Yes, Patriarchy Is Dead; the Feminists Prove It

[thucythucy]

37. Do you actually read the pages to which you link?

Looking at the link you posted for college rates for men and women--an issue on which you seem quite incensed--my earlier question to you--to which you never directly responded--is answered as I pretty much expected it would be. Which is to say: the percentage of men enrolled in college today is roughly the same as it was in the mid-sixties, when, you may recall, there were many men in college primarily to escape the draft. There was a dip in the male enrollment rate in the mid-80s, but it has been rising more or less steadily since and now is at about the same as it was in the mid-sixties. Meanwhile, the rate for women has risen from where it was--far lower than men in the sixties, to where it is now higher than the percentage of males enrolled. In other words, unless you see this as zero sum, in which any gain for women is by definition a loss for men (which you evidently do), men have not fallen back significantly, but women have gained, and substantially.

Though there is some concern about men, so much so that "some colleges are now actively enrolling male students in order to bring men's enrollment rates in line with those of women." In other words, affirmative action for men, which is fine if needed (and which I doubt will garner the same opposition from feminists that Title IX did from various men's groups). And, of course, the demographics are not equal across the board. The gender gap, as I read it, is worse among African Americans--where women do better--than among whites, while the gender gap for Asians still favors men.

Finally, I hope you notice the part of the study you linked to headed: "Women lead in college but not in the workforce." You know, where people expect to earn money for their labor, as opposed to paying into an education system (and often taking on ruinous debt to do so) for the privilege of being educated?

If by "creating a progressive men's group to address a variety of issues" you mean this DU group, you really still aren't getting the point. I'm talking about activism in the real world. And if by "a variety of issues" you mean "Which hot celebrity would you want to date?"--which last time I checked drew by far the preponderance of replies--I can see why you'd come in for some flack. From what I've seen, the Men's Group here is in large part complaints about how unfair it is that women have organized a movement and thus made gains. Aside from the occasional OP about how to screw your ex-wife out of her share of a divorce settlement.

Sorry, Jeff, but mostly what I see coming from you is along the lines of "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel." As when, for instance, you focus on one or three feminists who, in the first days of World War I, were so "hypocritical" as to send white feathers to men reluctant to enlist, while evidently giving a pass to the (male) shakers and movers who incited the war in the first place and then ordered millions of men to their deaths. To my mind, the one outrage pales to insignificance relative to the other. Do you not agree?

Out in the real world men, and women, and children, are suffering. Girls get shot in the head for advocating for girl's education, to cite one example of courageous activism that comes immediately to mind. Starvation, genocide, rape and sexual abuse, militarism and war--all issues that need people to work to end. Since you seemed at one point to be concerned about male rape, I thought maybe you'd be amenable to working on that issue in particular in a way that didn't just cast blame on women. But I guess I was wrong.

Like I said, we go round and round. I don't know that there's much point to continuing this here.

I might try, after the holidays, to post an OP here on male rape, since this is an issue that obviously concerns men, and which a "Men's Group" on DU might I hope find of interest.

In the meantime, best wishes.