American Women

(Hmmm.... I wonder why this is happening?)

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

By Wendy McElroy

Some researchers call them the "Lost Boys." They are the students you don't see on college campuses.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) tracks the enrollment in all degree-granting institutions by sex. From 1992 to 2000, the ratio of enrolled males to females fell from 82 to 78 boys for every 100 girls. The NCES projects that in 2007 the ratio will be 75 males for every 100 females; in 2012, 74 per 100.

In short, your son is statistically more likely than your daughter to work a blue collar job.

Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, argues that leaving a generation of boys behind hurts women as well. In a Business Week cover story, Mortenson observed, "My belief is that until women decide that the education of boys is a serious issue, nothing is going to happen."

He believes some women feel threatened by even admitting the problem because "it will take away from the progress of women...What everyone needs to realize is that if boys continue to slide, women will lose too."

That realization still seems distant among educational experts, who continue to downplay the NCES statistic as well as other data that indicate schools are hurting boys.

Jacqueline King — author of the influential study "Gender Equity in Higher Education: Are Male Students at a Disadvantage?"— is an example. She found that 68 percent of college enrollees from low-income families were female; only 31 percent were male.

Yet King insists there is no "boy crisis" in education despite the fact that data from Upward Bound and Talent Search show a comparable gender gap. (These college-preparation programs operate in high schools and received $312.6 million $144.9 million in tax funding, respectively, in 2005.) Of the students who receive benefits from those college-preparation programs, approximately 61 percent are girls; 39 percent are boys.

King's quoted explanation of the gender gaps: "women make up a disproportionate share of low-income students" who go on to college. Since low-income families presumably give birth to boys in the same ratio as the general population— worldwide the ratio is between 103 to 107 boys for every 100 girls — why are so few boys applying for assistance? A higher drop-out rate might be partly responsible, or boys may have no interest in higher education.

King comments on the latter explanation: "male low-income students have some ability in this strong economy to make a decent living with just a high-school diploma." In particular, she points to the construction industry.

King may be correct. The fact that low-income boys gravitate toward manual labor may account for some of the educational gender disparity. What is striking, however, is her apparent dismissal of that disparity as important. She seems to accept the reality that far fewer men than women enroll in college and that poor boys enter "the trades" while poor girls become professionals.

Imagine the gender ratio being reversed, with 78 girls for every 100 boys entering college. Imagine a generation of poor girls being relegated to low social status labor while tax funding assists poor boys. It is difficult to believe King would be similarly unconcerned.

Nevertheless, merely by acknowledging the situation, King shows far more balance than prominent voices, like the American Association of University Women, which still maintains there is a "girl crisis."

Fortunately, researchers like Judith Kleinfeld of the University of Alaska see that boys are in distress.

Kleinfeld — author of "The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls" — states, "In my own college classes, I see a sea change in the behavior of young men. In the 1980s, the young men talked in my classes about the same as young women. I know because each semester I measured male and female talk. Now so many young men are disengaged that the more articulate, ambitious women dominate the classroom ....and my office hours."

Kleinfeld tried to trace the problem backward by interviewing high school students on plans for their future. She states, "The young women almost always have a clear, realistic plan—-go to college, have a career, often directed toward an idealistic goals about improving the environment."

This clarity of vision and was generally absent in young men.

Among those who acknowledge the "boy crisis," explanations are vary and may all be true. Some point to the "feminization" of education over the last decade, which occurred largely in response to a perceived need to encourage girls. But, if boys and girls learn differently, then the changes may be placing boys at a disadvantage.

Others point to explicitly anti-male attitudes — that is, political correctness — within education. The website Illinois Loop lists "22 School Practices That May Harm Boys." One of them: "'Modern' textbooks and recommended literature often go to extremes to remove male role models as lead characters and examples."

Kleinfeld points speculatively to the impact of increased divorce and fatherless homes on the self-image of boys who lack a positive male role-model.

Approximately 40 percent of American children now live in homes without their own biological father.

Ultimately, explanations of and solutions to the "boy crisis" will come from exploring a combination of factors. My solution: privatize education and place it under the control of parents or adult students.

The first step to any solution, however, is to acknowledge there is a problem. We are not quite there yet.

Chocha,

I did not know about the 2-year conditional resident status thing. It all makes sense now; I learned something today.

I tell you women can really be slick. I just don’t know how women, as cute as they sometimes are, can be so damned devious. I guess I’ll never understand that one.

Btw, I remember the Eddie Murphy comedy video that Sinanju was referring to. It is hilarious. And to think we still have the same issue 2 decades later. What a shame.

ILAS

The biggest and most famous example of a foreign woman turning renegade is Ivana Trump. When Ivana filed to divorce Donald Trump, she demanded a Billion dollars from her husband. At first Trump did not want to give in, but on the advice of his lawyers he was told that it was the best option because she might have sued for more. So Trump called Ivana and told her that he would give her a bank certified check for a billion dollars. You want to know her response? She said she did not want a check instead, she wanted a billion dollars in 1 dollar bills, that's correct this b*itch wanted a billion dollars in 1 dollar bills. It took Trump and his lawyers a month to convince the United States Treasury to print a billion 1 dollar notes. Many poor workers at the US treasury had to work double overtime in order to complete the request, which took 48 days to finish. When it was done Trump called an armored car service, they asked him how he wanted the money to be delivered. Trump said he didn't care, he even said it was okay to dump it on Ivana's front lawn of her Miami estate. A convoy of 128 armored cars delivered the money to Ivana Trump's address in Florida. When the convoy arrived, Ivana refused to take delivery of the money, she then phoned up Donald Trump, and told him "You know what? I changed my mind, I don't want a billion one dollar bills, just send me a certified check.". Yes so big time stinkers like Ivana Trump can be found abroad too. The best advice, don't bring them back to the States.

I was watching NBC News at 6PM today & they were discussing the Michael Jackson verdict with the prosecuting attorney. The story mentioned that the jury did not believe the story & felt that the mother may have put the boy up to it in order to extort money from Jackson. When the prosecutor was asked about the jury’s perception of the mother, his response included that she had been the victim of domestic violence.

Now I did not follow the Jackson case closely, so I am trying to give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt, but I thought this case was about alcohol & child molestation. When did mom’s domestic violence come into it?

My question is if anyone on here knows what domestic violence had to do with mom’s credibility on the witness stand? I could be wrong, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this is an attempt by the State to justify their failure to win a conviction in this case by using the “women are always victims” tactic. The idea that mom could be a liar & the eight women & four men on the jury saw through her charade could not possibly be the reason they did not believe the story. Of course not; the jury was somehow blinded by mom’s past subjection to domestic violence!

My God, US women can’t even lose a case in court without someone trying to use some psychological buzzword to explain it away.

Also today, the Florida Medical Examiner’s autopsy findings completely exonerated Terri Shiavo’s husband of any wrongdoing, and of course there has not been any response by Terri’s parents or siblings about the autopsy findings even though they demonized this calling him a spouse abuser, womanizer & anything else they could think of (It’s amazing how silence overcomes the noisy once the truth comes out).

I’m just waiting for someone else in this country to attempt to counter the autopsy findings & explain to the rest of us why they should not have removed the feeding tube from a 15-year brain dead patient with her legally married husbands consent. Now, the autopsy shows that she was not abused, so domestic violence is not a viable ploy. I got it! Maybe Terri was suffering from post-partum depression at the time they removed her feeding tube. Surely that will make Terri a victim once again in the eyes of our “women are always victims” society.

ILAS

American Women Suck – and society isn’t helping it any.

That story is complete bullshit.

Ivana Trump got $25mil from "The Donald" after thirteen years of being married, because of a pre-nup. That's pretty small potatoes from a billionaire.

I saw a similar story (Long's college article) but it was oriented more towards the college social life-basically, in the man deficient environment, girls compete aggressively for boyfiriends, and even basically engage in public lesbian behavior in order to get the attention of men. Maybe I should go and pick up that PhD before splitting the country. I likes me some coeds (but not what they balloon into unfortunately).

Incidently, I'm also aware of another coping mechanism that is I'm sure partially inspired by the above mentioned deficiency. There is a class of girls that have evolved on college campuses who are known as LUGs...that is (L)esbians (U)ntil (G)raduation. Basically, they dyke it out all over the place for four years, and forego all of the terrible difficulties that men cause them, and then after graduating, switch teams, and start hunting for a guy to give them babies and a white pickett fence. It's good to know that we can be eliminated, even on a short term basis.

One other thing. Where I live (the sticks), don't so much see the sexless career women that you guys describe, as pretty much well...hillbilly chicks (the world would be a better place if they were sexless, instead of replicating themselves and the local losers 3-8 times each. I'm not kidding about the 8 incidently). However, in a major bookstore chain, I laughed my head off as I saw exactly what you guys were talking about (I used to work downtown Chicago, but it's been several years). There was this obvious dressed down career women (with her own big silver cofee mug), and if she could have possibly radiated any less femininity, I can't imagine how.

CbGb you have been misinformed. The Donald kept the Florida estate and Ivana did get something like 25 million.

However in this mongerers estimation, $25,000,000.00 was a lot of money for bearing two kids and having brazilian waxes done. I don't care if she was having to fuck that ugly prick, 25 million bucks is a shitload of money when you weren't going to the office to make it. I also could give a good fuck less how much money the ex is worth it's a shitload. I'm also not interested in how she helped him make by helping maintain his network, a good secretary could do the same for a lot less severance.

Let's see, that's almost 2 million/year (actually, it's 1.923 million/yr).

Now I don't earn 1.923 million per year, so that's a nice sum of money in my eyes. In fact, most people, single or married, will not earn 1.923 million in a lifetime.

Maybe if I were a millionaire, I would feel Ivanna's pain & wonder how she could live on such a paltry sum of money.

Then again, maybe I'm in the minority & this board is full of aristocrats.

CBGB, sorry, but you are yet another taken in by an urban legend.
There are dozens of myth debunking websites if you are interested, but this is a cute introduction.

[url]www.science.howstuffworks.com/urban-legend.htm[/url]

Cheers,

Sporadic

Here's an atricle that I found to be interesting. I've posted the link in case you want to read the article at the Fox News website: [url]http: //www. foxnews. com/story/0, 2933, 158227, 00. html[/url]

Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts Wednesday, June 01, 2005 By Wendy McElroy

A determined father in Massachusetts has delivered an early Father's Day gift to non-custodial parents, the overwhelming majority of whom are dads.

Dr. Henry M. Fassler has successfully contested a 1998 Massachusetts law that requires a non-custodial parent to have court certification as a non-batterer on a yearly basis before he (or she) is allowed access to their children's school records. The school system currently views all non-custodial parents as guilty of battery until proven innocent. But all that is going to change.

The specifics of Fassler's case: he wanted to see the academic class list for his 17-year-old daughter Lindsay, who had asked him for help. No charge or complaint had ever been filed against Fassler; he is on good terms with his ex-wife and children.

When the school refused the class list, Fassler not only got angry, he also got active. Last October, he complained to the Family Policy Compliance Office at the U. S. Department of Education, challenging the statute as discriminatory. On May 6, the DOE sent a letter to Massachusetts' Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll, which warned that "the commonwealth and every school district in Massachusetts is in violation of federal law, and has been for years. "

The letter explained, "non-custodial parents cannot be denied access to school records unless there is evidence those 'rights have been specifically revoked'. " The government cannot stand between parent and child when no evidence of abuse is present.

Father's rights advocates had fought against the law since its passage. (Indeed, Fassler belongs to Fathers and Families, a leading voice in that battle.) Suddenly, however, with millions in federal funding at stake, Driscoll has indicated that a "new policy" will treat divorced parents more fairly.

The struggle in Massachusetts for non-custodial rights offers both hope and lessons to divorced parents across North America.

One lesson is cautionary: even well-intended laws can be hijacked and used for unintended political purposes. This one fact alone should prejudice reformers in favor of repealing bad laws rather than stacking the new ones ever higher.

According to Fassler, the 1998 statute was first pushed by father's advocates who wanted to clarify their parental right to school records. Then, anti-domestic violence groups -- especially a Boston-based victims advocacy group, Jane Doe Inc. (JDI) -- amended the measure to make a distinction between custodial and non-custodial parents. Fassler claims the changes converted the statute into an "abuse-prevention bill" that discriminated against the very fathers who suggested it.

JDI has a history of receiving large tax-funded contracts to handle the training and other assistance necessary to implement anti-abuse programs in Massachusetts; it seems natural to assume that JDI wielded influence over the policy-makers with whom it has established a long and remunerative partnership. Nancy Scannell of JDI helped to draft the statute.

By contrast, the father's rights advocates against whom JDI is often pitted consist almost entirely of volunteers.

This is another lesson from the Massachusetts struggle. Grassroots organizations and actions can prevail over generously tax-funded agencies, but it is crucial to "follow the money. " The crusade against the 1998 statute won out only when Fassler called federal funding into question.

But following the money means more than this; the tax-funding of JDI should be tracked and made public. As taxpayers, fathers have a right to know how such funds are dispensed and to expose any political bias in the granting of contracts.

Moreover, any organization that will profit from a legislative measure should be excluded from drafting it. The exclusion is important. The Boston Globe quotes Scannell as saying she "will eagerly participate in any discussion to rewrite the bill. " If the "non-profit" JDI will eagerly cash checks based on such a rewrite, then JDI should not shape its language.

Yet, despite words of caution, the news from Massachusetts is heartening. Non-custodial parents will no longer be viewed as abusive until proven innocent. Fathers can play a greater role in their children's academic lives.

Radio host Glenn Sacks, who campaigned against the 1998 statute, explains the importance of a father's presence. "As a former high school teacher…I could teach a class for a few weeks and then have a pretty good idea which kids had fathers in their lives and which ones didn't. I had few discipline problems…but I always knew that there was one truly effective way to get an errant boy to change his ways--call his dad and explain…that he needs to leave work and come to the school to talk to me about his son's behavior. It was 100 percent effective. "

That option may now be available to all of Massachusetts' teachers, parents, and children.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists. com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

maybe desiree nall lied because she's a victim of domestic violence.

i used to live in brevard county, florida (that's where i got my first divorce. here's the link: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153969,00.html[/url]

false [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] claim hurts real victims
wednesday, april 20, 2005
by wendy mcelroy

on april 8, the president of the brevard, fla., chapter of the national organization for women was charged by the florida state attorney's office with filing a false [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] report and making a false official statement.

she could be imprisoned for one year on each count and forced to pay for the police investigation she incurred. the case has far-reaching implications for gender politics and for women who report sexual assault in the future.

the facts are as follows. on nov. 17, 2004, part-time rollins college student desiree nall reported being raped in a campus bathroom by two men. the winter park police department put rollins on ‘high alert,’ advising students to remain indoors when possible.

the dean immediately dispatched a campus-wide email to assure students that extra security measures were being taken.

in a sandspur article entitled "a [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] hoax is no way to get attention,"jean bernard chery relates how the incident impacted campus life.

"it was a nightmare for every female student and faculty/staff at rollins. they were afraid to go to the bathroom or walk on campus alone after dusk….the incident prompted a candlelight vigil on campus in support of the alleged victim [then unnamed]," chery wrote.

the police had reason for skepticism. nall could not assist with composite sketches, offered inconsistent details and did not wish to press charges. an examination at a sexual assault treatment center after the alleged attack produced no evidence of foreign dna.

due to publicity and campus panic, however, a police investigation continued at a final estimated cost of more than $50,000. the report of [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] was judged a hoax.

according to police, on nov. 19,nall phoned and asked to have the case dropped. when detective jon askins questioned her original report, nall reportedly confessed that she was "not a victim of a sexual batter." the police speculate that nall, a vocal feminist, may have been trying to "make a statement" about violence against women. the allege raped occurred during sexual assault awareness week, which was intended to highlight the issue of sexual violence against women.

jeff nall, desiree’s husband, has been speaking publicly on her behalf. he claims the charges will be appealed on the grounds that an attempted assault did occur. he denies that she confessed to lying. he claims she has been targeted by police because "she is a women's-rights activist."

he also distances now from the unfolding fiasco by pointing out that his wife became a chapter president only recently, prior to the incident. moreover, according to one article in the sandspur, he argues "that sexual assault cases such as this are not one of the platforms of now."

now apparently wishes to maintain distance as well. as of monday, searching it’s website for the term "nall" returns no results. after all, now has argued that women do not lie about [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url]. catharine mackinnon--a founding mother of the gender feminism that now promotes -- stated in her book, feminism unmodified, "the reason feminism uncovered this reality [of male oppression], its methodological secret, is that feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men."

if this methodology is debunked, if women are viewed as no more or less likely to lie than men, then the foundation of gender politics collapses.

it is premature and grandiose, however, to see the collapse of gender feminism within the nall news story. a false account of [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] in a bathroom is a much smaller and more tawdry tale: a tempest in a toilet.

assuming that nall lied, she has achieved the opposite of what i believe she intended. by "crying [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url]" she has made every woman who is a victim less credible and less likely to receive justice from the police or the public. she has made women less safe.

rollins student elizabeth humphrey states the point simply: "lying about that story is absolutely horrible because women are victimized every day. and if we get the reputation of lying, then people won't start to believe us if it does happen."

instead of publicizing sexual violence against women, nall has spotlighted the problem of false accusations against men. her case also raises the question of whether now-style feminists encourage false accusations when they flatly insist that women must be believed.

in the ‘60s, feminists fought to have [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] taken seriously. but taking an accusation seriously is not the same as granting it automatic validity. rather, it means investigating the facts and weighing them in an unbiased manner that favors no one and nothing but the truth.

a lot of ugly truth may surface in the coming months. the state of florida seems determined to pursue its case against nall, who seems determined to fight back.

winter park sgt. pam marcum explained to the orlando sentinel that bringing charges against nall had taken so long because the police department sought a second opinion from the state attorney’s office. it is rare for those who file false reports of sexual abuse to be prosecuted. in short, the prosecution is carefully constructing a case; the defense is loudly crying ‘political persecution!’ in the process, the definition and legal status of [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] within our society continues to evolve.

where it comes to rest depends largely upon the honesty-- not the now-like silence -- with which women confront the problem of false accusations.

wendy mcelroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for the independent institute in oakland, calif. she is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "liberty for women: freedom and feminism in the 21st century" (ivan r. dee/independent institute, 2002). she lives with her husband in canada.

If they had sex twice a week it works out to $18,491 per fuck. Hell, if they had sex every dang day it is $5,283 per fuck. That is $15,057 Argentinean pesos so I could fuck Pandora 125 times a day. Or I could go to Oba Oba for 1,004 half hour sessions per day. Oh, wait a minute; there are only 48 half hours in a day. And Pandora is probably already getting fucked 125 times a day.

Personally for $5,283 a day I would go to Amsterdam and get Yab Yum's limousine filled with a wide ethnic variety of chicas, get some monster dope, and just drive around all day buried in pussy. It's hard to run a financial empire that way, though.

If you think american women are bad you should meet british women. Polyester is not sexy. Really.

Its quite funny, I come back to the forum after 6 months and the first post I see is from Dickhead, some things never change!

Anyway, I totally agree with Dickhead, stay away from Argentina, its really dangerous, the pimps are evil, the pr is overblown, prices are overinflated, girls aren't that great either. I know, I've been there.

Recommend you go to Chile instead.

[QUOTE=CBGBConnisur] Many poor workers at the US treasury had to work double overtime in order to complete the request, which took 48 days to finish.[.quote]I think CBGBConnisur got this part all wrong too. Since when are the federal workers at the US Treasury considered poor? I think the average starting wage is about $20 an hour and with all that overtime they probably all bought new cars that year. And what would Ivana have done with all those $1 dollar bills? Think and verify before you write anything, dude.