feminist arguments designed to disadvantage and divert resources away from men and boys is proof enough thaty ou are a feminist.

oh btw, I’m not a feminist

Oh yea, sure. We’ve heard that one before.

What about women outside the West? Considering you are the Statman, where is the stat that factors in third world women? Would that make up the 2/3 you think?

Why don’t you just Google it yourself?

I see no benefit in trying to validate or give authority to typically flawed feminist argument from the UN.

Women going forward are at a major advantage in education.

The “World” implies that is the case Everywhere. It implies that two-third of women in the West are illiterate, when in fact 55-65% of those at the highest rung of the educational ladder - University - are female.

Furthermore, the trends that are occuring in the Developed World transfer to the Developing World; not the other way around. For that reason we must look primarily at trends in the Developed, Western World when making an assessment of how things are and are likely to be in the future.

Well clearly you weren’t disadvantaged at school. Care to tell us your age and whether you were schooled in a same-sex or mixed private or public school (and please clarify for me which is which because in my country, the private schools are the posh ones and the public schools are the state funded schools).

This is of absolutely no importance to our argument about wider social trends.

oh btw, I’m not a feminist, I’m a neutral party who has three male children all attending school so this is an issue I am certainly not biased against.

Well clearly you weren’t disadvantaged at school. Care to tell us your age and whether you were schooled in a same-sex or mixed private or public school (and please clarify for me which is which because in my country, the private schools are the posh ones and the public schools are the state funded schools).

There you go “gentlemen”, straight from one of your own, women are smarter than men

Na uh. But it does help you females when you have the full weight of Government social engineering on your side, the United Nations and its various Committees on this and that, and Corporations - which know that the more educated women are, the more money they will have and spend, and the more profit they will make.

It’s not a matter of intelligence; it’s a matter of systematic preference for girls and systematic discrimination against boys.

for instance, what percentage of these female university students actually completed secondary education - high school - in a same sex school?

Not all that many, I’d say, because State mixed schools do an excellent job of moving female students from high-school to third-level.

You missed my point: mixed State schools do an excellent jobs for girls and a disgraceful job for boys.

My question regarding what percentage of females in US universities who obtained their place due to a quota rather than merit was also not answered.

I did answer that question. The US educational system is letting 1.7 million boys slip through the net without finishing high-school every year. That is a bias in itself which disrupts the idea of merit and equality between the sexes.

I also said that there is an anti-male culture on an administration at State levels and that this has an impact. I also said that curricula have been altered to suit women’s needs and that teaching methods suit women (e.g. co-operative instead of competitive, subjective instead of objective).

It seems logical that if more women than men are beating men into university places in the US, then surely that must mean that there would have to be a quota system in place for the disadvantaged gender - that being males, not females.

Yes, men are the disadvantaged gender, and the most part for reasons not their own fault (i.e. Government social engineering). And yes, pro-male quotas would be a good idea, however, your ilk (women and feminists) are completely and entirely hostile to the idea of achieving “equality in numbers” with a quota system, or indeed giving men any extra assistance on the various levels of education.

Propose that idea to NOW or the Feminist-Democrat party (though the Feminist-Republican party is no better), and see how long they will entertain it.

In the UK they are introducing “Gender Duty” to schools which aims to “gender mainstream” the education system and “raise consciousness”. It specifically says that no extra classes should be given to boys, in spite of the fact that representation at third-level is dropping all the time. How’s that for equality and dynamic accomodation?

The really crazy thing is that women are still regarded as the “disadvantaged gender”, and Universities still push for affirmative action and pro-female quotas even when they are at a natural advantage without them. There’s also a barely-disguised “payback time” among women and feminists that the male representation percentage should go lower and lower.

It’s no myth, you shouldn’t confuse the West with the rest.

It is absolutely a myth and is disingenuous. It gives the impression that on a worldwide level, going forward, women are disadvantaged in education - this is an absolute lie.

Consider what wolfe said above too:

“In sub-Saharan Africa, where UNICEF claims that 27 percent of boys and 22 percent of girls attend school, only the girls’ rate is worthy of attention”

The poor rate of education for all young people in the developing world skews the whole argument. One must remember that when saying “two-thirds of the world’s illiterate are in the developing world”.

It’s not comparing like-with-like. It presents the Third World situation as the Whole World situation, or even the Western World situation.

Furthermore, once those nations come up to speed all social indicators will change dramatically.

In about 10 or 15 years time, about just one-third of the world’s University educated will be men. I don’t see the United Nations or any other feminist organisations complaining about that or making shaming media campaigns about it.

There you go “gentlemen”, straight from one of your own, women are smarter than men

Na uh. But it does help you females when you have the full weight of Government social engineering on your side, the United Nations and its various Committees on this and that, and Corporations - which know that the more educated women are, the more money they will have and spend, and the more profit they will make.

It’s not a matter of intelligence; it’s a matter of systematic preference for girls and systematic discrimination against boys.

for instance, what percentage of these female university students actually completed secondary education - high school - in a same sex school?

Not all that many, I’d say, because State mixed schools do an excellent job of moving female students from high-school to third-level.

You missed my point: mixed State schools do an excellent jobs for girls and a disgraceful job for boys.

My question regarding what percentage of females in US universities who obtained their place due to a quota rather than merit was also not answered.

I did answer that question. The US educational system is letting 1.7 million boys slip through the net without finishing high-school every year. That is a bias in itself which disrupts the idea of merit and equality between the sexes.

I also said that there is an anti-male culture on an administration at State levels and that this has an impact. I also said that curricula have been altered to suit women’s needs and that teaching methods suit women (e.g. co-operative instead of competitive, subjective instead of objective).

It seems logical that if more women than men are beating men into university places in the US, then surely that must mean that there would have to be a quota system in place for the disadvantaged gender - that being males, not females.

Yes, men are the disadvantaged gender, and the most part for reasons not their own fault (i.e. Government social engineering). And yes, pro-male quotas would be a good idea, however, your ilk (women and feminists) are completely and entirely hostile to the idea of achieving “equality in numbers” with a quota system, or indeed giving men any extra assistance on the various levels of education.

Propose that idea to NOW or the Feminist-Democrat party (though the Feminist-Republican party is no better), and see how long they will entertain it.

In the UK they are introducing “Gender Duty” to schools which aims to “gender mainstream” the education system and “raise consciousness”. It specifically says that no extra classes should be given to boys, in spite of the fact that representation at third-level is dropping all the time. How’s that for equality and dynamic accomodation?

The really crazy thing is that women are still regarded as the “disadvantaged gender”, and Universities still push for affirmative action and pro-female quotas even when they are at a natural advantage without them. There’s also a barely-disguised “payback time” among women and feminists that the male representation percentage should go lower and lower.

It’s no myth, you shouldn’t confuse the West with the rest.

It is absolutely a myth and is disingenuous. It gives the impression that on a worldwide level, going forward, women are disadvantaged in education - this is an absolute lie.

Consider what wolfe said above too:

“In sub-Saharan Africa, where UNICEF claims that 27 percent of boys and 22 percent of girls attend school, only the girls’ rate is worthy of attention”

The poor rate of education for all young people in the developing world skews the whole argument. One must remember that when saying “two-thirds of the world’s illiterate are in the developing world”.

It’s not comparing like-with-like. It presents the Third World situation as the Whole World situation, or even the Western World situation.

Furthermore, once those nations come up to speed all social indicators will change dramatically.

In about 10 or 15 years time, about just one-third of the world’s University educated will be men. I don’t see the United Nations or any other feminist organisations complaining about that or making shaming media campaigns about it.

After all, the central argument of this article is a (disingenuous) statistic: that two-thirds of women are illiterate.

What about women outside the West? Considering you are the Statman, where is the stat that factors in third world women? Would that make up the 2/3 you think?

I love men. Some of my favourite people are male.

But lets look at the facts and men shall we? Men, despite their lack of education, continue to dominate the workforce. Here in my country, the median income of a man is still say 1.5 times that of a female?

What are you talking about? Now you’re just spouting extremely flawed feminist “wage gap” figures. The reality is there are double the number of men unemployed.

so, women have the better education…(*cough affirmative action *cough and if your stats are in the US, well, i can only say that some males prolly have a calling and went to serve in the army for one war or another

Read my post again in full. I referring statistics also from England and Scotland where there are similar gender gaps (i.e. more than 5% difference in incoming/outgoing student numbers) at third-level. It is a worldwide phenomenon in the West.

I don’t see why you are being so confrontational. I am bolstering an argument with facts and statistics.

There’s a difference between being anti-male, which Female would tend to be, and stating anti-male trends. You can hardly hope to talk legitimately about education if you don’t know the relevant, basic statistics, can you?

After all, the central argument of this article is a (disingenuous) statistic: that two-thirds of women are illiterate.

despite all the feminist propaganda, it is widely recognised that men make better bosses than women.

More than likely true. But if they don’t have the University degrees they are never going to get into those jobs in the first place.

as for the glass ceiling concept, i say you feminist bitches constructed it yourself to further your own agendas.

what do YOU as a woman want in life?

I already stated I am a man and an MRA.

And yet men still outclass girls in every great accomplishment.

It has been that way up until now, yes. But common sense would suggest that if men are becoming less educated and setting themselves up to be unskilled workers or unemployed, men in the future will have less of a share of “great accomplishments”.

Basically, female, on one side, anonymous here is arguing that:
Girls are a superior race.

No I never said that females are a “superior race”, and I believe a large extent of their sucess in secondary and tertiary education is due to a bias in our education system. This is caused by various Government policies on education, and the United Nation’s stance on education. I am likely to disagree with Female on many levels regarding this, but yes, both of us accept that the statistics are correct and millions more women are being educated. She’s basically saying there’s no bias; I’m saying there is.

You make up numbers with no sources cited and you demand I do? Sorry, doesn’t work. And don’t start citing some feminist clap-trap that’s supposed to pass for objective research.

I make up numbers? Hahaha! Are you that lazy that you cannot peruse the links I conveniently provided? Last time I checked, the US National Center for Education Statistics is not a “feminist clap-trap”. Statistics from the United Nations, NOW, AAUW: they are feminist clap-trap sources which I would not quote.

Quantify what I’m saying!?

You said women make less money with a degree than a man with an identical degree. You said that women with degrees are more likely to be unemployed. You provided no proof or statistics to back this up.

More men unemployed? I doubt it.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in May 2007, for people 16 and over, there were 3.6 million men unemployed, compared to 2.8 million women unemployed.

That does not count the 2 million men in American prisons; more than 1% of the total male population. All of those men are unemployed too - some are in for drug offences, some are in for not paying child support, some are in for false allegations and restraining order “violations”.

That brings the male unemployment rate to 5.6 million or 6.8%, which is actually twice the number of women unemployed - 2.8 million.

Are SAHMs counted among your unemployed women? I doubt it.

Probably not and even if they are, it doesn’t matter. They have a viable source of income - e.g. savings, husband’s wage. Similarly, a someone may be able to live their life on their inheritance - they are not “employed” as such but they can maintain their standard of living without a wage coming in. Same thing.

More men at the head of companies. Believe so.

For now. In 50 years’ time? I wouldn’t be so sure.

Why all of this? Because they are inferior and their lobby groups (inter alia) have bitched and moaned for years for all kinds of entitlements, under the banner of “equality,” and created all kinds of myths to justify what is nothing more than a power grab through bogus means.

I agree. You speak alot of truth Chris.

Anonymous said:
It has everything to do with social engineering, Female. What I meant in that post was that I first want Doubt (and everyone else) to absorb the realities of education - in numbers - in the West for boys vis a vis girls today, rather than perpetuating the lie that “two-thirds of the world’s illiterate are female”.

It’s no myth, you shouldn’t confuse the West with the rest.

What are you talking about Risk, anonymous did all that hard work for you and you men don’t even thank him. How ungrateful.

While there may be more women in all programs of study (science, mathematics, engineering, medicine, law, psychology, humanities) not all of them gained a place due to teaching practices which discriminate against boys in secondary education (for instance, what percentage of these female university students actually completed secondary education - high school - in a same sex school?)

My question regarding what percentage of females in US universities who obtained their place due to a quota rather than merit was also not answered.

It seems logical that if more women than men are beating men into university places in the US, then surely that must mean that there would have to be a quota system in place for the disadvantaged gender - that being males, not females.

Very appropiate song, sonyad.

Female showing the attention span of a 3 year old as usual.

Female said:

There you go “gentlemen”, straight from one of your own, women are smarter than men.

Cheers anonymous.

Hardly. It just goes to show you can be thick as a plank and still make it to ‘higher learning’ if you’ve a twat.

- Basement Jaxx - Romeo

Female said:

It’s a degree they give to men who complete their indoctrination training on mabtw and who thereafter swear an oath to foresake all women for Dick worship instead.

Really?! I gotta to gets me one of those!

- Basement Jaxx - Where is your head at

Anonymous said:

Women make up about 60-70% of medicine students and still make up about 70-80% of humanities students.

There you go “gentlemen”, straight from one of your own, women are smarter than men.

Cheers anonymous.

For example, these kind of comments which blatantly deny reality:

“Wow Anonymous is wrong.”

“We gruaduate college much more than woman”

“Cough, bullshit, cough”

Raw statistics are not wrong, baby. 2 million more female University students on paper is 2 million more females than men in University.
1.7 million more females doing SATs on paper is 1.7 million more girls than boys graducating high-school.
The exact reasons can be set aside momentarily but those facts must be accepted and not disregarded as “wrong” or “bullshit”.

I am glad you said that it isn’t about social engineering but I would be interested to know exactly how many of the numbers you have quoted of women enrolling in university were offered a university place based on merit as opposed to affirmative action or quotas. Surely this elusive statistic would settle whether the majority of women are being given handouts or whether they are gaining entry based on superior intelligence.

It is about social engineering. The gender gap at third-level comes about because of what happens at second-level, i.e. 1.7 million more female students completing their SATs. That’s 1.7 million boys who drop of out education before finishing high-school - this is an absolute disgrace for the US Government. As I said above, in Scotland nowhere near that number of boys drop out; in fact the number of boys exceeds the number of girls.

Curricula, administration procedures and personnel, teaching methods and discipline have all been adapted to be “girl-friendly” and “boy-hostile”. This is social engineering. Male students - fair, average or excellent - are given zero assistance, while female students are given maximum assistance.

Furthermore, single-sex schooling is the only option that makes sense if you want both sexes to do well. Both sexes take a hit in a mixed settting but it is by far boys that lose the most. The chances of a male child receiving an “F” goes up a multiple of times when you send him to a mixed school. This is why feminists have said that single-sex schools are “equivocal”: boys are a fiercer competititon in such a setting. They know a very large gender gap will form between girls and boys in a mixed setting - with girls coming out on top. The feminist US Government takes absolutely no account of the huge disadvantage that mixed schooling puts boys at, and rather plays along with feminists who know that mixed schooling will hurt boys’ chances in life.

It has everything to do with social engineering, Female. What I meant in that post was that I first want Doubt (and everyone else) to absorb the realities of education - in numbers - in the West for boys vis a vis girls today, rather than perpetuating the lie that “two-thirds of the world’s illiterate are female”.

I did not want Doubt to launch into an argument based on “Governmental bias” before he had duly acknowledged the numbers which define US education - 3.7 million more women educated than men every year.

Once he had accepted the reality in numbers, and didn’t stand denying and saying it wasn’t so, then we could articlulate how this gap came about and what hand the feminist US Government (and the UN) had to play in it.

Some may say that even if more women than men are entering university, 80% of medical students are men, while 80% of students in humanities are women, thus, trying to prove some kind of superior vs inferior point.

This is very wrong. Women are a clear majority in all University courses, with the exception only of Computer Science which is going down the drain as a career anyway.

Women make up about 60-70% of medicine students and still make up about 70-80% of humanities students.

Again, the numbers will make it this way. When you have 2 million more female students than men enrolling University every year, they get distributed among both generic and prestige courses, raising their representation hugely in all.

So you are wrong Female. More women than men are entering University, 60-70% of medical students are women and 70-80% of students in humanities are women. A clear majority in every sugject area, in many cases moving close to a 2:1 ratio. Those percentages, extrapolated over a short number of years, leave a glut of female graduates and a minority of male graduates; which will profoundly change the employment market and wealth distribution by gender.

I’m fairly sure that I have and will continue to achieve far more than you. As for yourself, I’d say that coming onto a website to moan and complain about life and the other sex (rather than facing life, dealing with problems and seeking professional help if necessary) is a fairly good indication that even achieving normality would be a big ask for most of you “gentlemen”.