Affirmative Action for Men?

[MedStudentWanna]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Time did a piece on it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html

 

[nonesuchgirl]

tl;dr, but

this country is so weird.

 

[akszp4]

I googled and read "To All The Girls I've Rejected" and it's pretty interesting. I thought it was a well thought out argument but I hate the ratio factors that colleges try to keep.

I loved this part though: "We have told today's young women that the world is their oyster; the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today's most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men. How's that for an unintended consequence of the women's liberation movement?"

and

"What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options? And what messages are we sending young women that they must, nearly 25 years after the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, be even more accomplished than men to gain admission to the nation's top colleges? These are questions that admissions officers like me grapple with."


I don't think race or gender should play any part in admissions. They shouldn't even have a place on applications for that. It should be based upon accomplishments. But thats just my vision for a utopia.

 

[bodonid]

"irony... the game rigged against them"? Does anyone else find this statement/article biased/offensive? The idea that national college enrollment statistics can be fixed by a change in slogan... Obviously the discrepancy begins much earlier, in middle and high schools. Not only do they cater to the developmental advantages of girls, but the gender gap in teaching faculty persists, making it unlikely that boys will relate as well to their teachers.

Interesting article, but definately a little colored.

 

[BluePhoenix]

I went to an undergrad where the ratio of men to women was about 3.5 to 1 and honestly, it wasn't really a big deal. I mean is it really that important that there's 1 male for every female? It's not like everyone pairs up in undergrad, most of my friends didn't meet their spouse until after undergrad anyway.

"What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options? And what messages are we sending young women that they must, nearly 25 years after the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, be even more accomplished than men to gain admission to the nation's top colleges? These are questions that admissions officers like me grapple with."

I don't think race or gender should play any part in admissions. They shouldn't even have a place on applications for that. It should be based upon accomplishments. But thats just my vision for a utopia.

Well, given the current environment in science, it's probably a good preparation for later life. Women currently have to publish about 3 times as much and in higher quality journals to attain the same status. That being said, I don't think race or gender should play a part either. No one wants to be the second class student where people question whether you got in because of some "other" criteria. Not to mention having separate criteria means that you'll have sort of two tiers of students, putting the less qualified students at a disadvantage.

 

[BluePhoenix]

"irony... the game rigged against them"? Does anyone else find this statement/article biased/offensive? The idea that national college enrollment statistics can be fixed by a change in slogan... Obviously the discrepancy begins much earlier, in middle and high schools. Not only do they cater to the developmental advantages of girls, but the gender gap in teaching faculty persists, making it unlikely that boys will relate as well to their teachers.

Interesting article, but definately a little colored.

I think the idea that boys need male teachers so they can relate is complete crap. Women have been teaching for a long time, yet this gender gap is relatively new. The problem is in the guys' attitudes towards learning. Other countries don't have this problem because the kids and their parents understand the importance of education. We need to lose the "boys will be boys" attitude and teach them how to listen and focus.

 

[bodonid]

I think the idea that boys need male teachers so they can relate is complete crap. Women have been teaching for a long time, yet this gender gap is relatively new. The problem is in the guys' attitudes towards learning. Other countries don't have this problem because the kids and their parents understand the importance of education. We need to lose the "boys will be boys" attitude and teach them how to listen and focus.

Totally agree. But I just got through reading an article in last week's Science that talked about ways to "get girls interested" in classroom activities by focusing on how they learn best. This is certainly a good thing, but when have you ever seen an article about how to get boys involved by focusing on their strengths? IDK, maybe it just isn't publicized.

 

[Chuckwalla]

Of course, admitting this is taboo, as Delahunty learned two years ago. She was in marathon committee meetings, stacking glorious girls on the waiting list while less accomplished boys wiggled through, when she got an e-mail informing her that her own daughter had been wait-listed. The experience inspired her to write a confessional Op-Ed, "To All the Girls I've Rejected," for the New York Times, responses to which lit up her inbox. "It pissed off the feminists and the misogynists--I got both sides of the spectrum," she told me. "The misogynists said women already have too many advantages. And the feminists said, How dare you not treat women like men." But what most amazed her was the reaction of young women: by and large, they assumed this is just how things work. "Why aren't they marching in the streets? That's the part that slays me," Delahunty says. "It isn't fair, and young women should be saying something about it not being fair."

Hold up. The opposite of a feminist is a misogynist? Females have WAY more advantages than men in the industrialized world and if you think that gap should close than you must hate women. Typical.

As the article said women are 58% of college students and increasing. This is mostly because education has been geared towards girls, leaving boys in the background. Boys are four times, FOUR TIMES more likely to be doped up on ADD drugs and thrown in special education classes. The more active nature of boys is snubbed in the sit-down and do your work environment of education. It is also ignored that girls mature faster than boys.

Pro-female affirmative action has been practiced for decades. It is outright blatant in math and science fields along with the job market. Women who are willing to work full time get shuttled through management positions. Now that males are struggling, using affirmative action to help them out is not fair to women? Either you like affirmative action or you do not, it is not on a "does it help YOU basis".

 

[Chuckwalla]

I think the idea that boys need male teachers so they can relate is complete crap. Women have been teaching for a long time, yet this gender gap is relatively new. The problem is in the guys' attitudes towards learning. Other countries don't have this problem because the kids and their parents understand the importance of education. We need to lose the "boys will be boys" attitude and teach them how to listen and focus.

Actually this trend of men falling behind in education is prevalent in the industrialized world.

The problem is not with men's attitudes of learning. As you said, this gap is new. It is not like the male gender just decided to slack off. It is because education has been focused on the learning style of girls.

 

[bodonid]

if you think that gap should close than you must hate women. Typical.

I know, right? Obviously if we question the imbalance then we are sexist.

I agree with most of your post, except for the bit about the job market. I think most of the world of education favors girls and women, but I think the current job market (especially the corporate world) currently favors men. But while the current jobs are slowly adjusting to modern standards, the education situation will affect us for decades, whether or not we make efforts to correct it.

 

[Chuckwalla]

Totally agree. But I just got through reading an article in last week's Science that talked about ways to "get girls interested" in classroom activities by focusing on how they learn best. This is certainly a good thing, but when have you ever seen an article about how to get boys involved by focusing on their strengths? IDK, maybe it just isn't publicized.

Right on. Just think about the stuff you read when you were in English class. I remember reading things like Helen Keller's Teacher, Jane Eyre, The Bell Jar, etc. books that boys have zero interest in.

It isn't publicized because it isn't politically correct. Females have the whole feminist movement jumping on imbalances that hurt them, meanwhile males have no one. On the contrary, highlighting these imbalanced will get you labeled as a sexist, misogynist etc.

 

[Chuckwalla]

I know, right? Obviously if we question the imbalance then we are sexist.

I agree with most of your post, except for the bit about the job market. I think most of the world of education favors girls and women, but I think the current job market (especially the corporate world) currently favors men. But while the current jobs are slowly adjusting to modern standards, the education situation will affect us for decades, whether or not we make efforts to correct it.

I understand what you are saying. It favors men because they are more likely to work full time. However, when a woman is hardcore career woman she will get preference in almost any scenario, often when she has less experience.

 

[nonesuchgirl]

Right on. Just think about the stuff you read when you were in English class. I remember reading things like Helen Keller's Teacher, Jane Eyre, The Bell Jar, etc. books that boys have zero interest in.

It isn't publicized because it isn't politically correct. Females have the whole feminist movement jumping on imbalances that hurt them, meanwhile males have no one. On the contrary, highlighting these imbalanced will get you labeled as a sexist, misogynist etc.

not all feminists are misogynists, though. the neofemmes are.

i hated english class.

 

[MedRower]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

 

[decafplease]

I understand what you are saying. It favors men because they are more likely to work full time. However, when a woman is hardcore career woman she will get preference in almost any scenario, often when she has less experience.

I'm no fan of the misandric "feminist" attitude, but I think your statement above is a bit off. Where are your statistics?

 

[TM2006]

uh come on guys (i'm a guy btw)...

the heavily science oriented majors are all still filled with males or at least 50/50. At my school Chem E and EE are 8:2 male to female. Those are the degrees that lead to more opportunities.

These schools that have much more female than male students are not focused on sciences. In my view, girls are still more interested in humanities (and definitely major in them) than guys. guys are still more interested in sciences than girls.

From my experiences, if you are a guy who isn't interested in math/science or even political science, then you're pretty much set to go into business (You don't need a college degree to be successful in business.).

Out of all my high school friends, I know of only one guy who was sincerely interested in the humanities and majored in it.

Any real change would equally encourage men and women to pursue both science and humanity degrees. Men need to be encouraged to write more...just look at this poorly written post.

 

[nevercold]

There is an interesting book just out by Susan Jacoby, The Age of American Unreason, that touches on the development of anti-intellectualism in the US. The various waves of feminism in the past half century have all generally pushed towards greater achievement by women. It seems like that has been the sole force really opposing the anti-intellectualism movement and has thereby separated male and female achievement in the classroom in the favor of the females.

 

[searun]

As long as we can still get together and reproduce, it is all good. But apparently, according to some experts, males will be extinct in the not too distant future, a few centuries hence. And the entire world will be female. Hey, I like girls, alot, but the entire planet populated by girls ???, and if their menstrual cycles get synchronized, well, WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO WIN THE NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP? I hope it is Oregon. But it will probably be Duke.

 

[45408]

We need to lose the "boys will be boys" attitude and teach them how to listen and focus.

No, I think that's exactly the problem. Boys learn differently, and you can't fit all the square pegs into the round hole. Just because the little boys won't do what you want them to doesn't mean they should be beaten (figuratively) into submission.

I mean is it really that important that there's 1 male for every female?

Somehow the women thought it was a problem when there were more males than females in college. 🙄

 

[45408]

But apparently, according to some experts, males will be extinct in the not too distant future, a few centuries hence. And the entire world will be female.

Those are probably the same "experts" that get on CNN and say "I hope the trend of men having babies really catches on." I think she flunked health class.

 

[akszp4]

I would agree that hard sciences still seem to be more male dominated, espcially engineering and math. But even with these hard sciences totaled in, males only cary 42% of bachelors degree earned per year.

 

[45408]

I found this interesting blog entry regarding the "To All the Girls I've Rejected":

The dean of admissions at Kenyon College, Jennifer Delahunty Britz, writes a NYT op-ed blatantly admitting to a policy of discriminating against women:

http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/had-she-been-male-applicant-there.html?fta=y

Methinks if we swapped out a few demographics in the original article, this blog would be lauding her for what she does, rather than calling it discrimination against women.

 

[45408]

I would agree that hard sciences still seem to be more male dominated, espcially engineering and math. But even with these hard sciences totaled in, males only cary 42% of bachelors degree earned per year.

Be careful what you imply here or everyone will be on your backside like you were Larry Summers.

 

[searun]

No, I think that's exactly the problem. Boys learn differently, and you can't fit all the square pegs into the round hole. Just because the little boys won't do what you want them to doesn't mean they should be beaten (figuratively) into submission.


Somehow the women thought it was a problem when there were more males than females in college. 🙄

Agreed. My mother is an elementary school teacher. The ideal students in elementary school are girls, but boys, who are itching to go outside for recess, and jump on each other, well, they are problems.

 

[akszp4]

I found this interesting blog entry regarding the "To All the Girls I've Rejected":


http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/had-she-been-male-applicant-there.html?fta=y

Methinks if we swapped out a few demographics in the original article, this blog would be lauding her for what she does, rather than calling it discrimination against women.

Right. I think her speaking up was great and am sad that there wasn't a bigger protest from the women though. I think society has learnt to deal with the admissions games injustices.

But I understand colleges wanting diversity too. It seems like a Catch -22 for th students and colleges.

 

[nevercold]

How many men vs. women are in trade school. With how expensive college is, many are choosing to enter into professions that don't require a college degree. Is it possible that more men than women enter into professions--jobs requiring expertise and training--that do not involve a four-year college degree. We could have an equal number of professionals of each gender being produced by the overall system, but with more women than men using the traditional college route to get there and more men than women using the apprenticeship/vocational training route to get there.

 

[Chuckwalla]

Those are probably the same "experts" that get on CNN and say "I hope the trend of men having babies really catches on." I think she flunked health class.

No, it is possible. Scientists are nearing the point where women will be able to reproduce without men. The way they could do this is by making "female sperm" out of bone marrow stem cells. On top of that, all children made this way would be female, due no Y chromosomes. So technically, women could continue the human race without men.

However, the idea that this will lead men to go extinct is pretty sensationalist for various reasons.

 

[akszp4]

Be careful what you imply here or everyone will be on your backside like you were Larry Summers.

I'm not saying that women are incapable of being good at engineering. But I am saying that it's still a male dominated field. There are organizations set up to increase women involvement in such fields.

It's funny that you think people might interpret me as another Larry Summers, I think of myself as on the other side of the spectrum. But I'll be careful.

 

[Chuckwalla]

I'm no fan of the misandric "feminist" attitude, but I think your statement above is a bit off. Where are your statistics?

I will admit I do not have statistics. But we know that women generally choosing family over career leads to a dearth of women in upper-management. When there is a shortage of women we get affirmative action. We both know how that works.

Many European countries (particularly in Scandinavia) are taking this a step further by mandating that boards of companies have quota of women, 40% comes to mind. However, it is perfectly fine if the board is 100% women.

 

[akszp4]

How many men vs. women are in trade school. With how expensive college is, many are choosing to enter into professions that don't require a college degree. Is it possible that more men than women enter into professions--jobs requiring expertise and training--that do not involve a four-year college degree. We could have an equal number of professionals of each gender being produced by the overall system, but with more women than men using the traditional college route to get there and more men than women using the apprenticeship/vocational training route to get there.

I didn't even think about the trade school route. I'm sure that would offst some of those statistics.

 

[Just Joshin]

I understand what you are saying. It favors men because they are more likely to work full time. However, when a woman is hardcore career woman she will get preference in almost any scenario, often when she has less experience.

LOL have you even been out in the workforce??? This is the single funniest most naive thing I've ever read and I'm a guy.

 

[Chuckwalla]

LOL have you even been out in the workforce??? This is the single funniest most naive thing I've ever read and I'm a guy.

How about you tell me about what you have seen instead of just insulting me.

 

[Just Joshin]

How about you tell me about what you have seen instead of just insulting me.

I worked for 10 years in P.R. after undergrad and I've seen at least a half dozen women get overlooked for promotions they EARNED. One even got turned down when I got promoted and she secured on average 10% more accounts annually than I did. Management was all men with one token woman. And it wasn't just our firm. It was the whole industry and I dare say, the workforce. Yes, some careers -- nursing and teaching primary and secondary education -- cater to women, but by and large, we live in a male-dominated career world and anyone who disputes that has probably never been in the workforce.

 

[dienekes88]

Hahaha... TheProwler, you got to this thread before me and said everything I wanted to say. Less work for me. Sweet. 👍

 

[Hurricane95]

I for one am rather content with having more girls on campus. I'm not complaining...more fun for me 👍

 

[decafplease]

I will admit I do not have statistics. But we know that women generally choosing family over career leads to a dearth of women in upper-management. When there is a shortage of women we get affirmative action. We both know how that works.

Your theoretic progression has yet to been put into action. I'd like to say it's sad that we've come to expect the government to step in and mandate gender/race/religion quotas when there is some shortage. I hope it's not that simple.

And perhaps while we are talking about affirmative action for women in upper-management, what name would you like to give to men who find themselves in jobs they didn't earn because their dad knows someone? Based purely on observation, I'd say that's more common than a woman not earning her place among the big dogs.

 

[BluePhoenix]

No, I think that's exactly the problem. Boys learn differently, and you can't fit all the square pegs into the round hole. Just because the little boys won't do what you want them to doesn't mean they should be beaten (figuratively) into submission.

I don't think you can lump them all together like that. I'm female, I learn better hands on, I'm not big into Jane Austen and other "chick" books. People all learn differently. But boys USED to know how to sit and focus and learn things...no matter how you learn, at some point you're going to have to sit down and read something or listen to a lecture if you're going to attend college or med school.

Somehow the women thought it was a problem when there were more males than females in college. 🙄

The previous problem wasn't that there were more men, but that women weren't traditionally expected to go to college and it was generally discourage. When my college started in 1955, the board was discussing whether to admit women, saying "Who'd want to marry a women with a degree in a science?" The president responded "Well, my wife has a PhD in mathematics." There's a big difference between women not being admitted or openly discouraged from going to college rather than staying home to have a family and there being less men in college because they just aren't as academically focused in high school and have lower scores and less impressive applications.

 

[Chuckwalla]

I worked for 10 years in P.R. after undergrad and I've seen at least a half dozen women get overlooked for promotions they EARNED. One even got turned down when I got promoted and she secured on average 10% more accounts annually than I did. Management was all men with one token woman. And it wasn't just our firm. It was the whole industry and I dare say, the workforce. Yes, some careers -- nursing and teaching primary and secondary education -- cater to women, but by and large, we live in a male-dominated career world and anyone who disputes that has probably never been in the workforce.

Fair enough, there is still discrimination against women.

I have seen and heard plenty of stories of women being favored. All around my campus I see fliers touting women going into PhD programs and getting professorship positions, despite that women get about 60% of PhD's. There is also talk in Congress of applying Title IX to academics, in favor of women of course.

When it comes specifically to women in upper-management I have seen a few really high up ones speak and say discrimination was not a problem. This was much to chagrin of the feminists who brought up the topic asking questions like "How do you deal with sexism in your job?"

Either way I think we can both agree that discrimination based on gender is wrong anyway you cut.

 

[Chuckwalla]

I don't think you can lump them all together like that. I'm female, I learn better hands on, I'm not big into Jane Austen and other "chick" books. People all learn differently. But boys USED to know how to sit and focus and learn things...no matter how you learn, at some point you're going to have to sit down and read something or listen to a lecture if you're going to attend college or med school.


The previous problem wasn't that there were more men, but that women weren't traditionally expected to go to college and it was generally discourage. When my college started in 1955, the board was discussing whether to admit women, saying "Who'd want to marry a women with a degree in a science?" The president responded "Well, my wife has a PhD in mathematics." There's a big difference between women not being admitted or openly discouraged from going to college rather than staying home to have a family and there being less men in college because they just aren't as academically focused in high school and have lower scores and less impressive applications.

Affirmative action was practiced for women in college. People like Carol Gilligan and other feminists sounded an alarm that girls where being ignored in education which lead to reform. Later in 1992 the report "How Schools Short-Change Girls" caused even more reform with the goal of helping girls. This despite the fact that it was released at a time where girls were surpassing boys in secondary school.

Physical activities such as P.E. and recess have been cut down or flat out eliminated in favor of more sit-down a be quiet work. You are suggesting that boys act more like girls and that in itself is the very problem. What you suggest is happening with catastrophic consequences for the education of boys and thus their entire future. The fundamental truth that is being ignored is that boys and girls learn differently, currently boys are paying for this.

It appears you are indirectly suggesting that boys are falling behind on their own accord and girls are simply better. Boys have done great in past, you cannot blame them for the fact that they are being left in the dust. Boys did not change, education did.

 

[45408]

I'm not saying that women are incapable of being good at engineering. But I am saying that it's still a male dominated field. There are organizations set up to increase women involvement in such fields.

It's funny that you think people might interpret me as another Larry Summers, I think of myself as on the other side of the spectrum. But I'll be careful.

It was actually a jab at the people who I think overreacted to Larry Summers' statements, which I don't think were anywhere near as egregious as many people made them out to be.

No, it is possible. Scientists are nearing the point where women will be able to reproduce without men. The way they could do this is by making "female sperm" out of bone marrow stem cells. On top of that, all children made this way would be female, due no Y chromosomes. So technically, women could continue the human race without men.

However, the idea that this will lead men to go extinct is pretty sensationalist for various reasons.

Of course, men could create synthetic wombs and then attempt to exterminate women.

I for one am rather content with having more girls on campus. I'm not complaining...more fun for me 👍

Part of the disparity is the increased drop-out rate for men, so it's not as fun for them.

 

[45408]

I don't think you can lump them all together like that. I'm female, I learn better hands on, I'm not big into Jane Austen and other "chick" books. People all learn differently. But boys USED to know how to sit and focus and learn things...no matter how you learn, at some point you're going to have to sit down and read something or listen to a lecture if you're going to attend college or med school.

🙄 Please. So boys have somehow changed into a different species over a few decades? Or maybe teaching styles have changed such that they are no longer well-suited for the learning styles of a young boy? You're missing the point - the problem boys are not the ones who DO learn well while sitting down and reading. I had no problem reading through a stack of books (I think I finished our recreational reading assignment faster than all the other guys and girls in my class), and here I am, sitting in med school reading more stacks of books. The problem boys are the ones who do not learn well with that type of teaching style, so they misbehave, get labeled as problem students, and fall further and further behind.

 

[Chuckwalla]

Of course, men could create synthetic wombs and then attempt to exterminate women.

Yeh, I know it sounds stupid. I was just saying why some "experts" believe men will go extinct.

 

[barto123]

No, it is possible. Scientists are nearing the point where women will be able to reproduce without men. The way they could do this is by making "female sperm" out of bone marrow stem cells. On top of that, all children made this way would be female, due no Y chromosomes. So technically, women could continue the human race without men.

However, the idea that this will lead men to go extinct is pretty sensationalist for various reasons.

the funny thing is that i've heard people talk about how women have now evolved far enough so that they no longer need men to reproduce; devolution more like it. i'm sure that this "female sperm" is decades away if it will even be developed at all. but women of course always have the option of going to sperm banks if they are incapable of finding a mate in the flesh for various reasons including being homosexual, being socially inept, lacking sufficient beauty or intelligence, or not being able to get along with the opposite sex, or for some other emotional or psychological problem. now do we really want these types of people reproducing anyways? do you think it's the mentally and physically healthy individuals that are going to sperm banks? no, more likely the social freaks who can't get along with anyone and shouldn't be having kids in the first place!

if you can't go out and find your own mate and reproduce there is probably something wrong with you socially, physically, or mentally. you are doing a disservice to humanity and your own children by perpetuating your pathetic existence by passing on your genes to your offspring who will be a part of our future society. if women have the crazy idea of going off and having a child with purchased sperm, they might want to first examine themselves and consider why they couldn't actually find a real man and wonder if they are really making the world a better place by having a child. this would also apply to men, yet fortunately men have no way of producing children on their own. nature's safeguard against devolution is requiring both a healthy male and female for reproduction, and if a person has some flaw that makes them incapable of finding a mate and reproducing naturally, they'd be doing us all a favor and leaving it at that.

the ability to have children is a gift not a right. people selfishly bring children into this world when both society and the child would have been better off had they not been born at all.

 

[Cegar]

Don't worry. The stupid humans will adapt or die out.

 

[Just Joshin]

When it comes specifically to women in upper-management I have seen a few really high up ones speak and say discrimination was not a problem. This was much to chagrin of the feminists who brought up the topic asking questions like "How do you deal with sexism in your job?"

All you have to do is watch the presidential primaries to know that sexism exists. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton's, but even I can see that if she was a man, some of the adjectives used when talking about her wouldn't have been used. Racism exists too. The difference between the two is that most people generally recognize racism and are quick to speak out about it.

P.S. To anyone who wants to turn this into a political debate, that is not my intention. I'm pointing out that SEXISM exists. I'm not here to discuss her politics, or Obama's, or McCain's for that matter.

 

[decafplease]

the funny thing is that i've heard people talk about how women have now evolved far enough so that they no longer need men to reproduce; devolution more like it. i'm sure that this "female sperm" is decades away if it will even be developed at all. but women of course always have the option of going to sperm banks if they are incapable of finding a mate in the flesh for various reasons including being homosexual, being socially inept, lacking sufficient beauty or intelligence, or not being able to get along with the opposite sex, or for some other emotional or psychological problem. now do we really want these types of people reproducing anyways? do you think it's the mentally and physically healthy individuals that are going to sperm banks? no, more likely the social freaks who can't get along with anyone and shouldn't be having kids in the first place!

if you can't go out and find your own mate and reproduce there is probably something wrong with you socially, physically, or mentally. you are doing a disservice to humanity and your own children by perpetuating your pathetic existence by passing on your genes to your offspring who will be a part of our future society. if women have the crazy idea of going off and having a child with purchased sperm, they might want to first examine themselves and consider why they couldn't actually find a real man and wonder if they are really making the world a better place by having a child. this would also apply to men, yet fortunately men have no way of producing children on their own. nature's safeguard against devolution is requiring both a healthy male and female for reproduction, and if a person has some flaw that makes them incapable of finding a mate and reproducing naturally, they'd be doing us all a favor and leaving it at that.

the ability to have children is a gift not a right. people selfishly bring children into this world when both society and the child would have been better off had they not been born at all.

😱

You come across as a real jack***. I hope you're not really this rude in person.

 

[Lecter]

😀

 

[akszp4]

the funny thing is that i've heard people talk about how women have now evolved far enough so that they no longer need men to reproduce; devolution more like it. i'm sure that this "female sperm" is decades away if it will even be developed at all. but women of course always have the option of going to sperm banks if they are incapable of finding a mate in the flesh for various reasons including being homosexual, being socially inept, lacking sufficient beauty or intelligence, or not being able to get along with the opposite sex, or for some other emotional or psychological problem. now do we really want these types of people reproducing anyways? do you think it's the mentally and physically healthy individuals that are going to sperm banks? no, more likely the social freaks who can't get along with anyone and shouldn't be having kids in the first place!

if you can't go out and find your own mate and reproduce there is probably something wrong with you socially, physically, or mentally. you are doing a disservice to humanity and your own children by perpetuating your pathetic existence by passing on your genes to your offspring who will be a part of our future society. if women have the crazy idea of going off and having a child with purchased sperm, they might want to first examine themselves and consider why they couldn't actually find a real man and wonder if they are really making the world a better place by having a child. this would also apply to men, yet fortunately men have no way of producing children on their own. nature's safeguard against devolution is requiring both a healthy male and female for reproduction, and if a person has some flaw that makes them incapable of finding a mate and reproducing naturally, they'd be doing us all a favor and leaving it at that.

the ability to have children is a gift not a right. people selfishly bring children into this world when both society and the child would have been better off had they not been born at all.

.

And who are you to say that society would have been better off w/o them?

 

[Lecter]

the funny thing is that i've heard people talk about how women have now evolved far enough so that they no longer need men to reproduce; devolution more like it. i'm sure that this "female sperm" is decades away if it will even be developed at all. but women of course always have the option of going to sperm banks if they are incapable of finding a mate in the flesh for various reasons including being homosexual, being socially inept, lacking sufficient beauty or intelligence, or not being able to get along with the opposite sex, or for some other emotional or psychological problem. now do we really want these types of people reproducing anyways? do you think it's the mentally and physically healthy individuals that are going to sperm banks? no, more likely the social freaks who can't get along with anyone and shouldn't be having kids in the first place!

if you can't go out and find your own mate and reproduce there is probably something wrong with you socially, physically, or mentally. you are doing a disservice to humanity and your own children by perpetuating your pathetic existence by passing on your genes to your offspring who will be a part of our future society. if women have the crazy idea of going off and having a child with purchased sperm, they might want to first examine themselves and consider why they couldn't actually find a real man and wonder if they are really making the world a better place by having a child. this would also apply to men, yet fortunately men have no way of producing children on their own. nature's safeguard against devolution is requiring both a healthy male and female for reproduction, and if a person has some flaw that makes them incapable of finding a mate and reproducing naturally, they'd be doing us all a favor and leaving it at that.

the ability to have children is a gift not a right. people selfishly bring children into this world when both society and the child would have been better off had they not been born at all.

ha! harsh, but i guess true if you look at humans like bacteria in a petri dish.

Think about this for a second...By the time we're done with residency and ready for children, some people our age will have become grand parents. Two generations in 30 years, all due to a lack of foresight and responsibility.

Now that's reproductive success. 😀

 

[ColKurtz]

Man I wish I went to one of those 60:40 schools. Mine's a sausage fest.