"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro. "I remember thinking, 'Why?"' The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air toward a stick-figure boy's head.
[]

Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that
boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in
male/female relationships in this society. I can see how it would be of
interest to Andre since it proves him right. Unfortunately, around this
group, associating Andre's name with an issue is a good way to get people to
dismiss it.

Jayne

Lack of respect...you're so right on, Doug!
~Kimberlee

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:03:02 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro. "I remember thinking, 'Why?"' The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air toward a stick-figure boy's head. [] Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in male/female relationships in this society. I can see how it would be of interest to Andre since it proves him right. Unfortunately, around this group, associating Andre's name with an issue is a good way to get people to dismiss it.

Absolutely. Andre is a troll. And what does this have to do with
supporting marriage?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:03:02 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net...>> Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far> By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER>> "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long> time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro.> "I remember thinking, 'Why?"'>> The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air> toward a stick-figure boy's head. [] Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in male/female relationships in this society. I can see how it would be of interest to Andre since it proves him right. Unfortunately, around this group, associating Andre's name with an issue is a good way to get people to dismiss it. Absolutely. Andre is a troll. And what does this have to do with supporting marriage? -Tony

Well, in case you've haven't heard, Andre is supporting the men's movement, to
improve the state of marriage, for all. (You must have missed that). Were
you out to lunch that day, Tony, or what? :-)

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:18:28 GMT, Bill in Co.
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:03:02 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net...>>>> Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far>> By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER>>>> "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long>> time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro.>> "I remember thinking, 'Why?"'>>>> The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air>> toward a stick-figure boy's head. [] Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in male/female relationships in this society. I can see how it would be of interest to Andre since it proves him right. Unfortunately, around this group, associating Andre's name with an issue is a good way to get people to dismiss it. Absolutely. Andre is a troll. And what does this have to do with supporting marriage? -Tony Well, in case you've haven't heard, Andre is supporting the men's movement, to improve the state of marriage, for all. (You must have missed that). Were you out to lunch that day, Tony, or what? :-)

So when do we start burning our jockstraps? :)

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend that youyourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group is calledsoc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful.Jayne

Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Rauni wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend that you yourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group is called soc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful. Jayne Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Nope. Andre is special - an "Untouchable", according to Jayne.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:18:47 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend that you yourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group is called soc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful. Jayne Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him.Nope. Andre is special - an "Untouchable", according to Jayne.
Now Now Jayne gives excuses to all men who are rude and bullies.

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:6g0f00t688ab1370blik9o4k4hb7lcqh26@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:18:47 GMT, "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:> If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend that
you> yourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group is
called> soc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful.>> Jayne Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him.Nope. Andre is special - an "Untouchable", according to Jayne. Now Now Jayne gives excuses to all men who are rude and bullies.

Andre and some other soc.men participants use a style that is highly
confrontational. I have never denied that. I believe that the content of
their messages should be seriously considered in spite of this style. I do
not see that this position constitutes giving excuses to them.

It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect and
politeness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristics
than people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaints about
the rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistently
polite themselves.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:6g0f00t688ab1370blik9o4k4hb7lcqh26@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:18:47 GMT, "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote:> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>> If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend that you>> yourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group is called>> soc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful.>>>> Jayne>> Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him.Nope. Andre is special - an "Untouchable", according to Jayne. Now Now Jayne gives excuses to all men who are rude and bullies. Andre and some other soc.men participants use a style that is highly confrontational. I have never denied that. I believe that the content of their messages should be seriously considered in spite of this style.

Actually, if I consider the content then that diminishes any respect I
might have had for them still further.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:6g0f00t688ab1370blik9o4k4hb7lcqh26@4ax .com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:18:47 GMT, "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote:> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>> If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend thatyou>> yourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group iscalled>> soc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful.>>>> Jayne>> Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him.Nope. Andre is special - an "Untouchable", according to Jayne. Now Now Jayne gives excuses to all men who are rude and bullies.Andre and some other soc.men participants use a style that is highlyconfrontational. I have never denied that. I believe that the content oftheir messages should be seriously considered in spite of this style. I donot see that this position constitutes giving excuses to them.It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect andpoliteness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristicsthan people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaints aboutthe rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistentlypolite themselves.Jayne

I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice
to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they
have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he
started the name calling.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:51:09 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:6g0f00t688ab1370blik9o4k4hb7lcqh26@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:18:47 GMT, "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote: >Rauni wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" >> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: >> >>> If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend that you >>> yourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group is called >>> soc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful. >>> >>> Jayne >> >> Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him. > >Nope. Andre is special - an "Untouchable", according to Jayne. > Now Now Jayne gives excuses to all men who are rude and bullies. Andre and some other soc.men participants use a style that is highly confrontational. I have never denied that. I believe that the content of their messages should be seriously considered in spite of this style.Actually, if I consider the content then that diminishes any respect Imight have had for them still further.

No kidding. They don'y seem to care how poorly the statistics are done
or who is a liar. If it supports their cause it is viewed with an
uncritical eye.

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9g2g00de5kkha0lliok6hkn9s3j5prbuav@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

[]It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect andpoliteness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristicsthan people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaints
aboutthe rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistentlypolite themselves.Jayne I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he started the name calling.

Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too.

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NLTNb.67509$Rc4.226826@attbi_s54... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:

[] Andre and some other soc.men participants use a style that is highly confrontational. I have never denied that. I believe that the content
of their messages should be seriously considered in spite of this style. Actually, if I consider the content then that diminishes any respect I might have had for them still further.

I appreciate your comments on the content of the messages. You are
well-read and logical and I almost always find your analyses worth reading.
I suppose that is part of why I have such a sense of disappointment when you
do something like name-calling. When even the most thoughtful and
intelligent posters start behaving this way, there doesn't seem much point
to reading Usenet any more.

Jayne

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:14:31 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:9g2g00de5kkha0lliok6hkn9s3j5prbuav@4ax .com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:[]It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect andpoliteness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristicsthan people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaintsaboutthe rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistentlypolite themselves.Jayne I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he started the name calling.Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too.

Oh I see it's ok to be verbally abusive because someone doesn't agree
with you?

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:22:25 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:NLTNb.67509$Rc4.226826@attbi_s54... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:[] Andre and some other soc.men participants use a style that is highly confrontational. I have never denied that. I believe that the contentof their messages should be seriously considered in spite of this style. Actually, if I consider the content then that diminishes any respect I might have had for them still further.I appreciate your comments on the content of the messages. You arewell-read and logical and I almost always find your analyses worth reading.I suppose that is part of why I have such a sense of disappointment when youdo something like name-calling. When even the most thoughtful andintelligent posters start behaving this way, there doesn't seem much pointto reading Usenet any more.Jayne

Why is it name calling to point out the obvious flaws in the content
of most of the soc.men regulars?

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:bu94lm$sd6$1@news.eusc.inter.net... Doug this is not a new trend........there have been numerous articles written about how boys are being discriminated against especially in the lower grades. Thats why they are being drugged to slow them down. You
( If you are a sir) (and I do have my doubts ) are another one who
conveniently ignores and tries to hide the facts and then when confronted with the
facts becomes a spin doctor. Beware, assholes, like you, (notice the non
gender specific?) will have their day. You want to know why people like Andre
get so frustrated trying to bring the truth to people? LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

This is a perfect example of what not to do if you want to get your
message across. As soon as you start the profanity, you lose your
audience and as a result very few people will ever hear what you're trying
to say. If people start seeing you as someone who can't keep calm and
state their message, they label you as someone who isn't worthy of being
listened to. Is this the result you are wanting?

There have been quite a few mainstream articles I've seen about these same
issues. I know and understand that it is a problem how young boys are
treated and I am appalled by it. But that said, I still won't read
anything Andre posts because of how he talks to people.

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:6g0f00t688ab1370blik9o4k4hb7lcqh26@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:18:47 GMT, "Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

And what you have just written isn't condescending and rude?
Oh I see, you can be rude but no-one else eh? Hypocrite. If I'm rude to
someone I'll admit it.


Now Now Jayne gives excuses to all men who are rude and bullies.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:NLTNb.67509$Rc4.226826@attbi_s54... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: [] Andre and some other soc.men participants use a style that is highly confrontational. I have never denied that. I believe that the content of their messages should be seriously considered in spite of this style. Actually, if I consider the content then that diminishes any respect I might have had for them still further. I appreciate your comments on the content of the messages. You are well-read and logical and I almost always find your analyses worth reading. I suppose that is part of why I have such a sense of disappointment when you do something like name-calling. When even the most thoughtful and intelligent posters start behaving this way, there doesn't seem much point to reading Usenet any more.

Well, thanks for the compliment.

But you may notice that the posters on that forum (and yes, as a man,
it bothers me to call it by its name) neither appreciated nor responded
in kind to what I had to say when the cross-posting was flying thick
and fast.

Now I can't say that this surprises me, or that I even care very much,
but it certainly affects my attitude toward that group. It also seems
like my remark is awfully mild to be considered "name-calling," but so
be it.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:9g2g00de5kkha0lliok6hkn9s3j5prbuav@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: []It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect andpoliteness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristicsthan people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaints aboutthe rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistentlypolite themselves.Jayne I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he started the name calling. Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too.

No doubt he does. And I'm sure he feels that _all_ the feelings he
has are justified. (Most of us do.)

I've had very limited contact with him - really limited to the
cross-posting that came into ASM. So if you care about whether Andre
actually _is_ justified (and there is no reason you should care about
that, I suppose) as opposed to whether he merely _feels_ justified,
you could read our exchanges and note who begins the rudeness and
snarkiness.

(In contrast to Rauni where that stuff is buried in pre-history at
this point I imagine.)

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way.

By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme.
Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our
school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jn7jzrlowe.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qld69mw2kr.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: > "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message > news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... > > > I see.we have a huge culture (feminists) bashing males going so far as
some of the extremists do as to promote genocide but as far as I know we
don't have a similar propaganda machine comprised of males promoting equally insane measures and it's silly? We do have however groups of men who are basically in a defensive mode crying out to an incredibly brainwashed general population saying BEWARE. And NO DOUG it is not as prevalent, the feminists and female rights groups Yes, the all powerful feminist conspiracy. They control _everything_, no? Have you forgotten about the jewish conspiracy? Don't you know that the jews are _really_ pulling all the strings? In fact, the reason that the jews bombed the world trade towers is that the good guys(tm) discovered that Rockefeller's brain was in the basement of that building controlling the world's financial markets. The jews moved his brain back to Rockefeller Center, and then destroyed the twin towers so that all traces would be gone. ensure that anything offensive against women rarely sees the light of
day in mainsteam media and they are an incredibly powerful lobby. SHOW ME AN EQUALLY POWERFUL MENS RIGHTS LOBBY GROUP, I DARE YOU TO NAME
ONE!!!!!!!!!!! It is only in forums like the internet and such where they cannot
control free speech that they are powerless. But they do have idiots like you
who try to confound and mislead.

You have now just proven my point. Ignore feminists with a Jewish
conspiracy ( male and female bashing was the topic) so now we spin doctor,
flip it to something else, Completely ignore the caps portion and what it
asks for and implies by bringing forth something about a brain and hope that
you can go on your merry way.
You ignore the genocide promotion, you ignore the female to male violence
and say no "men are just as bad'. REALLY?
You further state Andre is the cause of his lack of credibility. AT LEAST he
can provide statistics and proof. You on the other hand are a DJ. Spin
Doctor.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f7isjblpfc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:

[] Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too. No doubt he does. And I'm sure he feels that _all_ the feelings he has are justified. (Most of us do.) I've had very limited contact with him - really limited to the cross-posting that came into ASM. So if you care about whether Andre actually _is_ justified (and there is no reason you should care about that, I suppose) as opposed to whether he merely _feels_ justified, you could read our exchanges and note who begins the rudeness and snarkiness.

I don't want to judge you or Rauni or Andre. However, in so far as this
question applies to myself, I cannot recall ever being in a situation in
which I felt justified in being rude. The values by which I try to live do
not leave room for being rude to people because they have been rude first.

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:troet3lpkl.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu...

[] It also seems like my remark is awfully mild to be considered "name-calling," but so be it.

Well, I'm considering the source. I suppose I have higher expectations for
you. <g>

Jayne

"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:bu9bqp$fedi7$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college.

The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something
is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the
school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more
effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to
listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't
want to lose any source of information.

Jayne

"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes:
"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college.

Well, not so fast. There are a bunch of things to look at.

First the real numbers: in 2001 (the most recent year I could easily
find good data on), about 60% of men who completed high school went to
college, and about 64% of women. (And the number of men and women
completing high school was very similar for those worried about that.)

(These numbers are from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt184.asp , which is a
US gov't web site, so maybe given the international feminist
conspiracy you might want to take them with a grain of salt.

Notice too, that these conspiracies are getting more clever. The moon
landings were faked in Death Valley, but for the Mars Rover, those
feminists have cleverly chosen central Australis to stage the fake
photos. Did anyone else see that wallabee hopping through the desert
which had been airbrushed out of one of those photos?)

So although slightly more women than men go to college, the difference
is small, not extreme.


Second one should think about the jobs that men and women have. In
spite of the feminist conspiracy, jobs in the trades and in
construction, which often require training, but often _don't_ require
college, are almost exclusively held by men. These jobs can be
relatively well paid. By contrast, there are few jobs "for women"
(by which I mean jobs that women get in significant numbers) that both
don't require a college education, and pay decently.

So, if you want an explanation for this 4%, I propose that this one
would suffice.


Third, why on earth are so many people in college at _all_? You've
got to wonder about an educational system where almost two thirds have
to go on for _more_ education. What are they learning K-12 besides
how to do what they're told (which fortunately they don't learn very
well) how to read, and some really basic arithmetic which 90% of them
don't actually understand?

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jn7jzrlowe.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qld69mw2kr.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: > > > "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message > > news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... > > > > I see.we have a huge culture (feminists) bashing males going so far as some of the extremists do as to promote genocide but as far as I know we don't have a similar propaganda machine comprised of males promoting equally insane measures and it's silly? We do have however groups of men who are basically in a defensive mode crying out to an incredibly brainwashed general population saying BEWARE. And NO DOUG it is not as prevalent, the feminists and female rights groups Yes, the all powerful feminist conspiracy. They control _everything_, no? Have you forgotten about the jewish conspiracy? Don't you know that the jews are _really_ pulling all the strings? In fact, the reason that the jews bombed the world trade towers is that the good guys(tm) discovered that Rockefeller's brain was in the basement of that building controlling the world's financial markets. The jews moved his brain back to Rockefeller Center, and then destroyed the twin towers so that all traces would be gone. ensure that anything offensive against women rarely sees the light of day in mainsteam media and they are an incredibly powerful lobby. SHOW ME AN EQUALLY POWERFUL MENS RIGHTS LOBBY GROUP, I DARE YOU TO NAME ONE!!!!!!!!!!! It is only in forums like the internet and such where they cannot control free speech that they are powerless. But they do have idiots like you who try to confound and mislead. You have now just proven my point. Ignore feminists with a Jewish conspiracy ( male and female bashing was the topic) so now we spin doctor, flip it to something else, Completely ignore the caps portion

I gave you too much credit. We don't _need_ a men's right's lobby
anymore than we need a "Bush family right's lobby." Men have not
systematically had their rights denied in the US. Women have.

I assumed that you knew this and you were just trying to score a
rhetorical point. That was why I ignored your shouting before.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f7isjblpfc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: [] Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too. No doubt he does. And I'm sure he feels that _all_ the feelings he has are justified. (Most of us do.) I've had very limited contact with him - really limited to the cross-posting that came into ASM. So if you care about whether Andre actually _is_ justified (and there is no reason you should care about that, I suppose) as opposed to whether he merely _feels_ justified, you could read our exchanges and note who begins the rudeness and snarkiness. I don't want to judge you or Rauni or Andre. However, in so far as this question applies to myself, I cannot recall ever being in a situation in which I felt justified in being rude.

Excellent. Then why did you need to mention that Andre feels his
rudeness is justified?

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message news:bu9bqp$fedi7$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making.

In which case you need to check the data they are presenting. And you
need to check other sources.

As with Chrys, I'm not sure what she actually means, but she seems
to be suggesting that about 2/3 of college students are women, and
about 1/3 are men. That is very far from the truth, which is that it
is quite close to 50-50. (See me response to her.)

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hh1xpzlnaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with
our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. Well, not so fast. There are a bunch of things to look at. First the real numbers: in 2001 (the most recent year I could easily find good data on), about 60% of men who completed high school went to college, and about 64% of women. (And the number of men and women completing high school was very similar for those worried about that.)

Is this only looking at students who went straight into college? I'm in
college myself. At four different colleges I've attended, the gender
ratios were all around 2/3 women. Some of that is of course older women,
and much of that includes nontraditional students who didn't enter college
immediately after high school.
Second one should think about the jobs that men and women have. In spite of the feminist conspiracy, jobs in the trades and in construction, which often require training, but often _don't_ require college, are almost exclusively held by men. These jobs can be relatively well paid. By contrast, there are few jobs "for women" (by which I mean jobs that women get in significant numbers) that both don't require a college education, and pay decently. So, if you want an explanation for this 4%, I propose that this one would suffice.

Like I say, the 4% doesn't match what I've seen and it also doesn't match
the statistics many colleges are posting about their own student
demographics. But yes what you say does make sense. There are many more
jobs that men traditionally do that pay well while not requiring college
to get.
Third, why on earth are so many people in college at _all_? You've got to wonder about an educational system where almost two thirds have to go on for _more_ education. What are they learning K-12 besides how to do what they're told (which fortunately they don't learn very well) how to read, and some really basic arithmetic which 90% of them don't actually understand?

I have no clue. Most of what I remember from K-12 was rediculous.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:06:14 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message news:bu9bqp$fedi7$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information.

No, I don't have to get past anything. Twits reside in my twit filter,
regardless of how self important they are.

Andre makes me embarassed to be a man.

-Tony

PS: If you want to wallow in these guys' 'wisdom' why don't you subscribe
to soc.men?

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On 16 Jan 2004 11:13:24 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college.Well, not so fast. There are a bunch of things to look at.First the real numbers: in 2001 (the most recent year I could easilyfind good data on), about 60% of men who completed high school went tocollege, and about 64% of women. (And the number of men and womencompleting high school was very similar for those worried about that.) (These numbers are from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt184.asp , which is a US gov't web site, so maybe given the international feminist conspiracy you might want to take them with a grain of salt. Notice too, that these conspiracies are getting more clever. The moon landings were faked in Death Valley, but for the Mars Rover, those feminists have cleverly chosen central Australis to stage the fake photos. Did anyone else see that wallabee hopping through the desert which had been airbrushed out of one of those photos?)So although slightly more women than men go to college, the differenceis small, not extreme.

And I wonder is it that men *never* go college or are they just
postponing? I would like to know the difference in college educations
say ten years later.Why would you want to...that list is *way* to longSecond one should think about the jobs that men and women have. Inspite of the feminist conspiracy, jobs in the trades and inconstruction, which often require training, but often _don't_ requirecollege, are almost exclusively held by men. These jobs can berelatively well paid. By contrast, there are few jobs "for women"(by which I mean jobs that women get in significant numbers) that bothdon't require a college education, and pay decently.

You know I have never seen a female mechanic or a female plumber. I am
sure they are out there but I have never seen any.So, if you want an explanation for this 4%, I propose that this onewould suffice.Third, why on earth are so many people in college at _all_? You'vegot to wonder about an educational system where almost two thirds haveto go on for _more_ education. What are they learning K-12 besideshow to do what they're told (which fortunately they don't learn verywell) how to read, and some really basic arithmetic which 90% of themdon't actually understand?

in article hh1xpzlnaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu, Doug Anderson at
ethelthelog@yahoo.com wrote on 1/16/04 12:13 PM:
"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. Well, not so fast. There are a bunch of things to look at. First the real numbers: in 2001 (the most recent year I could easily find good data on), about 60% of men who completed high school went to college, and about 64% of women. (And the number of men and women completing high school was very similar for those worried about that.) (These numbers are from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt184.asp , which is a US gov't web site, so maybe given the international feminist conspiracy you might want to take them with a grain of salt. Notice too, that these conspiracies are getting more clever. The moon landings were faked in Death Valley, but for the Mars Rover, those feminists have cleverly chosen central Australis to stage the fake photos. Did anyone else see that wallabee hopping through the desert which had been airbrushed out of one of those photos?) So although slightly more women than men go to college, the difference is small, not extreme. Second one should think about the jobs that men and women have. In spite of the feminist conspiracy, jobs in the trades and in construction, which often require training, but often _don't_ require college, are almost exclusively held by men. These jobs can be relatively well paid. By contrast, there are few jobs "for women" (by which I mean jobs that women get in significant numbers) that both don't require a college education, and pay decently.

This is very relevant - there has been a lot made of the demographics of
trades (at least here in Canada). During the period of extremely high
interest rates in the early 80s, a lot of trades dried up as a source of
jobs, which has resulted, according to a lot of trade associations, in a
"lost generation". They're campaigning hard for young workers. If someone
had dangled anything other than a minimum wage job in front of me coming out
of high school, I might have thought long and hard. Particularly, in hind
sight, when I've seen so many people change careers in their 30s.

M.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bu9cgd$f92b5$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that
something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in
the school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be
more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that
to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I
don't want to lose any source of information.

Something my husband mentioned to me lately is how many commercials you
see these days where men are shown as bumbling idiots and their wives are
wise and all-knowing. There are real issues out there, but in general
these aren't even strictly "men's issues." They are human issues. Half
the population is men and every member of the other half of the population
has some relation to men, whether being the wife, mother, daughter,
sister, etc. of a man. Since these issues affect every single person in
some way, it's better to talk about them in a mainstream way with articles
that people will read without obscenities or insulting remarks.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:40:04 GMT, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:06:14 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message news:bu9bqp$fedi7$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... > Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary > school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I > think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information.No, I don't have to get past anything. Twits reside in my twit filter,regardless of how self important they are.Andre makes me embarassed to be a man.-TonyPS: If you want to wallow in these guys' 'wisdom' why don't you subscribeto soc.men?

She is virtual Andre and Bob cheerleader over there.

"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hh1xpzlnaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... > Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary > school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I > think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. Well, not so fast. There are a bunch of things to look at. First the real numbers: in 2001 (the most recent year I could easily find good data on), about 60% of men who completed high school went to college, and about 64% of women. (And the number of men and women completing high school was very similar for those worried about that.) Is this only looking at students who went straight into college?

No. It is looking at 16-24 year olds. Specifically what percentage
of them attend college at some point, I think. You can check the
website, it is explicit about what is being measured.
I'm in college myself. At four different colleges I've attended, the gender ratios were all around 2/3 women. Some of that is of course older women, and much of that includes nontraditional students who didn't enter college immediately after high school.

Well, your sample of 4 colleges might be smaller than the sample that
the Dept. of Ed. is using.
Second one should think about the jobs that men and women have. In spite of the feminist conspiracy, jobs in the trades and in construction, which often require training, but often _don't_ require college, are almost exclusively held by men. These jobs can be relatively well paid. By contrast, there are few jobs "for women" (by which I mean jobs that women get in significant numbers) that both don't require a college education, and pay decently. So, if you want an explanation for this 4%, I propose that this one would suffice. Like I say, the 4% doesn't match what I've seen and it also doesn't match the statistics many colleges are posting about their own student demographics.

I'm sure there are many colleges that are mostly women. Since you are
a woman, it is even sensible that you might be more likely to be at
such colleges. But note that there are also many colleges that are
mostly men!

But I'm not trying to count anecdotally; I'm trying to look at
national statistics. Anecdotally, the universities I've been
associated with in some way or another (6) I think 2 out of the 3 I
was a student at had more men than women (maybe all 3 out of 3; the
3rd I just don't know statistics about). And of the other 3, one was
more men than women, and the other 2 were close to 50-50.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:53:47 -0500, John Royer
<jroyer@istar.ca> wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jn7jzrlowe.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qld69mw2kr.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: > > > "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message > > news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... > > > > I see.we have a huge culture (feminists) bashing males going so far as some of the extremists do as to promote genocide but as far as I know we don't have a similar propaganda machine comprised of males promoting equally insane measures and it's silly? We do have however groups of men who are basically in a defensive mode crying out to an incredibly brainwashed general population saying BEWARE. And NO DOUG it is not as prevalent, the feminists and female rights groups Yes, the all powerful feminist conspiracy. They control _everything_, no? Have you forgotten about the jewish conspiracy? Don't you know that the jews are _really_ pulling all the strings? In fact, the reason that the jews bombed the world trade towers is that the good guys(tm) discovered that Rockefeller's brain was in the basement of that building controlling the world's financial markets. The jews moved his brain back to Rockefeller Center, and then destroyed the twin towers so that all traces would be gone. ensure that anything offensive against women rarely sees the light of day in mainsteam media and they are an incredibly powerful lobby. SHOW ME AN EQUALLY POWERFUL MENS RIGHTS LOBBY GROUP, I DARE YOU TO NAME ONE!!!!!!!!!!! It is only in forums like the internet and such where they cannot control free speech that they are powerless. But they do have idiots like you who try to confound and mislead. You have now just proven my point. Ignore feminists with a Jewish conspiracy ( male and female bashing was the topic) so now we spin doctor, flip it to something else, Completely ignore the caps portion and what it asks for and implies by bringing forth something about a brain and hope that you can go on your merry way. You ignore the genocide promotion, you ignore the female to male violence and say no "men are just as bad'. REALLY? You further state Andre is the cause of his lack of credibility. AT LEAST he can provide statistics and proof. You on the other hand are a DJ. Spin Doctor.

Here's something that might help you John:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

in article bu9ebj$f9vs8$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de, Chrys at
notarealaddress@lycos.com wrote on 1/16/04 12:31 PM:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hh1xpzlnaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com...> Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary> school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I> think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. Well, not so fast. There are a bunch of things to look at. First the real numbers: in 2001 (the most recent year I could easily find good data on), about 60% of men who completed high school went to college, and about 64% of women. (And the number of men and women completing high school was very similar for those worried about that.) Is this only looking at students who went straight into college? I'm in college myself. At four different colleges I've attended, the gender ratios were all around 2/3 women. Some of that is of course older women, and much of that includes nontraditional students who didn't enter college immediately after high school.


Just for interest's sake, I looked up the stats of one university, located
in a pretty diverse city. They broke it down by gender, program and year in
the program.

For 2002, they listed 18,188 undergrads, 10,164 of whom were women.

With the programs, women outnumbered men 2 to 1 in "arts/liberal arts"
programs, and 3 to 1 in education (teacher training). Science and Applied
Science have slightly higher numbers of men than women, and business admin
has slightly more women than men.

It's too bad it doesn't break programs down by gender in year of program.
It'd be interesting to see what the survival rate is by gender over a four
year program.

M.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:43:58 -0800, "Chrys"
<notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in messagenews:bu9cgd$f92b5$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am thatsomething is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just inthe school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would bemore effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past thatto listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important Idon't want to lose any source of information.Something my husband mentioned to me lately is how many commercials yousee these days where men are shown as bumbling idiots and their wives arewise and all-knowing. There are real issues out there, but in generalthese aren't even strictly "men's issues." They are human issues. Halfthe population is men and every member of the other half of the populationhas some relation to men, whether being the wife, mother, daughter,sister, etc. of a man. Since these issues affect every single person insome way, it's better to talk about them in a mainstream way with articlesthat people will read without obscenities or insulting remarks.
Tell him to look at the "reality" TV shows like Joe millionaire or the
special Bridezilla (turns out at lot of what we saw was a set up or
taken out of context) In other words no one looks very good on TV.

On 16 Jan 2004 11:54:30 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hh1xpzlnaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: > "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message > news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... > > Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary > > school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I > > think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. > > By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. > Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our > school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. Well, not so fast. There are a bunch of things to look at. First the real numbers: in 2001 (the most recent year I could easily find good data on), about 60% of men who completed high school went to college, and about 64% of women. (And the number of men and women completing high school was very similar for those worried about that.) Is this only looking at students who went straight into college?No. It is looking at 16-24 year olds. Specifically what percentageof them attend college at some point, I think. You can check thewebsite, it is explicit about what is being measured. I'm in college myself. At four different colleges I've attended, the gender ratios were all around 2/3 women. Some of that is of course older women, and much of that includes nontraditional students who didn't enter college immediately after high school.Well, your sample of 4 colleges might be smaller than the sample thatthe Dept. of Ed. is using. Second one should think about the jobs that men and women have. In spite of the feminist conspiracy, jobs in the trades and in construction, which often require training, but often _don't_ require college, are almost exclusively held by men. These jobs can be relatively well paid. By contrast, there are few jobs "for women" (by which I mean jobs that women get in significant numbers) that both don't require a college education, and pay decently. So, if you want an explanation for this 4%, I propose that this one would suffice. Like I say, the 4% doesn't match what I've seen and it also doesn't match the statistics many colleges are posting about their own student demographics.I'm sure there are many colleges that are mostly women. Since you area woman, it is even sensible that you might be more likely to be atsuch colleges. But note that there are also many colleges that aremostly men!But I'm not trying to count anecdotally; I'm trying to look atnational statistics. Anecdotally, the universities I've beenassociated with in some way or another (6) I think 2 out of the 3 Iwas a student at had more men than women (maybe all 3 out of 3; the3rd I just don't know statistics about). And of the other 3, one wasmore men than women, and the other 2 were close to 50-50.

There are so many ways to look at that data. How many women just get a
two year degree (or not finish at all) compared to men who get a BA or
BS. I would like to see that Data expanded more. Right now it is
almost meaningless.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omn08nk8k6.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f7isjblpfc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: [] > Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too. No doubt he does. And I'm sure he feels that _all_ the feelings he has are justified. (Most of us do.) I've had very limited contact with him - really limited to the cross-posting that came into ASM. So if you care about whether Andre actually _is_ justified (and there is no reason you should care about that, I suppose) as opposed to whether he merely _feels_ justified, you could read our exchanges and note who begins the rudeness and snarkiness. I don't want to judge you or Rauni or Andre. However, in so far as this question applies to myself, I cannot recall ever being in a situation in which I felt justified in being rude. Excellent. Then why did you need to mention that Andre feels his rudeness is justified?

Rauni implied that her rudeness was justified since she was responding to
someone else being rude first. However, by my standards, neither Rauni's
nor Andre's rudeness (nor mine when it happens) is justified. From my
perspective, they are doing the same thing - being rude because they feel
they have a good reason for it.

Jayne

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc0gfc0.2h4.tony@home.cigardiary.com...

[] PS: If you want to wallow in these guys' 'wisdom' why don't you subscribe to soc.men?

I do. I have found much wisdom there. I have found it very helpful in
learning to be more empathetic with my husband. I have noticed that I have
a different reaction to things that used to bother me before I started
reading it. I used to feel annoyed when my husband would work late, but now
I think about how hard he works to provide for our family and feel grateful
to him instead. I try to do something to make him feel especially loved
when he works late instead of selfishly focussing on how it inconveniences
me.

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qd65fbk6tl.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hh1xpzlnaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Is this only looking at students who went straight into college? No. It is looking at 16-24 year olds. Specifically what percentage of them attend college at some point, I think. You can check the website, it is explicit about what is being measured.

What percentage attend college at some point doesn't give you the gender
ratio at colleges. Some students start and then quit, and many others
aren't in that age range to begin with.
I'm in college myself. At four different colleges I've attended, the gender ratios were all around 2/3 women. Some of that is of course older
women, and much of that includes nontraditional students who didn't enter
college immediately after high school. Well, your sample of 4 colleges might be smaller than the sample that the Dept. of Ed. is using.

Your link didn't measure the gender ratios at colleges, only the ratio of
high school students who attended at some point. The actual ratio at any
public college I've looked at is scewed.

Here's a pretty good link, it shows the gender ratios at all the schools
in the University of Wisconsin system. The ratios are around 45% men to
55% women:
http://www.uwsa.edu/opar/ssb/2002-03/html/r_b103.htm
But I'm not trying to count anecdotally; I'm trying to look at national statistics. Anecdotally, the universities I've been associated with in some way or another (6) I think 2 out of the 3 I was a student at had more men than women (maybe all 3 out of 3; the 3rd I just don't know statistics about). And of the other 3, one was more men than women, and the other 2 were close to 50-50.

Around when was that? The ratios have shifted over time.

"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qd65fbk6tl.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hh1xpzlnaj.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Is this only looking at students who went straight into college? No. It is looking at 16-24 year olds. Specifically what percentage of them attend college at some point, I think. You can check the website, it is explicit about what is being measured. What percentage attend college at some point doesn't give you the gender ratio at colleges. Some students start and then quit, and many others aren't in that age range to begin with.

Of course. Such data is complex, and it would be confounded for
example if it takes men longer to graduate then women or women longer
to graduate than men.

This data only gives the information that almost as many men attend
some college as the number of women that attend some college.
I'm in college myself. At four different colleges I've attended, the gender ratios were all around 2/3 women. Some of that is of course older women, and much of that includes nontraditional students who didn't enter college immediately after high school. Well, your sample of 4 colleges might be smaller than the sample that the Dept. of Ed. is using. Your link didn't measure the gender ratios at colleges, only the ratio of high school students who attended at some point. The actual ratio at any public college I've looked at is scewed. Here's a pretty good link, it shows the gender ratios at all the schools in the University of Wisconsin system. The ratios are around 45% men to 55% women: http://www.uwsa.edu/opar/ssb/2002-03/html/r_b103.htm

Notice that this is public only, and that it is far from the 2/3 - 1/3
ratio. What happens if they throw in private colleges? (Probably not
much in Wisconsin, but a lot more on the east coast.)
But I'm not trying to count anecdotally; I'm trying to look at national statistics. Anecdotally, the universities I've been associated with in some way or another (6) I think 2 out of the 3 I was a student at had more men than women (maybe all 3 out of 3; the 3rd I just don't know statistics about). And of the other 3, one was more men than women, and the other 2 were close to 50-50. Around when was that? The ratios have shifted over time.

It doesn't matter. My point is that neither of our anecdotal
experiences are meaningful.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qd65fbk6tl.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> writes:
I'm sure there are many colleges that are mostly women. Since you are a woman, it is even sensible that you might be more likely to be at such colleges. But note that there are also many colleges that are mostly men! But I'm not trying to count anecdotally; I'm trying to look at national statistics. Anecdotally, the universities I've been associated with in some way or another (6) I think 2 out of the 3 I was a student at had more men than women (maybe all 3 out of 3; the 3rd I just don't know statistics about). And of the other 3, one was more men than women, and the other 2 were close to 50-50.

I found this and thought it was interesting:

http://www.studentsreview.com/compare.php3

Follow the links for each category, Ivy League, Big 10, and Technology
schools. Looks like the Ivy Leagues and Big 10 are pretty close to
50-50. Technology schools are quite another matter, and still heavily
weighted toward the male gender.

jen

"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:bu9bqp$fedi7$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college.

I would not assume that it is a problem with the school system. People
generally go to college because they hope the degree will be an advantage to
them. Maybe boys feel they have a greater chance to earn a living without a
degree. Perhaps there is also a timing issue - maybe it is more common for
boys to prefer to earn an income starting right after high school - to make
a car payment or something of the sort - so they prefer to get a job right
away instead of deferring gratification in favor of more school. I dunno -
really just speculating - I just haven't seen any data on the motivations of
people who do and don't go on to college.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system).

There is nothing particularly wrong with attitude to men and
boys. In every society there are problems for any group of
people. Depending on where your focus is, you'll find and
magnify those problems. Those who see women as victims
find all the proofs they need in places that they look, and
people like you seek and find things to support what they
already believe.

I am not saying that men have no problems, they do (as
do women). Problems are facts of life. The thing is that
some people have very simple minds and want simple answers
to every complex issues of society. There are extreme
feminists who consider men the source of all evil in the
world, and there is soc.men which views women as the
source of every problem that anybody ever has!

Both men and women face injustices in different places.
The only place that there seems to be a general
injustice to men is in the case of custody and child support.
And I think that as women become more economically
viable, the mentality that they have to be protected after divorce
will change. Yes, maybe it is not changing fast enough, but
already there is a lot more awareness that custody, child support
and alimony should be gender neutral issues.

Boys have some problems in school, and girls have
different kinds of problem. According to one article
that you once posted, these problems are acknowledged
and there are already efforts to remedy them - and guess
what! Many of the people who are trying to come up with
ways to help the boys in school happen to be female
teachers and administrators! Quite a shock, isn't it?

There is no "feminist conspiracy" to hold boys back
in schools, but when someone like you, with a biased mindset,
read an article which simply explains some problems that
boys have and what is being done to help them, they
conclude that feminism is ruining our society, there is
a general bad attitude towards men and boys, and that
is what is destroying our boys. As if boys and men are
the only creatures who ever had problems - life has always
been peaches and cream for girls and women!!
I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style,

Not at all! They would be effective if their arguments had
any merit and wasn't based on pure prejudice and
tunnel vision. There are people with a very confrontational
style who are extremely effective, because they present
valid arguments. Your soc.men buddies wouldn't be
effective even if they had the most soothing style!
but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making.

That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is
that all the problems of the world are the fault of women
and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little
minds allows in!
With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information.

Good luck in getting informed from that source!!

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com...

[] That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is that all the problems of the world are the fault of women and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little minds allows in!
[]

In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of
opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is that all the problems of the world are the fault of women and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above.

What you say _must_ be true, but when I've ventured over there (which I
admit has been rare) the main activity has been "debating" the (not
very interesting) point of view Ellie describes. And the "debate" has
been more heat than light.

Something that interests me about _you_ Jayne, is that you've said
that at one point in the past you were captured by a radical feminist
stance that all the problems of society were caused by oppression by
men. (Or at least that all or most men were evil.)

Now you seem sympathetic to the idea that oppression of men, or
prejudice against men is responsible for huge social problems, and
that this is somehow due to some feminist conspiracy, or at least due
to feminism.

Has it occurred to you that one of your personality attributes might to
look for, well, if not quite conspiracy theories, simplistic social
explanations for people's problems? [And whoever is about to tell me
that simplistic is sometimes good, please consult a dictionary first,
and educate yourself about the difference between the word
"simplistic" and the word "simple."]

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jzcOb.87068$na.46398@attbi_s04... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is that all the problems of the world are the fault of women and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above. What you say _must_ be true, but when I've ventured over there (which I admit has been rare) the main activity has been "debating" the (not very interesting) point of view Ellie describes. And the "debate" has been more heat than light.

There is no shortage of people expressing that opinion and they are both
vocal and noticeable. However, there are other views.
Something that interests me about _you_ Jayne, is that you've said that at one point in the past you were captured by a radical feminist stance that all the problems of society were caused by oppression by men. (Or at least that all or most men were evil.)

I don't think that I have ever been so far off as to believe that men in
general are more evil than women in general. I did accept a lot of ideas
about oppression by men that I now question.
Now you seem sympathetic to the idea that oppression of men, or prejudice against men is responsible for huge social problems, and that this is somehow due to some feminist conspiracy, or at least due to feminism.

I do not believe in a feminist conspiracy. I think that ideas take on a
life of their own. I'm prepared to attribute some pretty negative
consequences to feminism, but I don't see it as a conscious plot.
Has it occurred to you that one of your personality attributes might to look for, well, if not quite conspiracy theories, simplistic social explanations for people's problems? [And whoever is about to tell me that simplistic is sometimes good, please consult a dictionary first, and educate yourself about the difference between the word "simplistic" and the word "simple."]

People are highly complex and I tend to be skeptical of anything that looks
like a simplistic explanation. It is more likely that I am not expressing
my ideas clearly enough to convey the level of complexity that I see.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro. "I remember thinking, 'Why?"' The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air toward a stick-figure boy's head. [] Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in male/female relationships in this society.

Indeed, and its a topic well covered in books including " The War
Against Boys; How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ",
by Christina Hoff Sommers, and even " Stiffed; The Betrayal Of
The American Man ", by Susan Faludi ( Yes, *that* S. Faludi ).
I can see how it would be of interest to Andre since it proves him right.

Indeed. Mind you, I'd rather be wrong about this stuff, and have the world
actually be far more reasonable and less misandrist...

But, I'm only reporting what... IS.
Unfortunately, around this group, associating Andre's name with an issue is a good way to get people to dismiss it.

I do find that SO amusing. Its so... high school.

People interested in what actually IS, can't play ad hom *games*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Kimberlee" (Kimberlee@delete~to~SENDMAILhotmail.com) writes: Lack of respect...you're so right on, Doug! ~Kimberlee

" The lurkers support you in e-mail... "

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:55:22 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:If you see a problem with a general lack of respect, I recommend that youyourself write more respectfully. You know very well the group is calledsoc.men and I doubt that you think mocking their name is respectful.Jayne Redirect to Andre who is rude to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Ah, so *you don't have to live to your values, when you can CLAIM
that someone else is doing such* ?

<laughs>

In which case, toots, you *don't have any better values yourself...

Pot. Kettle... Deep Black...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:9g2g00de5kkha0lliok6hkn9s3j5prbuav@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: []It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect andpoliteness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristicsthan people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaints aboutthe rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistentlypolite themselves.Jayne I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he started the name calling. Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too.

Well, in dealing with Rompin' Rauni, The NetLoon, sicne shes also
a liar, I have no obligation to " respect " her...

But, it figures that, wherever my name getsmentioned, she/it's
there, slurping at me.

No means NO ! I'm happily taken.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Chrys" (notarealaddress@lycos.com) writes: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu94lm$sd6$1@news.eusc.inter.net... Doug this is not a new trend........there have been numerous articles written about how boys are being discriminated against especially in the lower grades. Thats why they are being drugged to slow them down. You ( If you are a sir) (and I do have my doubts ) are another one who conveniently ignores and tries to hide the facts and then when confronted with the facts becomes a spin doctor. Beware, assholes, like you, (notice the non gender specific?) will have their day. You want to know why people like Andre get so frustrated trying to bring the truth to people? LOOK IN THE MIRROR. This is a perfect example of what not to do if you want to get your message across. As soon as you start the profanity, you lose your audience and as a result very few people will ever hear what you're trying to say. If people start seeing you as someone who can't keep calm and state their message, they label you as someone who isn't worthy of being listened to. Is this the result you are wanting?

Yep. Because it *separates those who will listen to honesty from
the gelded gameplayers who are ONLY about "style "*...

Thanks for playing The Festering Femmeroid You're Right But In The Wrong
*Way* Game...
There have been quite a few mainstream articles I've seen about these same issues. I know and understand that it is a problem how young boys are treated and I am appalled by it. But that said, I still won't read anything Andre posts because of how he talks to people.

Thanks for admitting your *prejudice*...

You may now go sit with the other BIGOTS...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... > > Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far > By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER > > "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long > time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro. > "I remember thinking, 'Why?"' > > The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air > toward a stick-figure boy's head. [] Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in male/female relationships in this society. Indeed, and its a topic well covered in books including " The War Against Boys; How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ", by Christina Hoff Sommers, and even " Stiffed; The Betrayal Of The American Man ", by Susan Faludi ( Yes, *that* S. Faludi ).

You've read a different book called "Stiffed" by Susan Faludi than the
one I read. I guess that isn't surprising.

"Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca>" wrote: I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information.

That's interesting, because my response is almost exactly the opposite.
I would say that "With a subject this important I see no need to waste
my time on badly-written USENET posts."

There is a wealth of literature about education, much of it in peer-
reviewed journals. I've read a number of papers written by authors who
take pains to be as objective as possible; a few of them were written by
people whose bias I am unable to report. They probably have one (we all
do), but they give equal space to a number of views and quote proponents
of each one without needless commentary.


By comparison, some of the posts I've seen from Mr Lieven were badly-
formatted drek. The first ones I saw by him were over 75% included
text, and several were entirely included text for the first full page.
It takes me, on average, less than a minute to trim and summarise
included text when writing replies. So far as I can make out, Mr Lieven
makes no effort whatever to edit his replies. What that says to me is
that he does not believe his ideas are good enough to spend a single
minute getting them trimmed and formatted (if he did believe his
articles were worth the time to edit, he would spend the time needed to
edit them).

If someone hasn't put in the effort to edit and summarise, why bother?
If he doesn't feel his articles are worth spending a single minute on,
why should anyone else?


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's
point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be
simple and dignified." -- Diogenes

If you care too, note Andre's spate of responses.

No light whatsoever, though he brings up Hoff Summers's book and
Faludi's book (neither of which say what he claims they say).

Littered with ad hominems. And not one, but _two_ posts complaining
about my nickname for his favorite usenet newsgroup.

No content, _and_ bad tone.

"Chrys" (notarealaddress@lycos.com) writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college.

Indeed. Consider that, when the numbers were 2/3rds men, and 1/3rd women,
we heard, over and over again, about the " crisis " in women's education.

So, when I open up my Ottawa white pages, I find, under our two
Universities, no less than *eleven* women specific departments
and deliverer of services.

Yet, ZERO for men's issues and interests...

It takes Festering Femmeroidism to claim that 11=0...

But, they never could... count.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message news:bu9bqp$fedi7$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system).

Indeed.
I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making.

While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's
rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the
results of that have been... zero.

Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked,
in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to
any and every area of human behavior.

So, to suggest that men's rights advocates ought to " tone it down "
is to advocate the dysfunctional. Much of the data that we talk
about, over on soc.men, isn't new. Erin Pizzey, for instance, who
not only wrote the first book ever on domestic violence ( Scream
Softly Or The Neighbours Will Hear ), and opened the first women's
shelter in the UK, both in the late 60s, had hard data that said
that domestic violence is about 50/50 men on women, and women on
men, over twenty years ago.

For publishing those findings, she got... death threats from
Feminists...

( I love that irony: " Women aren't violent, and if you keep saying
that we are, we'll *kill you* ! " )
With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information.

And, thats the path to honest debate and learning. Unlike with the
ad hom crowd...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Chrys" (notarealaddress@lycos.com) writes: "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bu9cgd$f92b5$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information. Something my husband mentioned to me lately is how many commercials you see these days where men are shown as bumbling idiots and their wives are wise and all-knowing. There are real issues out there, but in general these aren't even strictly "men's issues."

And yet, when the shoe was *claimed* to be on the other foot, it WAS
"strictly women's issues "...

Look up any university's listings. Note the plethora of women/womyn's
( Really, Carleton U does use that latter spelling ) centres, courses,
departments, and so on. Note also, the *total lack of any EQUAL
men's centres, courses, departments, and so on.

It, of course, takes a WomenFirster to claim " stop fighting "...
*after her side has all the turf*...

Pass.
They are human issues. Half the population is men and every member of the other half of the population has some relation to men, whether being the wife, mother, daughter, sister, etc. of a man. Since these issues affect every single person in some way, it's better to talk about them in a mainstream way with articles that people will read without obscenities or insulting remarks.

" Women are delicate ". Thanks for playing The Women Get To Have It Both
Ways Game...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrnc0gfc0.2h4.tony@home.cigardiary.com... [] PS: If you want to wallow in these guys' 'wisdom' why don't you subscribe to soc.men? I do. I have found much wisdom there.

Notice Tony's prejudiced slur at a whole newsgroup ( Quick: Did I
or anyone a regular from soc.men ever call alt.support.marriage a
" wallow " ? <laughs> )...
I have found it very helpful in learning to be more empathetic with my husband. I have noticed that I have a different reaction to things that used to bother me before I started reading it. I used to feel annoyed when my husband would work late, but now I think about how hard he works to provide for our family and feel grateful to him instead. I try to do something to make him feel especially loved when he works late instead of selfishly focussing on how it inconveniences me.

Yes, but Jayne... You're not a " mainstream woman "... Because you
*like, love and value your man*, as he does you.

Thats the real meaning of " equal "... That *both give to each other,
and that that giving, makes for more than the sum of the two
individuals*.

My Lady believes the same way, and lives it. But, shes as uncommon
as you are...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"Chrys" (notarealaddress@lycos.com) writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com... Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. Indeed. Consider that, when the numbers were 2/3rds men, and 1/3rd women, we heard, over and over again, about the " crisis " in women's education.

But Chrys's numbers are not representative of anything.

Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many men
get bachelor's degrees vs. how many women.

I don't know that stats for the great frozen north, but in the US, it
is 29% for each!

Better yet, let's ask (given that men still make considerably more
money per year than women) if it is even important whether as many men
go to college. If you go to the US census bureau, you'll discover
that women with only high school degrees (on average) make far less
than men, and women with bachelor's degrees make only slightly more
(on average) than men with high school degrees!

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is that all the problems of the world are the fault of women and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above.

But, Jayne ! Its so much *easier* for WomenFirsters like Ellie
to just not *look*...

How dare you threaten to *enlighten her*... Bad woman ! The
sistahood will surely punish you...

<bg>

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jzcOb.87068$na.46398@attbi_s04... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] > That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is > that all the problems of the world are the fault of women > and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little > minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above. What you say _must_ be true, but when I've ventured over there (which I admit has been rare) the main activity has been "debating" the (not very interesting) point of view Ellie describes. And the "debate" has been more heat than light. There is no shortage of people expressing that opinion and they are both vocal and noticeable. However, there are other views.

Sure, and what Doug fails to grasp, is that by not only being an
unmoderated newsgroup, but one rather not in line with PC-dom
( Witness Ellie's bleats that she's gotten well refuted, the times
shes dared to ply her sordid wares at soc.men ), will get trolled
by the PC Bleaters.

Just like Doug is about to claim that the problem is... *you*... now.
Something that interests me about _you_ Jayne, is that you've said that at one point in the past you were captured by a radical feminist stance that all the problems of society were caused by oppression by men. (Or at least that all or most men were evil.) I don't think that I have ever been so far off as to believe that men in general are more evil than women in general. I did accept a lot of ideas about oppression by men that I now question.

Indeed. Thats called, gasp... *learning*. New and *better* data crowds
out the old, and now dis-proven claims of old.

We have a name for this process" The Scientific Method.
Now you seem sympathetic to the idea that oppression of men, or prejudice against men is responsible for huge social problems, and that this is somehow due to some feminist conspiracy, or at least due to feminism. I do not believe in a feminist conspiracy. I think that ideas take on a life of their own. I'm prepared to attribute some pretty negative consequences to feminism, but I don't see it as a conscious plot.

Doug is clearly unable to grasp " confluence of values ".
Has it occurred to you that one of your personality attributes might to look for, well, if not quite conspiracy theories, simplistic social explanations for people's problems? [And whoever is about to tell me that simplistic is sometimes good, please consult a dictionary first, and educate yourself about the difference between the word "simplistic" and the word "simple."] People are highly complex and I tend to be skeptical of anything that looks like a simplistic explanation. It is more likely that I am not expressing my ideas clearly enough to convey the level of complexity that I see.

Well, to fully achieve that level, we'd need to be posting book
length posts. Thats rather mroe than most of us can write, with
the demands of Life.

Thats why we can well refer to good reading lists. I've posted
such, many times.

But, thats because I'm not *afraid* of learning...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net...> >> > Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far> > By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER> >> > "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long> > time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro.> > "I remember thinking, 'Why?"'> >> > The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air> > toward a stick-figure boy's head. [] Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in male/female relationships in this society. Indeed, and its a topic well covered in books including " The War Against Boys; How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ", by Christina Hoff Sommers, and even " Stiffed; The Betrayal Of The American Man ", by Susan Faludi ( Yes, *that* S. Faludi ). You've read a different book called "Stiffed" by Susan Faludi than the one I read. I guess that isn't surprising.

Yeah, I actually read it for comprehension...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Dr Nancy's Sweetie (kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu) writes: "Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca>" wrote: I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information. That's interesting, because my response is almost exactly the opposite. I would say that "With a subject this important I see no need to waste my time on badly-written USENET posts."

Including yours ?
There is a wealth of literature about education, much of it in peer- reviewed journals. I've read a number of papers written by authors who take pains to be as objective as possible; a few of them were written by people whose bias I am unable to report. They probably have one (we all do), but they give equal space to a number of views and quote proponents of each one without needless commentary.

Yes, dry academe is so much less unsettling than debate where its
happening...
By comparison, some of the posts I've seen from Mr Lieven were badly- formatted drek.

Thats OK, toots, yours are nothing more than *****ing PMS Flows...

And, an attack by The Style Police... NetCop Wannabe.,..
The first ones I saw by him were over 75% included text, and several were entirely included text for the first full page. It takes me, on average, less than a minute to trim and summarise included text when writing replies. So far as I can make out, Mr Lieven makes no effort whatever to edit his replies. What that says to me is that he does not believe his ideas are good enough to spend a single minute getting them trimmed and formatted (if he did believe his articles were worth the time to edit, he would spend the time needed to edit them).

I format the articles I post by a text based system. If you can't read
that, then check your pathetic newsreader.
If someone hasn't put in the effort to edit and summarise, why bother? If he doesn't feel his articles are worth spending a single minute on, why should anyone else?

Yeah, its so much *easier* to claim it's all someone else's responsibility.

Talk about the Spoon Feed Me Lazies...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: If you care too, note Andre's spate of responses.

Yeah ! How Dare I poiint out people whose replies to a thread
*with my name on it, that I didn't even start* are not " nice ".
No light whatsoever, though he brings up Hoff Summers's book and Faludi's book (neither of which say what he claims they say).

" No light, *though he " brings in two sources of light...

Hypocrite much ?

<laughs>
Littered with ad hominems. And not one, but _two_ posts complaining about my nickname for his favorite usenet newsgroup.

Which is *your ad hom*... But, sicne thats *you*, thats OK, because
The Rules... *don't apply to you*...

Hypocrite much ?

<laughs>
No content, _and_ bad tone.

Indeed. So, stop posting that way...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:06:21 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net...> >> > Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far> > By Monique Beeler - STAFF WRITER> >> > "When I first saw that, I was taken aback," says Greene, 51, a long> > time volunteer with her son's former Boy Scout troop in San Leandro.> > "I remember thinking, 'Why?"'> >> > The image on the shirt shows a row of rocks hurtling through the air> > toward a stick-figure boy's head. [] Thanks John, for drawing attention to a serious problem. It seems to me that boy bashing is a good indication of how far the rot has spread in male/female relationships in this society. Indeed, and its a topic well covered in books including " The War Against Boys; How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men ", by Christina Hoff Sommers, and even " Stiffed; The Betrayal Of The American Man ", by Susan Faludi ( Yes, *that* S. Faludi ).You've read a different book called "Stiffed" by Susan Faludi than theone I read. I guess that isn't surprising.

No kidding and I bet he didn't read her first book!

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:10:43 +0000 (UTC), Dr Nancy's Sweetie
<kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca>" wrote: I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information.That's interesting, because my response is almost exactly the opposite.I would say that "With a subject this important I see no need to wastemy time on badly-written USENET posts."There is a wealth of literature about education, much of it in peer-reviewed journals. I've read a number of papers written by authors whotake pains to be as objective as possible; a few of them were written bypeople whose bias I am unable to report. They probably have one (we alldo), but they give equal space to a number of views and quote proponentsof each one without needless commentary.By comparison, some of the posts I've seen from Mr Lieven were badly-formatted drek. The first ones I saw by him were over 75% includedtext, and several were entirely included text for the first full page.It takes me, on average, less than a minute to trim and summariseincluded text when writing replies. So far as I can make out, Mr Lievenmakes no effort whatever to edit his replies. What that says to me isthat he does not believe his ideas are good enough to spend a singleminute getting them trimmed and formatted (if he did believe hisarticles were worth the time to edit, he would spend the time needed toedit them).If someone hasn't put in the effort to edit and summarise, why bother?If he doesn't feel his articles are worth spending a single minute on,why should anyone else?
You forgot to mention that his "facts" and books that he cites also
have poor statistics or are simply anecdotal.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:32:07 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "Chrys" (notarealaddress@lycos.com) writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:4tbg0052r8p8d4ebrt1nht9edu8l9n4f3q@4ax.com...> Well I actually think this depends more on the grade. In elementary> school it is pretty clear that boys have a harder time than girls. I> think by the time high school rolls around it is the other way. By the time you get to college, the gender ratios are very extreme. Colleges are often 2/3 women. There is something clearly wrong with our school system if so few boys are choosing to go to college. Indeed. Consider that, when the numbers were 2/3rds men, and 1/3rd women, we heard, over and over again, about the " crisis " in women's education.But Chrys's numbers are not representative of anything.

So far I find most of those numbers meaningless. They tell us
*nothing*.Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many menget bachelor's degrees vs. how many women.

Yup or even further what are number of *advance* degrees men vs women?I don't know that stats for the great frozen north, but in the US, itis 29% for each!Better yet, let's ask (given that men still make considerably moremoney per year than women) if it is even important whether as many mengo to college. If you go to the US census bureau, you'll discoverthat women with only high school degrees (on average) make far lessthan men, and women with bachelor's degrees make only slightly more(on average) than men with high school degrees!

Oh wait now you are going to hear how women control all the wealth.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is that all the problems of the world are the fault of women and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above. Jayne

The "range" is very narrow, Jayne.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is that all the problems of the world are the fault of women and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above. What you say _must_ be true, but when I've ventured over there (which I admit has been rare) the main activity has been "debating" the (not very interesting) point of view Ellie describes. And the "debate" has been more heat than light.

Exactly. A lot of rhetoric, very little substance. Surprise surprise.
Something that interests me about _you_ Jayne, is that you've said that at one point in the past you were captured by a radical feminist stance that all the problems of society were caused by oppression by men. (Or at least that all or most men were evil.) Now you seem sympathetic to the idea that oppression of men, or prejudice against men is responsible for huge social problems, and that this is somehow due to some feminist conspiracy, or at least due to feminism. Has it occurred to you that one of your personality attributes might to look for, well, if not quite conspiracy theories, simplistic social explanations for people's problems?
[And whoever is about to tell me that simplistic is sometimes good, please consult a dictionary first, and educate yourself about the difference between the word "simplistic" and the word "simple."]

You mean the dictionary actually places a value on those terms?

On 17 Jan 2004 17:01:18 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:9g2g00de5kkha0lliok6hkn9s3j5prbuav@4ax.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: [] >It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect and >politeness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristics >than people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaints about >the rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistently >polite themselves. > >Jayne I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he started the name calling. Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too.Well, in dealing with Rompin' Rauni, The NetLoon, sicne shes alsoa liar, I have no obligation to " respect " her...

A liar huh? Please enlighten me on what I have lied about. Your poor
understand of statistics, your inability to go a posted web page and
read *facts* for yourself or your equally charming use of ad hominems.
Or shall we talk about your misuse of "feminist" quotes out of
context.
But, it figures that, wherever my name getsmentioned, she/it'sthere, slurping at me.No means NO ! I'm happily taken.
Oh I am sure in the fullness of tome you will find something wrong
with your new lady friend.
Andre
Who has delusions that I could be remotely interested in a chronic
whiner.

"Jeanette Runyon" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ieui009to3turrtjrem06651atilapnavv@4ax.com... So far I find most of those numbers meaningless. They tell us *nothing*.Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many menget bachelor's degrees vs. how many women.

Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information? What
would be the significance?

Personally, I think that it would be interesting to see statistics on what
percentage of both genders who enroll in college actually graduate. I'm not
sure what conclusion I'd draw from it, though.

One theory that could require the flame-proof undies would involve maturity
rates among college age men and women. It is generally accepted, I think,
that girls mature faster than boys. One thing that college graduation
requires is maturity - the ability to force yourself to work hard and
sacrifice short-term pleasure and relaxation to achieve a long term goal.
Could it be that maturity differences between the genders at the "typical"
age for college account for some of this?

Note: I would consider non-traditional students separately, in this case,
since presumably maturity levels should have equalized by then. This is
only referring to the classic 18-22 year old.

Joy

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:56:36 -0500, "Joy"
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
"Jeanette Runyon" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:ieui009to3turrtjrem06651atilapnavv@4ax .com... So far I find most of those numbers meaningless. They tell us *nothing*.Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many menget bachelor's degrees vs. how many women.Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information? Whatwould be the significance?

I have the idea that a lot of women go to college for socialization
marry and don't finish. Or a lot of women just go for the two year
degree.
Personally, I think that it would be interesting to see statistics on whatpercentage of both genders who enroll in college actually graduate. I'm notsure what conclusion I'd draw from it, though.

And these days people often go to school in a straight line they drop
out and return so how far would one look?One theory that could require the flame-proof undies would involve maturityrates among college age men and women. It is generally accepted, I think,that girls mature faster than boys. One thing that college graduationrequires is maturity - the ability to force yourself to work hard andsacrifice short-term pleasure and relaxation to achieve a long term goal.Could it be that maturity differences between the genders at the "typical"age for college account for some of this?Note: I would consider non-traditional students separately, in this case,since presumably maturity levels should have equalized by then. This isonly referring to the classic 18-22 year old.Joy

On 17 Jan 2004 17:39:19 GMT, Andre Lieven
<dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

How did you get out of my killfile... Back in... Back in <stuffing Andre
back in with a toilet plunger>

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes:
"Jeanette Runyon" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ieui009to3turrtjrem06651atilapnavv@4ax.com... So far I find most of those numbers meaningless. They tell us *nothing*.Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many menget bachelor's degrees vs. how many women. Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information? What would be the significance?

Whether more men than women are getting college degrees.
Personally, I think that it would be interesting to see statistics on what percentage of both genders who enroll in college actually graduate. I'm not sure what conclusion I'd draw from it, though.

Also an interesting question.

Another would be "should the same number of men and women be
getting college degrees."

Yet another would be "who should get a college degree and why."

And another might be "are there fewer good jobs than there used to be
which don't require college degrees, and are these balanced between
areas in which men take jobs and areas in which women take jobs."

Etc. There are a lot of interesting questions like this.

What proportion of the students at the colleges Chrys happens to have
attended isn't an interesting question however.

Tony Miller wrote: On 17 Jan 2004 17:39:19 GMT, Andre Lieven <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: How did you get out of my killfile... Back in... Back in <stuffing Andre back in with a toilet plunger> -Tony

All I wanna know is if Andre has upgraded from his 386 yet? Or is he still
stuck watching Oprah all day, for his "facts"?

Rauni wrote: On 17 Jan 2004 17:01:18 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:9g2g00de5kkha0lliok6hkn9s3j5prbuav@4ax.com...> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: []>> It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect and>> politeness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristics>> than people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaints
about>> the rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistently>> polite themselves.>>>> Jayne>> I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice> to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they> have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he> started the name calling. Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too. Well, in dealing with Rompin' Rauni, The NetLoon, sicne shes also a liar, I have no obligation to " respect " her... A liar huh? Please enlighten me on what I have lied about. Your poor understand of statistics, your inability to go a posted web page and read *facts* for yourself or your equally charming use of ad hominems. Or shall we talk about your misuse of "feminist" quotes out of context. But, it figures that, wherever my name getsmentioned, she/it's there, slurping at me. No means NO ! I'm happily taken. Oh I am sure in the fullness of tome you will find something wrong with your new lady friend. Andre
Who has delusions that I could be remotely interested in a chronic whiner.

But think of the challenge that could be, Rauni! Are you sure you can pass
it up? :-)

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yqgOb.86878$8H.128224@attbi_s03... "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>
writes: "Jeanette Runyon" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ieui009to3turrtjrem06651atilapnavv@4ax.com... So far I find most of those numbers meaningless. They tell us *nothing*. > >Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many men >get bachelor's degrees vs. how many women. Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information?
What would be the significance? Whether more men than women are getting college degrees.

Well, I gathered that. But why would it matter which gender (if either) is
getting the most degrees?
Personally, I think that it would be interesting to see statistics on
what percentage of both genders who enroll in college actually graduate. I'm
not sure what conclusion I'd draw from it, though. Also an interesting question. Another would be "should the same number of men and women be getting college degrees."

I agree, that would be an interesting question. I see it as sort of a "free
enterprise" thing - people enroll or don't enroll for reasons of their own -
there shouldn't be a quota system. Yet another would be "who should get a college degree and why."

How about "does society as a whole benefit from a well-educated populace,
and if so would it be desirable for higher education to be free for people
with good academic performance"?
And another might be "are there fewer good jobs than there used to be which don't require college degrees, and are these balanced between areas in which men take jobs and areas in which women take jobs." Etc. There are a lot of interesting questions like this. What proportion of the students at the colleges Chrys happens to have attended isn't an interesting question however.

Or of interest to only a narrow segment of the population, like the school
administration

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:01:16 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote:
Rauni wrote: On 17 Jan 2004 17:01:18 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:> "Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message> news:9g2g00de5kkha0lliok6hkn9s3j5prbuav@4ax.com...>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:28:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas">> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>> []>>> It seems to me that people who talk about the importance of respect and>>> politeness have a greater obligation to demonstrate those characteristics>>> than people who do not. In other words, Rauni and Bill's complaintsabout>>> the rudeness of others would carry more weight if they were consistently>>> polite themselves.>>>>>> Jayne>>>> I am only rude to people who are rude to me. I have no need to be nice>> to a person who consistently attacks and belittles simply because they>> have a different viewpoint. In Andre's case I was polite until he>> started the name calling.>> Andre feels that his rudeness is justified too. Well, in dealing with Rompin' Rauni, The NetLoon, sicne shes also a liar, I have no obligation to " respect " her... A liar huh? Please enlighten me on what I have lied about. Your poor understand of statistics, your inability to go a posted web page and read *facts* for yourself or your equally charming use of ad hominems. Or shall we talk about your misuse of "feminist" quotes out of context. But, it figures that, wherever my name getsmentioned, she/it's there, slurping at me. No means NO ! I'm happily taken. Oh I am sure in the fullness of tome you will find something wrong with your new lady friend. Andre Who has delusions that I could be remotely interested in a chronic whiner.But think of the challenge that could be, Rauni! Are you sure you can passit up? :-)
Oh yeah I'm *really* sure. I have a pretty terrific husband. Who finds
Andre entertaining after a fashion.

"Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:4b3j009cbh5eglgm1beiqp8scjs62547v8@4ax.com... On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:56:36 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: >Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many men >get bachelor's degrees vs. how many women.Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information?
Whatwould be the significance? I have the idea that a lot of women go to college for socialization marry and don't finish. Or a lot of women just go for the two year degree.

Apparently not. Found a few interesting articles on the topic out there;
here are a couple:
http://www.ris.sdbor.edu/publication/regentsreports/98/rr91.htm
Apparently in the younger age groups women now graduate at a higher rate
than men, so they probably aren't just husband hunting.

This isn't just a U.S. phenomenon, either:
http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/stat/indic03/indic03A/ia03506.pdf

This one
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2001514374_collegemen15.html
was also interesting. One quote from it seems worth mentioning:
"That's not to say that men aren't making educational progress. Along with
the nation's population in general, they graduate from both high school and
college at generally greater rates than they once did. It's just that in a
stunning come-from-behind move, unimaginable a generation ago, women have
progressed faster, surpassing them".

If males are graduating at higher rates than they used to, it seems unlikely
to me that the "school system is skewed against boys" theory is really the
culprit - otherwise graduation rates would go down, not up, among boys. It
seems to me that the reason for this change must be in the social climate,
which must somehow have had a greater impact on females. My own pet theory
is a combination of two things:
1.) the shift from a brawn to a brains economy makes it much easier for
girls to compete in the workplace, given the education, and therefore it is
almost a no brainer to obtain the necessary tools. Girls today are probably
much more likely to be encouraged by their families to attend college than
girls a generation ago, because it is more clearly a valuable investment.

2.) Given things like a higher divorce rate and reduced likelihood of
lifetime alimony, women can no longer count on lifelong financial support
from their spouse - making preparation for earning a living essential.

Both of these are things that would have a bigger impact on females than
males, IMO, hence the larger increase in female college graduation than
increase in male college graduation.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:yqgOb.86878$8H.128224@attbi_s03... "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes: "Jeanette Runyon" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ieui009to3turrtjrem06651atilapnavv@4ax.com... > > So far I find most of those numbers meaningless. They tell us > *nothing*. > > > >Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many men > >get bachelor's degrees vs. how many women. Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information? What would be the significance? Whether more men than women are getting college degrees. Well, I gathered that. But why would it matter which gender (if either) is getting the most degrees?

The context of this conversation (such as it is) was that some
systematic bias or structure within schools favors girls over boys.
If that were true, one might expect to see evidence of it in the form
of fewer boys going on to higher education. I think that was what
Chrys was asserting she had observed, anecdotally.
Personally, I think that it would be interesting to see statistics on what percentage of both genders who enroll in college actually graduate. I'm not sure what conclusion I'd draw from it, though. Also an interesting question. Another would be "should the same number of men and women be getting college degrees." I agree, that would be an interesting question. I see it as sort of a "free enterprise" thing - people enroll or don't enroll for reasons of their own - there shouldn't be a quota system. Yet another would be "who should get a college degree and why." How about "does society as a whole benefit from a well-educated populace, and if so would it be desirable for higher education to be free for people with good academic performance"?

And even "is higher education necessary for a well-educated populace,"
and if so, "what role does primary and secondary education have."
And another might be "are there fewer good jobs than there used to be which don't require college degrees, and are these balanced between areas in which men take jobs and areas in which women take jobs." Etc. There are a lot of interesting questions like this. What proportion of the students at the colleges Chrys happens to have attended isn't an interesting question however. Or of interest to only a narrow segment of the population, like the school administration

At those schools, yes.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:y8iOb.77314$nt4.111777@attbi_s51... "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>
writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:yqgOb.86878$8H.128224@attbi_s03... "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>
Whether more men than women are getting college degrees. Well, I gathered that. But why would it matter which gender (if either)
is getting the most degrees? The context of this conversation (such as it is) was that some systematic bias or structure within schools favors girls over boys. If that were true, one might expect to see evidence of it in the form of fewer boys going on to higher education. I think that was what Chrys was asserting she had observed, anecdotally.
Brought up in a different post that I did find through a quick google search
that fewer boys are going on to higher education than girls - (also
according to sources like the census bureau and the bureau of labor
statistics). On the other hand, apparently more boys are going on to higher
educaton than in previous years. I would therefore disagree that it is from
a systematic bias against boys - if it were, it seems to me that there
wouldn't be more boys in recent years going to college than there were boys
in earlier years. I think it is due to societal changes, not necessarily
changes in the school system.
> Personally, I think that it would be interesting to see statistics
on what > percentage of both genders who enroll in college actually graduate.
I'm not > sure what conclusion I'd draw from it, though. Also an interesting question. Another would be "should the same number of men and women be getting college degrees." I agree, that would be an interesting question. I see it as sort of a
"free enterprise" thing - people enroll or don't enroll for reasons of their
own - there shouldn't be a quota system. Yet another would be "who should get a college degree and why." How about "does society as a whole benefit from a well-educated
populace, and if so would it be desirable for higher education to be free for
people with good academic performance"? And even "is higher education necessary for a well-educated populace," and if so, "what role does primary and secondary education have." And another might be "are there fewer good jobs than there used to be which don't require college degrees, and are these balanced between areas in which men take jobs and areas in which women take jobs." Etc. There are a lot of interesting questions like this. What proportion of the students at the colleges Chrys happens to have attended isn't an interesting question however. Or of interest to only a narrow segment of the population, like the
school administration At those schools, yes.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:32:02 -0500, "Joy"
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
"Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:4b3j009cbh5eglgm1beiqp8scjs62547v8@4ax .com... On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:56:36 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:> >Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many men> >get bachelor's degrees vs. how many women.Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information?Whatwould be the significance? I have the idea that a lot of women go to college for socialization marry and don't finish. Or a lot of women just go for the two year degree.Apparently not. Found a few interesting articles on the topic out there;here are a couple:http://www.ris.sdbor.edu/publication/regentsreports/98/rr91.htmApparently in the younger age groups women now graduate at a higher ratethan men, so they probably aren't just husband hunting.This isn't just a U.S. phenomenon, either:http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/stat/indic03/indic03A/ia03506.pdfThis onehttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2001514374_collegemen15.htmlwas also interesting. One quote from it seems worth mentioning:"That's not to say that men aren't making educational progress. Along withthe nation's population in general, they graduate from both high school andcollege at generally greater rates than they once did. It's just that in astunning come-from-behind move, unimaginable a generation ago, women haveprogressed faster, surpassing them".If males are graduating at higher rates than they used to, it seems unlikelyto me that the "school system is skewed against boys" theory is really theculprit - otherwise graduation rates would go down, not up, among boys. Itseems to me that the reason for this change must be in the social climate,which must somehow have had a greater impact on females. My own pet theoryis a combination of two things:1.) the shift from a brawn to a brains economy makes it much easier forgirls to compete in the workplace, given the education, and therefore it isalmost a no brainer to obtain the necessary tools. Girls today are probablymuch more likely to be encouraged by their families to attend college thangirls a generation ago, because it is more clearly a valuable investment.

Well I guess that dumps Andre's theory doesn't it?2.) Given things like a higher divorce rate and reduced likelihood oflifetime alimony, women can no longer count on lifelong financial supportfrom their spouse - making preparation for earning a living essential.

Yup Makes senseBoth of these are things that would have a bigger impact on females thanmales, IMO, hence the larger increase in female college graduation thanincrease in male college graduation.
Yes I can see that!

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bubr1u$7eh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:

[] I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the results of that have been... zero. Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked, in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to any and every area of human behavior.
[]

I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this affects
my ability to judge its effectiveness. Part of the reason I would like you
to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in which
people insult and attack you. I doubt it bothers you much, if at all, but I
find these things difficult to read. I think of you as a friend. It is
unpleasant for me to read negative comments about you even when I find them
understandable reactions to your abrasiveness here. I know that you need to
do what you think is right. I don't expect you to change. But it's hard
for me to watch.

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85eOb.73689$sv6.157590@attbi_s52... If you care too, note Andre's spate of responses. No light whatsoever, though he brings up Hoff Summers's book and Faludi's book (neither of which say what he claims they say). Littered with ad hominems. And not one, but _two_ posts complaining about my nickname for his favorite usenet newsgroup. No content, _and_ bad tone.

I would not describe Andre's posts as devoid of content. And while I'm not
enthusiastic about the tone, there is not much I can do about it. I have
told him before that I find that style abrasive and don't like it. There
isn't any point in me saying it over and over again. Nagging is rarely
useful. Andre has deliberately chosen this approach because he thinks it is
the most suitable for the circumstances. I can respect that. I am not
turning on a friend just because Andre-bashing is a popular activity around
here.

Jayne

Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85eOb.73689$sv6.157590@attbi_s52... If you care too, note Andre's spate of responses. No light whatsoever, though he brings up Hoff Summers's book and Faludi's book (neither of which say what he claims they say). Littered with ad hominems. And not one, but _two_ posts complaining about my nickname for his favorite usenet newsgroup. No content, _and_ bad tone.

I would not describe Andre's posts as devoid of content. And while I'm not
enthusiastic about the tone, there is not much I can do about it. I have
told him before that I find that style abrasive and don't like it. There
isn't any point in me saying it over and over again. Nagging is rarely
useful. Andre has deliberately chosen this approach because he thinks it is
the most suitable for the circumstances. I can respect that. I am not
turning on a friend just because Andre-bashing is a popular activity around
here.

Jayne

Sorry about the double post.

Jayne

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:46:08 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bubr1u$7eh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: [] I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the results of that have been... zero. Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked, in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to any and every area of human behavior. [] I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this affects my ability to judge its effectiveness. Part of the reason I would like you to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in which people insult and attack you. I doubt it bothers you much, if at all, but I find these things difficult to read. I think of you as a friend. It is unpleasant for me to read negative comments about you even when I find them understandable reactions to your abrasiveness here. I know that you need to do what you think is right. I don't expect you to change. But it's hard for me to watch.

I know... It's kind of like those "Rocky" movies where Rocky is getting
the **** kicked out of him. He gets clobbered to the mat and he keeps
dragging himself up and leading with his chin for another shot. You are
yelling at the TV: "Stay down... Please don't get up... stay down!!!"

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bubr1u$7eh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: [] I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the results of that have been... zero. Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked, in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to any and every area of human behavior. [] I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this affects my ability to judge its effectiveness. Part of the reason I would like you to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in which people insult and attack you.

How do you feel about posts in which he insults and attacks others?

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bubr1u$7eh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: [] I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the results of that have been... zero. Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked, in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to any and every area of human behavior. [] I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this affects my ability to judge its effectiveness.

I understand that.
Part of the reason I would like you to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in which people insult and attack you.

Well, in one way, it doesn't thrill me, but on another level, its
amusing, as people I'll never know's opinions of me, a person they
know zilch about ( Though, that hardly stops them from making
ASSuming ASSertions about me. <g> ), matter not at all to me.

The good people in my life, the delightful and special lady in my life,
those are the folks whose *informed* views about myself, carry some weight.

And, that such dweebs who name call me ( Because they CAN'T refute what
I say, or even try to ) only proves that they CAN'T argue the *topic*,
so all they have left is to ad hom, to argue the *person*, namely, me,
the one they can't refute.

This thread is a fine example. The OP posted an excellent article,
and the Frustrated Festering Femmeroids found nothing in it that
they could go after. So they went after me. <shrug>
I doubt it bothers you much, if at all, but I find these things difficult to read.

I understand. But, be clear that the only persons who can stop the
attacks on me... are *the attackers*. I have no power over them, to
make them stop being dweebs. That they began to attack me on this
thread, *before* I even saw it*, is proof of that.
I think of you as a friend.

Thank you. It is reciprocated.
It is unpleasant for me to read negative comments about you even when I find them understandable reactions to your abrasiveness here.

" Abrasiveness " = " forthrightfulness "... :-)
I know that you need to do what you think is right.

Indeed. That, of course, applies to every person.
I don't expect you to change. But it's hard for me to watch.

I'm sorry that its hard for you. But, thats really not my doing.
As, if it were, the abrasiveness would have only started *after*
I popped into the thread...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:16:33 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bubr1u$7eh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: [] > I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective > with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to > listen to the points they are making. While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the results of that have been... zero. Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked, in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to any and every area of human behavior. [] I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this affects my ability to judge its effectiveness. Part of the reason I would like you to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in which people insult and attack you.How do you feel about posts in which he insults and attacks others?

Yeah doesn't she mind how foolish he looks?

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:85eOb.73689$sv6.157590@attbi_s52... If you care too, note Andre's spate of responses. No light whatsoever, though he brings up Hoff Summers's book and Faludi's book (neither of which say what he claims they say). Littered with ad hominems. And not one, but _two_ posts complaining about my nickname for his favorite usenet newsgroup. No content, _and_ bad tone. I would not describe Andre's posts as devoid of content.

Only if you count citing two books which don't support has point as
being content. But to each their own.
And while I'm not enthusiastic about the tone, there is not much I can do about it. I have told him before that I find that style abrasive and don't like it. There isn't any point in me saying it over and over again.

True, there is nothing you can do about it.
Nagging is rarely useful. Andre has deliberately chosen this approach because he thinks it is the most suitable for the circumstances. I can respect that. I am not turning on a friend just because Andre-bashing is a popular activity around here.

Well, I wouldn't turn on a friend based on anything on usenet. On the
other hand, it pains me even more to see my friends behaving badly
than it does to see others behave badly towards them.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bubr1u$7eh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: []> I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective> with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to> listen to the points they are making. While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the results of that have been... zero. Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked, in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to any and every area of human behavior. [] I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this affects my ability to judge its effectiveness. Part of the reason I would like you to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in which people insult and attack you. How do you feel about posts in which he insults and attacks others?

Andre never does that. That would be an "ad hominem", which Andre disdains.
I think you need a new pair of glasses!

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BMnOb.75660$Rc4.272789@attbi_s54... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:

[] I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this
affects my ability to judge its effectiveness. Part of the reason I would like
you to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in
which people insult and attack you. How do you feel about posts in which he insults and attacks others?

I don't like seeing anybody insult or attack anybody.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bubn3p$fph94$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jzcOb.87068$na.46398@attbi_s04... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] > That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is > that all the problems of the world are the fault of women > and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little > minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above. What you say _must_ be true, but when I've ventured over there (which I admit has been rare) the main activity has been "debating" the (not very interesting) point of view Ellie describes. And the "debate" has been more heat than light. There is no shortage of people expressing that opinion and they are both vocal and noticeable. However, there are other views. Something that interests me about _you_ Jayne, is that you've said that at one point in the past you were captured by a radical feminist stance that all the problems of society were caused by oppression by men. (Or at least that all or most men were evil.) I don't think that I have ever been so far off as to believe that men in general are more evil than women in general. I did accept a lot of ideas about oppression by men that I now question. Now you seem sympathetic to the idea that oppression of men, or prejudice against men is responsible for huge social problems, and that this is somehow due to some feminist conspiracy, or at least due to feminism. I do not believe in a feminist conspiracy. I think that ideas take on a life of their own. I'm prepared to attribute some pretty negative consequences to feminism, but I don't see it as a conscious plot. Has it occurred to you that one of your personality attributes might to look for, well, if not quite conspiracy theories, simplistic social explanations for people's problems? [And whoever is about to tell me that simplistic is sometimes good, please consult a dictionary first, and educate yourself about the difference between the word "simplistic" and the word "simple."] People are highly complex and I tend to be skeptical of anything that
looks like a simplistic explanation. It is more likely that I am not expressing my ideas clearly enough to convey the level of complexity that I see. Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bubn3p$fph94$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jzcOb.87068$na.46398@attbi_s04... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... [] > That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is > that all the problems of the world are the fault of women > and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little > minds allows in! [] In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above. What you say _must_ be true, but when I've ventured over there (which I admit has been rare) the main activity has been "debating" the (not very interesting) point of view Ellie describes. And the "debate" has been more heat than light. There is no shortage of people expressing that opinion and they are both vocal and noticeable. However, there are other views. Something that interests me about _you_ Jayne, is that you've said that at one point in the past you were captured by a radical feminist stance that all the problems of society were caused by oppression by men. (Or at least that all or most men were evil.) I don't think that I have ever been so far off as to believe that men in general are more evil than women in general. I did accept a lot of ideas about oppression by men that I now question. Now you seem sympathetic to the idea that oppression of men, or prejudice against men is responsible for huge social problems, and that this is somehow due to some feminist conspiracy, or at least due to feminism. I do not believe in a feminist conspiracy. I think that ideas take on a life of their own. I'm prepared to attribute some pretty negative consequences to feminism, but I don't see it as a conscious plot. Has it occurred to you that one of your personality attributes might to look for, well, if not quite conspiracy theories, simplistic social explanations for people's problems? [And whoever is about to tell me that simplistic is sometimes good, please consult a dictionary first, and educate yourself about the difference between the word "simplistic" and the word "simple."] People are highly complex and I tend to be skeptical of anything that
looks like a simplistic explanation. It is more likely that I am not expressing my ideas clearly enough to convey the level of complexity that I see. Jayne

Jayne, why in God's name do you have to justify yourself to this person? As
you can now see the other side of the story you are the enlightend one.
That's his routine, don't answer anything just throw it back with another
question intended to misdirect and deflect. It's like answering a question
that goes like this.
"Do I look fat in this"?
Answer" Do you think you look fat in that"?


I love it. Doug you are a master. I apologize you actually are more clever
than I gave you credit for. You have just insulted Jayne's intelligence
eloquently ( and everyone else's ) in such a way as to draw little
criticism.
Andre.....we should learn from this. Non?

Doug:

Simplistic......your arguments and rebuttals ( none)
Simple.....the way you run from a real debate.
Brilliant...your spin doctor routine.

Oh TONY, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.... don't killfile me..I don't wanna
die..I'm still young.....I still have a family to feed. SHOW MERCY.

"John Royer" (jroyer@istar.ca) writes: "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bubn3p$fph94$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jzcOb.87068$na.46398@attbi_s04... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: > "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4008B090.6C774793@hotmail.com... > > [] > > That's too easy. The "point" that they are making is > > that all the problems of the world are the fault of women > > and feminism. There is NOTHING else that their little > > minds allows in! > [] > > In this case, you are the one being simplistic. There is a range of > opinions expressed on soc.men, including the one you describe above. What you say _must_ be true, but when I've ventured over there (which I admit has been rare) the main activity has been "debating" the (not very interesting) point of view Ellie describes. And the "debate" has been more heat than light. There is no shortage of people expressing that opinion and they are both vocal and noticeable. However, there are other views. Something that interests me about _you_ Jayne, is that you've said that at one point in the past you were captured by a radical feminist stance that all the problems of society were caused by oppression by men. (Or at least that all or most men were evil.) I don't think that I have ever been so far off as to believe that men in general are more evil than women in general. I did accept a lot of ideas about oppression by men that I now question. Now you seem sympathetic to the idea that oppression of men, or prejudice against men is responsible for huge social problems, and that this is somehow due to some feminist conspiracy, or at least due to feminism. I do not believe in a feminist conspiracy. I think that ideas take on a life of their own. I'm prepared to attribute some pretty negative consequences to feminism, but I don't see it as a conscious plot. Has it occurred to you that one of your personality attributes might to look for, well, if not quite conspiracy theories, simplistic social explanations for people's problems? [And whoever is about to tell me that simplistic is sometimes good, please consult a dictionary first, and educate yourself about the difference between the word "simplistic" and the word "simple."] People are highly complex and I tend to be skeptical of anything that looks like a simplistic explanation. It is more likely that I am not expressing my ideas clearly enough to convey the level of complexity that I see. Jayne Jayne, why in God's name do you have to justify yourself to this person? As you can now see the other side of the story you are the enlightend one.

Indeed.
That's his routine, don't answer anything just throw it back with another question intended to misdirect and deflect. It's like answering a question that goes like this. "Do I look fat in this"? Answer" Do you think you look fat in that"?

There you go. The point being, that if one side's assumptions are open
to challenge, then *both side's* assumptions are open to challenge.

Doug doesn't seem to have grasped that his positions are as open to
being challenged...
I love it. Doug you are a master. I apologize you actually are more clever than I gave you credit for. You have just insulted Jayne's intelligence eloquently ( and everyone else's ) in such a way as to draw little criticism.

From some...
Andre.....we should learn from this. Non?

Well, I noticed it, and I think I commented on it.

Personally, this isn't a form of " critique " that I would wish to
use myself.
Doug: Simplistic......your arguments and rebuttals ( none) Simple.....the way you run from a real debate. Brilliant...your spin doctor routine.

Call him Bill O'Reilly ? :-)
Oh TONY, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.... don't killfile me..I don't wanna die..I'm still young.....I still have a family to feed. SHOW MERCY.

<g>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:bu9f2h$f3bci$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bu9cgd$f92b5$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information. Something my husband mentioned to me lately is how many commercials you see these days where men are shown as bumbling idiots and their wives are wise and all-knowing. There are real issues out there, but in general these aren't even strictly "men's issues." They are human issues. Half the population is men and every member of the other half of the population has some relation to men, whether being the wife, mother, daughter, sister, etc. of a man. Since these issues affect every single person in some way, it's better to talk about them in a mainstream way with articles that people will read without obscenities or insulting remarks.

You are right but when the majority of the issues are debated from a pre
conceived notion that ONE GENDER are bumbling idiots and the other gender
are WISE AND ALL KNOWING then doesn't that in itself place both genders on
different attitudes?

I see it in the attitudes of the younger females today. My 19 year old
daughter as well. As far as they are concerned women rule, men drool. All
the advertisments, almost all the movies, are designed to reinforce positve
mental image for females and to negate male attitudes through stereotyping.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug doesn't seem to have grasped that his positions are as open to being challenged...

Of course my opinions can be challenged. But not by quoting sources
which don't challenge them at all (your favorite tactic), or by making
blanket unjustified asseretions (John's favorite tactic), or by
name-calling (a tactic you both enjoy).

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes:
"Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message news:bu9f2h$f3bci$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bu9cgd$f92b5$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just in the school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important I don't want to lose any source of information. Something my husband mentioned to me lately is how many commercials you see these days where men are shown as bumbling idiots and their wives are wise and all-knowing. There are real issues out there, but in general these aren't even strictly "men's issues." They are human issues. Half the population is men and every member of the other half of the population has some relation to men, whether being the wife, mother, daughter, sister, etc. of a man. Since these issues affect every single person in some way, it's better to talk about them in a mainstream way with articles that people will read without obscenities or insulting remarks. You are right but when the majority of the issues are debated from a pre conceived notion that ONE GENDER are bumbling idiots and the other gender are WISE AND ALL KNOWING then doesn't that in itself place both genders on different attitudes? I see it in the attitudes of the younger females today. My 19 year old daughter as well. As far as they are concerned women rule, men drool. All the advertisments, almost all the movies, are designed to reinforce positve mental image for females and to negate male attitudes through stereotyping.

I assume your duaghter doesn't listen to rap music. There is a major
social influence where rape is condoned and women are all *****es or
'hos.

"Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:mimj00hnr5797akfmvofrfjsl3sj4v0lv2@4ax.com... On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:32:02 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:"Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:4b3j009cbh5eglgm1beiqp8scjs62547v8@4ax .com... On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:56:36 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: >> >Look, let's take a question that might be worth asking: How many
men >> >get bachelor's degrees vs. how many women. > >Just curious - what conclusions would you draw from that information?What >would be the significance? I have the idea that a lot of women go to college for socialization marry and don't finish. Or a lot of women just go for the two year degree.Apparently not. Found a few interesting articles on the topic out there;here are a couple:http://www.ris.sdbor.edu/publication/regentsreports/98/rr91.htmApparently in the younger age groups women now graduate at a higher ratethan men, so they probably aren't just husband hunting.This isn't just a U.S. phenomenon, either:http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/stat/indic03/indic03A/ia03506.pdfThis onehttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2001514374_collegemen15.htm
lwas also interesting. One quote from it seems worth mentioning:"That's not to say that men aren't making educational progress. Along
withthe nation's population in general, they graduate from both high school
andcollege at generally greater rates than they once did. It's just that in
astunning come-from-behind move, unimaginable a generation ago, women haveprogressed faster, surpassing them".If males are graduating at higher rates than they used to, it seems
unlikelyto me that the "school system is skewed against boys" theory is really
theculprit - otherwise graduation rates would go down, not up, among boys.
Itseems to me that the reason for this change must be in the social
climate,which must somehow have had a greater impact on females. My own pet
theoryis a combination of two things:1.) the shift from a brawn to a brains economy makes it much easier forgirls to compete in the workplace, given the education, and therefore it
isalmost a no brainer to obtain the necessary tools. Girls today are
probablymuch more likely to be encouraged by their families to attend college
thangirls a generation ago, because it is more clearly a valuable investment. Well I guess that dumps Andre's theory doesn't it?

ROTFLMAO..since when did an office job require more brawn than brains?
Yep Andre..better head back to the theory department.2.) Given things like a higher divorce rate and reduced likelihood oflifetime alimony, women can no longer count on lifelong financial supportfrom their spouse - making preparation for earning a living essential. Yup Makes sense

Again look at that paragraph....since when have men been able to count on
LIFE LONG SUPPORT? We've had to prepare for earniong a living. Only today
it's the stresses upon those poor woman we have to worry about now.
Oh and the divorce statistics? 50% chance of divorce 75% initiation by the
female...men pay...and lose.
Both of these are things that would have a bigger impact on females thanmales, REALLY?


IMO, hence the larger increase in female college graduation thanincrease in male college graduation. Yes I can see that!

SHE SEE'S !!!!!!!!!!!! Praise be to you. Hallejua......the light shines
forth.

Wow you're easy to convince.......I wonder if I put to you similar arguments
in the opposite would you change sides?

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:24vfnbk8mc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jn7jzrlowe.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:qld69mw2kr.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... > > "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: > > > > > "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message > > > news:bu49e3$98d$1@news.eusc.inter.net... > > > > > > I see.we have a huge culture (feminists) bashing males going so far
as some > of the extremists do as to promote genocide but as far as I know we don't > have a similar propaganda machine comprised of males promoting
equally > insane measures and it's silly? We do have however groups of men who
are > basically in a defensive mode crying out to an incredibly
brainwashed > general population saying BEWARE. > > And NO DOUG it is not as prevalent, the feminists and female rights > groups Yes, the all powerful feminist conspiracy. They control _everything_, no? Have you forgotten about the jewish conspiracy? Don't you know that the jews are _really_ pulling all the strings? In fact, the reason that the jews bombed the world trade towers is that the good guys(tm) discovered that Rockefeller's brain was in the basement of that building controlling the world's financial markets. The jews moved his brain back to Rockefeller Center, and then destroyed the twin towers so that all traces would be gone. > ensure that anything offensive against women rarely sees the light
of day in > mainsteam media and they are an incredibly powerful lobby. SHOW ME
AN > EQUALLY POWERFUL MENS RIGHTS LOBBY GROUP, I DARE YOU TO NAME ONE!!!!!!!!!!! > It is only in forums like the internet and such where they cannot control > free speech that they are powerless. But they do have idiots like
you who > try to confound and mislead. You have now just proven my point. Ignore feminists with a Jewish conspiracy ( male and female bashing was the topic) so now we spin
doctor, flip it to something else, Completely ignore the caps portion

You gave me too much credit????
Where in the world did you earn the right to place YOUR intelligence above
mine? That's a conceit don't you think?
We don't need a mens rights lobby......men have not been systematicaly
denied? Hmmm, Family law courts , women who are routinely given lessor
sentences if any for the same crimes..shelters for women many, none for men
of domestic abuse. ( Doug will say that doesn't happen) Men conscripted to
go to war whether they like it or not and if they don't comply ,jail,
financial ruin, socially outcast. Medical funding for womens health but yet
men still die much sooner on average then men.
Naw there's no problem. It's all in our heads.


I gave you too much credit. We don't _need_ a men's right's lobby anymore than we need a "Bush family right's lobby." Men have not systematically had their rights denied in the US. Women have. I assumed that you knew this and you were just trying to score a rhetorical point. That was why I ignored your shouting before.

You really are something.

Tony, PLEASE DON'T KILLFILE ME......I have a family to feed, a voice to be
heard......show MERCY....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc0gga5.2h4.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:53:47 -0500, John Royer <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote:

Well Tony, you do have a sense of ( humour) ( the spelling IS CORRECT). I
must admit I chuckled.

I can take a joke..even though it was meant to be sarcastic.....I can be the
same way.
Thanks


http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html -Tony -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's
time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes:
Well,well well, Doug has finally given us something to work with and something that I ACTUALLY AGREE with. Why are kids in college? Looking at the want ads in a paper is truly scary. Jobs which pay 25-30K a year require a B.A. or M.B.A. or some such silly notion.This is a little better than subsistence wages. All the data points out that we in the more affluent societies are in deep doo doo. We have enjoyed a lifestyle where even the lowest of our society are still better off than 30% of the worlds population, and yet that trend is changing. Now most of the traditional manufacturing jobs are being farmed out overseas, most of the IT jobs are doing likewise. Almost everything you buy has some element of Chinese involvement. The U.S. doesn't make much anymore.The U.S. ( I am not running the people of the U.S. down) churns out in one year more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. The U.S. people launch more litigation than the rest of the world combined. To be in a truly professional obligation is to invite a lawsuit for the most frivolous of reasons. Errors and omissions insurance and professional Liability coverage's are so expensive and almost impossible to get that many professionals are leaving their endeavors. The Stella Liebeck Awards for 2002

Can you document _any_ of this internet lore (besides Stell Liebeck
herself)? I think it is all inventend (not by you) but this is an
example of intellectual laziness to recirculate such folklore as fact
without doing any checking.

See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:bugtlv$c8j$1@news.eusc.inter.net...

[] Jayne, why in God's name do you have to justify yourself to this person?
As you can now see the other side of the story you are the enlightend one.

I do not have to justify myself. I chose to give a polite explanation
rather than indignantly protest being insulted. I did this, not so much for
Doug's sake, but for my own. Because I wish to be the sort of person who
acts that way.

Jayne

Nope no rap (crap).interesting though the girls like it too...
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LWTOb.84807$sv6.198983@attbi_s52... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com> wrote in message news:bu9f2h$f3bci$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:bu9cgd$f92b5$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... > The more I read and think about this, the more convinced I am that something > is seriously wrong with the attitude to men and boys (and not just
in the > school system). I agree with you that John, Andre and others would
be more > effective with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past
that to > listen to the points they are making. With a subject this important
I don't > want to lose any source of information. Something my husband mentioned to me lately is how many commercials
you see these days where men are shown as bumbling idiots and their wives
are wise and all-knowing. There are real issues out there, but in general these aren't even strictly "men's issues." They are human issues.
Half the population is men and every member of the other half of the
population has some relation to men, whether being the wife, mother, daughter, sister, etc. of a man. Since these issues affect every single person
in some way, it's better to talk about them in a mainstream way with
articles that people will read without obscenities or insulting remarks. You are right but when the majority of the issues are debated from a pre conceived notion that ONE GENDER are bumbling idiots and the other
gender are WISE AND ALL KNOWING then doesn't that in itself place both genders
on different attitudes? I see it in the attitudes of the younger females today. My 19 year old daughter as well. As far as they are concerned women rule, men drool.
All the advertisments, almost all the movies, are designed to reinforce
positve mental image for females and to negate male attitudes through
stereotyping. I assume your duaghter doesn't listen to rap music. There is a major social influence where rape is condoned and women are all *****es or 'hos.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug doesn't seem to have grasped that his positions are as open to being challenged... Of course my opinions can be challenged. But not by quoting sources which don't challenge them at all (your favorite tactic),

LOL ! Free Clue: Your ASSertion that they don't, isn't " proof "...
or by making blanket unjustified asseretions (John's favorite tactic),

Ibid.
or by name-calling (a tactic you both enjoy).

As opposed to your name calling of *whole newsgroups* ?

Uh huh. Pot. Kettle. Deep Black...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bmwu7n6dv6.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: The Stella Liebeck Awards for 2002 Can you document _any_ of this internet lore (besides Stell Liebeck herself)? I think it is all inventend (not by you) but this is an example of intellectual laziness to recirculate such folklore as fact without doing any checking. See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm

also, somebody on alt.support.divorce turned up this link:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:buh242$dr1$1@news.eusc.inter.net... "Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:mimj00hnr5797akfmvofrfjsl3sj4v0lv2@4ax.com... On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:32:02 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:If males are graduating at higher rates than they used to, it seems unlikelyto me that the "school system is skewed against boys" theory is really theculprit - otherwise graduation rates would go down, not up, among boys. Itseems to me that the reason for this change must be in the social climate,which must somehow have had a greater impact on females. My own pet theoryis a combination of two things:1.) the shift from a brawn to a brains economy makes it much easier forgirls to compete in the workplace, given the education, and therefore
it isalmost a no brainer to obtain the necessary tools. Girls today are probablymuch more likely to be encouraged by their families to attend college thangirls a generation ago, because it is more clearly a valuable
investment. Well I guess that dumps Andre's theory doesn't it? ROTFLMAO..since when did an office job require more brawn than brains?


Never. That was the point.

Yep Andre..better head back to the theory department.2.) Given things like a higher divorce rate and reduced likelihood oflifetime alimony, women can no longer count on lifelong financial
supportfrom their spouse - making preparation for earning a living essential. Yup Makes sense Again look at that paragraph....since when have men been able to count on LIFE LONG SUPPORT? We've had to prepare for earniong a living. Only today it's the stresses upon those poor woman we have to worry about now. Oh and the divorce statistics? 50% chance of divorce 75% initiation by the female...men pay...and lose.Both of these are things that would have a bigger impact on females
thanmales, REALLY?

It would perhaps help to review the topic. We were discussing rates of
college attendance. The information under discussion is that there used to
be more boys than girls attending college, but now 1.) there are more boys
in college than there used to be and 2.) the rate of increase in college
attendance is even higher in girls than boys, enough higher that more girls
are actually graduating than boys. The question was why. The conclusion
drawn was that societal changes had occurred which 1.) increased the rate of
college attendance in boys and 2.) increased the rate of college attendance
in girls even more. It logically followed that whatever societal changes
had occured, they had 1.) an impact on males and 2.) a bigger impact on
females - IN THE AREA OF COLLEGE ATTENDANCE (staying on topic here).

Even as recently as when I was in high school it was considered important
for boys to prepare to earn a living, but it wasn't considered necessary for
girls to prepare for the workforce - because it was part of the culture to
assume that their husband would support them. This is no longer the case -
it is now much more recognized that everybody - no matter what the gender -
should be able to earn a living. Therefore, there isn't as much change for
boys - it was considered important for them to earn a living then, and
important for them to earn a living now. There was indeed more change for
girls - it was considered unimportant for them to train to earn a living
then, but it is considered important for them to train to earn a living now.
In this context, that it should be clear that the impact of an increased
importance in training to earn a living HAS been greater in females than
males - hence the earlier statement:
Both of these are things that would have a bigger impact on females
thanmales,

Which makes your response:
"REALLY?"
sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very least didn't
grasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about the
topic and what was being said.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bmwu7n6dv6.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: The Stella Liebeck Awards for 2002 Can you document _any_ of this internet lore (besides Stell Liebeck herself)? I think it is all inventend (not by you) but this is an example of intellectual laziness to recirculate such folklore as fact without doing any checking. See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm also, somebody on alt.support.divorce turned up this link: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Yes, snopes would have been the first place I would have gone
had google not turned up the truthorfiction.com first.

I like snopes.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bugtlv$c8j$1@news.eusc.inter.net... [] Jayne, why in God's name do you have to justify yourself to this person? As you can now see the other side of the story you are the enlightend one. I do not have to justify myself. I chose to give a polite explanation rather than indignantly protest being insulted. I did this, not so much for Doug's sake, but for my own. Because I wish to be the sort of person who acts that way.

I hope I wasn't insulting. I wasn't trying to be. But the switch
from "women are oppressed by society" to "men are oppressed by
society" makes me think you are looking to gather too much information
under one heading.

I'm sympathetic to this, having once (briefly) been an (Ayn) Randian,
and then while in recovery having consider Communism (not Stalinism,
but some theoretical as-yet-untried communism). Both of them have
this theoretical simplicity which promises to explain everything. But
of course they are both, in fact, too simple to explain very much.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qi0Pb.102974$xy6.205031@attbi_s02... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bugtlv$c8j$1@news.eusc.inter.net... [] Jayne, why in God's name do you have to justify yourself to this
person? As you can now see the other side of the story you are the enlightend
one. I do not have to justify myself. I chose to give a polite explanation rather than indignantly protest being insulted. I did this, not so much
for Doug's sake, but for my own. Because I wish to be the sort of person
who acts that way. I hope I wasn't insulting. I wasn't trying to be.

I didn't think you meant to be which made it easy not to take offense.
But the switch from "women are oppressed by society" to "men are oppressed by society" makes me think you are looking to gather too much information under one heading.

In neither case did these statements sum up my worldview.
I'm sympathetic to this, having once (briefly) been an (Ayn) Randian, and then while in recovery having consider Communism (not Stalinism, but some theoretical as-yet-untried communism). Both of them have this theoretical simplicity which promises to explain everything. But of course they are both, in fact, too simple to explain very much.

I have a Masters degree in theology. This required thinking about many
abstract and complex things. I have developed views on human nature, death
and suffering, the meaning of life and a great many other subjects. I am
not attracted to theoretical simplicity.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Qi0Pb.102974$xy6.205031@attbi_s02... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bugtlv$c8j$1@news.eusc.inter.net... [] > Jayne, why in God's name do you have to justify yourself to this person? As > you can now see the other side of the story you are the enlightend one. I do not have to justify myself. I chose to give a polite explanation rather than indignantly protest being insulted. I did this, not so much for Doug's sake, but for my own. Because I wish to be the sort of person who acts that way. I hope I wasn't insulting. I wasn't trying to be. I didn't think you meant to be which made it easy not to take offense. But the switch from "women are oppressed by society" to "men are oppressed by society" makes me think you are looking to gather too much information under one heading. In neither case did these statements sum up my worldview.

But aren't they both accurate reflections of opinions you've held?
I'm sympathetic to this, having once (briefly) been an (Ayn) Randian, and then while in recovery having consider Communism (not Stalinism, but some theoretical as-yet-untried communism). Both of them have this theoretical simplicity which promises to explain everything. But of course they are both, in fact, too simple to explain very much. I have a Masters degree in theology. This required thinking about many abstract and complex things. I have developed views on human nature, death and suffering, the meaning of life and a great many other subjects. I am not attracted to theoretical simplicity.

If only advanced degrees in abstract and complex areas guaranteed this!

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FJ0Pb.88310$5V2.142358@attbi_s53... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message

[] But the switch from "women are oppressed by society" to "men are oppressed by society" makes me think you are looking to gather too much information under one heading. In neither case did these statements sum up my worldview. But aren't they both accurate reflections of opinions you've held?

Yes.

Jayne

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:48:51 -0500, "Joy"
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very least didn'tgrasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about thetopic and what was being said.


From a soc.men denizen? Tell me it isn't so!

Rauni wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:48:51 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very least didn't grasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about the topic and what was being said. From a soc.men denizen? Tell me it isn't so!

If it wasn't on Oprah, it wasn't "taken in" (by Andre), as that's his most
reliable source.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bmwu7n6dv6.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: Well,well well, Doug has finally given us something to work with and something that I ACTUALLY AGREE with. Why are kids in college? Looking at the want ads in a paper is truly
scary. Jobs which pay 25-30K a year require a B.A. or M.B.A. or some such silly notion.This is a little better than subsistence wages. All the data points out that we in the more affluent societies are in
deep doo doo. We have enjoyed a lifestyle where even the lowest of our
society are still better off than 30% of the worlds population, and yet that
trend is changing. Now most of the traditional manufacturing jobs are being
farmed out overseas, most of the IT jobs are doing likewise. Almost everything
you buy has some element of Chinese involvement. The U.S. doesn't make much anymore.The U.S. ( I am not running the people of the U.S. down) churns
out in one year more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. The U.S. people launch more litigation than the rest of the world combined. To be
in a truly professional obligation is to invite a lawsuit for the most frivolous of reasons. Errors and omissions insurance and professional Liability coverage's are so expensive and almost impossible to get that
many professionals are leaving their endeavors. The Stella Liebeck Awards for 2002 Can you document _any_ of this internet lore (besides Stell Liebeck herself)? I think it is all inventend (not by you) but this is an example of intellectual laziness to recirculate such folklore as fact without doing any checking. See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm

No In truth I cannot, I simply provided it as recieved. The facts though are
that frivolous lawsuits due abound and they are driving the costs of
virtually everything up.

How about this link?

http://www.glennsacks.com/


"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:O%1Pb.20135$zj7.2804@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Rauni wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:48:51 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very least
didn't grasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about the topic and what was being said. From a soc.men denizen? Tell me it isn't so! If it wasn't on Oprah, it wasn't "taken in" (by Andre), as that's his most reliable source.

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bmwu7n6dv6.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: Well,well well, Doug has finally given us something to work with and something that I ACTUALLY AGREE with. Why are kids in college? Looking at the want ads in a paper is truly scary. Jobs which pay 25-30K a year require a B.A. or M.B.A. or some such silly notion.This is a little better than subsistence wages. All the data points out that we in the more affluent societies are in deep doo doo. We have enjoyed a lifestyle where even the lowest of our society are still better off than 30% of the worlds population, and yet that trend is changing. Now most of the traditional manufacturing jobs are being farmed out overseas, most of the IT jobs are doing likewise. Almost everything you buy has some element of Chinese involvement. The U.S. doesn't make much anymore.The U.S. ( I am not running the people of the U.S. down) churns out in one year more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. The U.S. people launch more litigation than the rest of the world combined. To be in a truly professional obligation is to invite a lawsuit for the most frivolous of reasons. Errors and omissions insurance and professional Liability coverage's are so expensive and almost impossible to get that many professionals are leaving their endeavors. The Stella Liebeck Awards for 2002 Can you document _any_ of this internet lore (besides Stell Liebeck herself)? I think it is all inventend (not by you) but this is an example of intellectual laziness to recirculate such folklore as fact without doing any checking. See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm No In truth I cannot, I simply provided it as recieved. The facts though are that frivolous lawsuits due abound and they are driving the costs of virtually everything up.

It is certainly true that there are frivolous lawsuits. But I don't
think people _win_ frivolous lawsuits very often. See the "real"
Stella awards (someone has tried to document actual cases:
http://www.stellaawards.com/2002.html). They consist of ridiculous
suits that people have brought, but they were unable to find
ridiculous examples of suits people have actually _won_.

It's also true that there are non-frivolous lawsuits for which the
awards seem out of scale. This (IMO) affects medical malpractice
rates, and highlights the need for tort reform.

And there is yet another category of problematic suits. People suing
for bad things that have happened to them that look like someone
else's fault, but may not be. Obstetricians (who have particularly
high malpractice rates in the US) are often sued if they deliver a
baby who has problems. Sometimes the problems could have been caused
by malpractice, but often they seem not to be. This is a difficult
distinction to make, especially for a lay jury. There is no
"frivolity" involved here, but this has a huge negative effect on the
practice of obstetrics and on obstetrical malpractice rates.

Doug (not an obstetrician, just interested in this)

How about this link?

http://www.glennsacks.com/



"Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:nt8p005hb4oikmv60pojbke6j2scmnllu4@4ax.com... On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:48:51 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very least
didn'tgrasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about thetopic and what was being said. From a soc.men denizen? Tell me it isn't so!

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fWpOb.14148$1e.4452@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bubr1u$7eh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: []>> I agree with you that John, Andre and others would be more effective>> with a less confrontational style, but I try to get past that to>> listen to the points they are making.>> While I do understand your point, Jayne, the context is, that men's> rights advocates have been " polite " for thirty years... and the> results of that have been... zero.>> Its dysfunctional to continue to do *what has never ever worked,> in the hope that, this time, finally, it might*. That applies to> any and every area of human behavior. [] I have to admit that I am biased on this question of style and this
affects my ability to judge its effectiveness. Part of the reason I would like
you to have a less confrontational style is I don't like reading posts in
which people insult and attack you. How do you feel about posts in which he insults and attacks others? Andre never does that. That would be an "ad hominem", which Andre
disdains. I think you need a new pair of glasses!


Excuse me Bill, but do you think that the feminists got to where they are
today by being polite and not becoming a thorn in societies side?

Doug Anderson wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bmwu7n6dv6.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes:> Well,well well,>> Doug has finally given us something to work with and something that I> ACTUALLY AGREE with.>> Why are kids in college? Looking at the want ads in a paper is truly
scary.> Jobs which pay 25-30K a year require a B.A. or M.B.A. or some such silly> notion.This is a little better than subsistence wages.> All the data points out that we in the more affluent societies are in deep> doo doo. We have enjoyed a lifestyle where even the lowest of our society> are still better off than 30% of the worlds population, and yet that trend> is changing. Now most of the traditional manufacturing jobs are being> farmed out overseas, most of the IT jobs are doing likewise. Almost> everything you buy has some element of Chinese involvement. The U.S.> doesn't make much anymore.The U.S. ( I am not running the people of the> U.S. down) churns out in one year more lawyers than the rest of the world> combined. The U.S. people launch more litigation than the rest of the> world combined. To be in a truly professional obligation is to invite a> lawsuit for the most frivolous of reasons. Errors and omissions insurance> and professional Liability coverage's are so expensive and almost> impossible to get that many professionals are leaving their endeavors.>> The Stella Liebeck Awards for 2002 Can you document _any_ of this internet lore (besides Stell Liebeck herself)? I think it is all inventend (not by you) but this is an example of intellectual laziness to recirculate such folklore as fact without doing any checking. See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm No In truth I cannot, I simply provided it as recieved. The facts though are that frivolous lawsuits due abound and they are driving the costs of virtually everything up. It is certainly true that there are frivolous lawsuits. But I don't think people _win_ frivolous lawsuits very often. See the "real" Stella awards (someone has tried to document actual cases: http://www.stellaawards.com/2002.html). They consist of ridiculous suits that people have brought, but they were unable to find ridiculous examples of suits people have actually _won_. It's also true that there are non-frivolous lawsuits for which the awards seem out of scale. This (IMO) affects medical malpractice rates, and highlights the need for tort reform. And there is yet another category of problematic suits. People suing for bad things that have happened to them that look like someone else's fault, but may not be. Obstetricians (who have particularly high malpractice rates in the US) are often sued if they deliver a baby who has problems. Sometimes the problems could have been caused by malpractice, but often they seem not to be. This is a difficult distinction to make, especially for a lay jury. There is no "frivolity" involved here, but this has a huge negative effect on the practice of obstetrics and on obstetrical malpractice rates.

Sort of reminds me of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Maybe it's
finally our turn? Yet another sign of the (current) times, of declining
personal responsibility. What a surprise.....

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:bum68r$svp$1@news.eusc.inter.net... How about this link? http://www.glennsacks.com/ "Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:nt8p005hb4oikmv60pojbke6j2scmnllu4@4ax.com... On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:48:51 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very least didn'tgrasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about thetopic and what was being said.

Was there supposed to be something there about the topic we were discussing?
Maybe I got the wrong link - it just looked like a link to some talk radio
host.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
in message news:K8EPb.360$L04.4@bignews4.bellsouth.net... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bum68r$svp$1@news.eusc.inter.net... How about this link? http://www.glennsacks.com/ "Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:nt8p005hb4oikmv60pojbke6j2scmnllu4@4ax.com... On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:48:51 -0500, "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote: >sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very least didn't >grasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about
the >topic and what was being said.
Thats what I love people who can't follow a Link or read. The topic was boy
bashing, Try going back in and looking it up. Or better still don't bother
since you'll pretend you didn't see it anyway or you'll dismiss it because
YOU don't think the source is credible.



Was there supposed to be something there about the topic we were
discussing? Maybe I got the wrong link - it just looked like a link to some talk radio host.

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:burt8a$t7s$1@news.eusc.inter.net... "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote in message news:K8EPb.360$L04.4@bignews4.bellsouth.net... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:bum68r$svp$1@news.eusc.inter.net... How about this link? http://www.glennsacks.com/ "Rauni" <Ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:nt8p005hb4oikmv60pojbke6j2scmnllu4@4ax.com... > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:48:51 -0500, "Joy" > <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com>
wrote: > > >sound like you didn't really read the material, or at the very
least didn't > >grasp the context, and then jumped to an erroneous conclusion about the > >topic and what was being said. > Thats what I love people who can't follow a Link or read. The topic was
boy bashing, Try going back in and looking it up. Or better still don't
bother since you'll pretend you didn't see it anyway or you'll dismiss it because YOU don't think the source is credible.

No, the topic was NOT boy bashing. The topic was *rates of college
attendance for both genders*. Note: a discussion of rates of college
attendance is DIFFERENT from a discussion about boy bashing. That is why
the link wasn't relevant, and didn't pertain to the discussion.

On a separate note, I don't feel obligated to read a link just because
somebody posted it. I can use google for myself, when I just want to read
posted articles on a topic. A newsgroup like this is more discussion
oriented - just posting a link isn't the same as participating in a
discussion.