Should young women go to college? If not, what should they (realistically) do?

[triplechoc]

Discussion clarification: Should young women go to college, and if not, what should they realistically do?

No one on this thread has made the argument “women are second class citizens who should not receive high education,” or the argument women who choose to be housewives should not be allowed to work.

In my reply to Kitty above, I clarified to her that I had misunderstood her main point: I mistakenly thought she was defending the idea that women should not be allowed to work or receive high education and I was arguing against this. The word "systematically" was not incorrectly used within this context of my arguments (or at least I don't see how it was) since the prohibition of women to work or receive high education would indeed be to systematically deny these opportunities to this group of people based on their biology.

Your argument is generalized to ALL women stating “women MUST receive all levels of education.” A similar faulty generalization would be to argue, “ALL women should marry, have children, and be housewives.” Both statements are informal fallacies.

True. A better way to put it would perharps be "I believe ALL women MUST have the opportunity of receiving all levels of education".

You presented an argument for why “women should receive education because we are human beings and as such we want to learn/know about things.” This may be true, but one does not need to go to college or university to learn/know about things.

I didn't say one needs to go to college or university to learn/know about things. One does not need to go to college to know how to cook or clean, for example. However, since college and universities are "any place for specialized education after the age of 16 where people study or train to get knowledge and/or skills", it qualifies as a source of learning of many skills/acquisition of knowledge in various areas, which I believe all women should have the opportunity of getting if they want to.

The words you have chosen to use within this and other forum/thread conversations are best described as fervent – emotion opposed to stoicism. That is not a criticism; only an observation.

Which ones? And how so?

Although you may not agree with Kitty she has a gift for rational articulation, and has made valid points. Anything else I would provide would just be redundant. [sincere] You are welcome to join us on the Psalm Prayer thread or the Orthodox reading group thread if time permits with your STEM studies.

Thank you for your invitation. God bless.

 

[Starlight]

I agree with this, most of the women put out by the media or production companies are not any better looking than the higher quality women you meet in everyday life. My point using the supermodel thing is that if someone like Gisele Bundchen is good looking and you like her, AND she has family intuitions (5 sisters), you'd go for her vs another woman less good looking/genetically endowed.

Gisele Bundchen is one of the most top earning super models ever… she is also married to that guy that throws a ball good and makes lotsa money… oh yah… that guy…
Sorry this is late but…

There are far more men that are in better shape than ever for whom longevity is absolutely no issue. There are a dearth of women who are in better shape than ever. If you doubt this, look at pairings across the anglosphere.

That is statistically untrue…(unless you’re Black) sorry.

 

[Blade Runner]

Gisele Bundchen is one of the most top earning super models ever… she is also married to that guy that throws a ball good and makes lotsa money… oh yah… that guy…
Sorry this is late but…

That is statistically untrue…(unless you’re Black) sorry.

It is not untrue. Men physically and SMV wise have much longer shelf lives, it's not even a point of contention. Proof?
All men desire women in their 20s. A portion of women desire men from 20s through 50s. No men desire women (I'm being nice, I could go earlier) after 40. But you aren't really interested in stats, are you.

 

[Elspeth]

It is not untrue. Men physically and SMV wise have much longer shelf lives, it's not even a point of contention. Proof?
All men desire women in their 20s. A portion of women desire men from 20s through 50s. No men desire women (I'm being nice, I could go earlier) after 40. But you aren't really interested in stats, are you.

I'm interested in stats.

 

[infowarrior1]

That is statistically untrue…(unless you’re Black) sorry.

Dearth of Matchmaking perhaps?

 

[Blade Runner]

I'm interested in stats.

These are verified by all the online stats (ok cupid and other compilations, not that that's all of life) or by just going to a gym and taking survey after survey, using your eyes, noting who is there and what they look like, what they are doing. This is quite obvious to anyone who has gone, sesen, and done. Do you dispute it?

 

[Blade Runner]

Dearth of Matchmaking perhaps?

I don't understand what is controversial or objectionable, can you perhaps elucidate?

Let's quickly start from the top. Are there a lot of unfit people across the board, regardless of sex? Yes. That's not the issue though. The issue is, what are the percentages of people who are fit, and who continually work on it - exercise, minding their diet, understanding stress, alcohol, what they can get away with, etc.

This remainder of people, however small, is dominated by men - even though physical fitness (while very important from a competition point of view for men) is not a particularly important sexual selection factor for women. In my life, family, and what I've seen over decades, women pretty much only do sports and exercise in high school, when they are already fit by nature. This lends even more to them being constrained by a particular biological window, which is clearly small for women (it's really 16-26). Men are programmed to really only be attracted and give resources to women pretty much in this range, it matters nothing for what women think, while women have no issue with men (if certain conditions are met) from 20-50. I don't see this as controversial, it's biological and obvious. It's the proof of why sidetracking women during their 20s ruins the entire dating market/family formation/society. End of story.

 

[Elspeth]

These are verified by all the online stats (ok cupid and other compilations, not that that's all of life) or by just going to a gym and taking survey after survey, using your eyes, noting who is there and what they look like, what they are doing. This is quite obvious to anyone who has gone, sesen, and done. Do you dispute it?

I ask because what I look up might be different from what you're actually referring to. Regarding personal life experience, I don't see how this is related to stats, as truly representative stats come from studies (which sounds like the OK Cupid one you mentioned). You don't have to link me them, obviously, I was just curious about what you were looking at.

 

[Blade Runner]

Don't lose sight to the fact that we aren't going to really be able to do anything (or change anything) but make people aware of the truth and reality of things, the best we are able to. But that is important - telling the truth is one of the few things one can actually do or control.

Most people take such red pilling as annoying or thinking it's meaningless, because they don't see it mattering. But notice that this is a witness against them, a type of self condemnation; if they weren't rebellious and submitted to the truth, things actually would, in fact, change.

Most people have been living lies for decades and they'd rather live by these, sadly, instead of being humble and changing. Usually that takes harder work or foregoing ego or entitlement ideas, so yes the devil is in the details.

 

[Starlight]

It is not untrue. Men physically and SMV wise have much longer shelf lives, it's not even a point of contention. Proof?

I was partially addressing the unrealistic standards of beauty for the average woman (Giselle Bundchen seems to be your standard…)

All men desire women in their 20s. A portion of women desire men from 20s through 50s. No men desire women (I'm being nice, I could go earlier) after 40.

Men have a preference for younger women. I’m not denying that.

But you aren't really interested in stats, are you.

You wrote:

There are far more men that are in better shape than ever for whom longevity is absolutely no issue. There are a dearth of women who are in better shape than ever.

I am interested in statistics which is why I knew your original claim was bunk. A simple internet search brings up quite a few different studies showing that men, on average in the US, are several percentage points higher in obesity than women (except for Black Americans, where the women are much more obese than the men).

These are verified by all the online stats (ok cupid and other compilations, not that that's all of life)

I tried finding some OkCupid stats or other online dating app stats regarding BMI or weight but only found the ones about race. I am honestly interested in the dating app stats. If you have some, please share.

or by just going to a gym and taking survey after survey, using your eyes, noting who is there and what they look like, what they are doing. This is quite obvious to anyone who has gone, sesen, and done. Do you dispute it?

Why would an overweight woman be in the gym??? … Must be to pick up guys… obviously
Did you ever think that those women are trying to lose weight and become fitter too? Just because they aren’t there yet like you (supposedly…) doesn’t mean they won’t (or can’t) attain it.

 

[Starlight]

These are verified by all the online stats (ok cupid and other compilations, not that that's all of life) or by just going to a gym and taking survey after survey, using your eyes, noting who is there and what they look like, what they are doing. This is quite obvious to anyone who has gone, sesen, and done. Do you dispute it?

“Gyms are only for fit people.”

 

[Kitty Tantrum]

“Gyms are only for fit people.”

Yeah, surveying the gym won't really give an accurate picture of the fitness levels of the general population, or relative levels of fitness between demographics. Nor will dating app data. Results will be HIGHLY skewed due the way people filter into these pools by self-selection.

Alfred Kinsey would not object to this method of data collection, and so on principle I must.

 

[Blade Runner]

I was partially addressing the unrealistic standards of beauty for the average woman (Giselle Bundchen seems to be your standard…)

Men have a preference for younger women. I’m not denying that.

You wrote:

I am interested in statistics which is why I knew your original claim was bunk. A simple internet search brings up quite a few different studies showing that men, on average in the US, are several percentage points higher in obesity than women (except for Black Americans, where the women are much more obese than the men).

I tried finding some OkCupid stats or other online dating app stats regarding BMI or weight but only found the ones about race. I am honestly interested in the dating app stats. If you have some, please share.

Why would an overweight woman be in the gym??? … Must be to pick up guys… obviously
Did you ever think that those women are trying to lose weight and become fitter too? Just because they aren’t there yet like you (supposedly…) doesn’t mean they won’t (or can’t) attain it.

Let's just take a step back.

There are so many people around, so many average people, to be quite honest, I'm not all that interested in disputing your points about average people (who are historically disgusting in comparison physically, btw).

My point is that the percentage of even objectively fit or above average people is lower than ever, and for women it is a crazy nadir. There is a sizeable portion of men (even though it is a minority overall) that are good looking and fit to a degree that dwarfs the number of 7+ women that are around. And if you don't believe that, at least be honest enough to agree that that is far more fluid in its analysis given women desire multiple characteristics from men (charisma, family man, intelligence, humor, resources, wisdom) that make physical attraction across the board far less important to them, as compared to men, who require youth/fertility/beauty to potentially give away all of their hard earned time and effort (resources) accumulated for years.

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

Let's just take a step back.

There are so many people around, so many average people, to be quite honest, I'm not all that interested in disputing your points about average people (who are historically disgusting in comparison physically, btw).

My point is that the percentage of even objectively fit or above average people is lower than ever, and for women it is a crazy nadir. There is a sizeable portion of men (even though it is a minority overall) that are good looking and fit to a degree that dwarfs the number of 7+ women that are around. And if you don't believe that, at least be honest enough to agree that that is far more fluid in its analysis given women desire multiple characteristics from men (charisma, family man, intelligence, humor, resources, wisdom) that make physical attraction across the board far less important to them, as compared to men, who require youth/fertility/beauty to potentially give away all of their hard earned time and effort (resources) accumulated for years.

The more liberal the sexual marketplace, the higher the standards of women, but the more disappointment after they've crossed their peak in their late 20s. They all go for the jackpot, but there's 1 jackpot to give among 100 women. 99 will get nothing, end up with some beta cuck who has sadly been programmed his whole life wrongly about male/female dynamics, she'll walk over him, not respect him and it's all a disaster from there. The big problem woman nowadays have is that they look short term, which is a feminine trait to begin with. They don't see they have 60 years to bridge after they become 30. In the past they had a father and brothers to have this vision and put up the boundaries so she wouldn't go off track, now as the old saying goes without instruction a woman goes for destruction.

 

[Blade Runner]

After seeing what we have seen for the last 10, 20 and now even looking back at 60 years, I don't know why most people don't question literally everything they were ever taught, sold, acculturated with, etc.

To be honest, and to get away from the disbelief that anyone on the forum (I get it) isn't what he says he is or "demands" this or that, can't we just be honest about what makes a man a 1-3%er or a woman a 1-3%er? Once you figure that out, you basically can finally be honest about what we are all talking about. I think Clarey was objective on this topic when he made his fairly famous ROI book.

 

[Elspeth]

The big problem woman nowadays have is that they look short term, which is a feminine trait to begin with. They don't see they have 60 years to bridge after they become 30. In the past they had a father and brothers to have this vision and put up the boundaries so she wouldn't go off track, now as the old saying goes without instruction a woman goes for destruction.

With all due respect, that is absolutely asinine. The ability to plan one's decisions beyond a certain unit of time is not mutual to any sex. I don't know where you picked this one up, but I'd advise you to put it down before someone gets hurt by this nonsense.

 

[Blade Runner]

With all due respect, that is absolutely asinine. The ability to plan one's decisions beyond a certain unit of time is not mutual to any sex. I don't know where you picked this one up, but I'd advise you to put it down before someone gets hurt by this nonsense.

Even if you object, do you deny that the entire narrative of "wait til your 30" is in fact the accumulation of year after year of short term outlooks? Don't get me wrong, I think the culture brings all people down, good women of course as well, but women rewarded "good" men (sadly they look at these as boring men) wouldn't they get "good" men?

 

[DanielH]

Even if you object, do you deny that the entire narrative of "wait til your 30" is in fact the accumulation of year after year of short term outlooks?

To be fair I don't see how men have any better time preference, it's just that nature is more forgiving towards men in this regard, as a man can still turn his life around and have a decent family after, say 34 years old, even if he is overweight and "uneducated" and working a low-paying job.

To bring this thread back on track, since it's been 16 or 17 posts since someone has used the word "college" in their comment, college for women, regardless of whatever it used to be, is now one of the tools used by our global and foreign (even if residing domestically), hostile elite that seeks to depopulate all populations with any sort of innate drive towards freedom, self-governance, and Christian culture. By convincing a woman to go to college, she almost has to wait until 30 to start a family for what are perceived as practical reasons.

Yes, women should be educated, but is the modern institution of college worth compromising 18 years of Christian upbringing by throwing them into the furnace of modern progressive "education?" I'd ask the same question of men. I don't care about whatever materialistic justifications one can come up with for making the blanket statement that women should go to college. That statement is wrong, and it sends people straight to Hell. I go to church on Sunday and look around, I see plenty of young children, even teenagers, but then there is nobody in the 19-24 age range. We all know why, and it doesn't need to be that way. People never had to "find themselves" before the 20th Century, that phenomenon is just a modern coping mechanism for years of abuse whether from their upbringing or institutions they slogged through.

 

[Blade Runner]

I go to church on Sunday and look around, I see plenty of young children, even teenagers, but then there is nobody in the 19-24 age range. We all know why, and it doesn't need to be that way. People never had to "find themselves" before the 20th Century, that phenomenon is just a modern coping mechanism for years of abuse whether from their upbringing or institutions they slogged through.

Yes, this is accurate on average.

If nature is more forgiving to men, it means that women can less afford to have the same (or of course) less time preference. The problem is still the gatekeepers (women's) decisions on when to focus and prioritize family. Yes, they have been led astray by the society, but I don't see anyone saying they don't have agency, and you can't have it both ways. Either they are accountable, or they aren't.

The only solution I personally see is to promote honesty, family connections/arrangements, and stop shaming age gaps which are natural for both men and women. But we have exactly zero of those, so I don't see anything changing.

 

[MartyMcFly]

I think fewer women or men need to go to college. I do favor vocational schools or apprenticeships instead. Most jobs do not need 4 years of reading about theories in a book. Even doctors don't really need several years of schooling.

Some jobs are quite suitable for females but 1-2 years of schooling to go along with an apprenticeship is probably enough. Suitable jobs include nursing, midwives, teacher, and gynecologist.

Education inflation is a huge problem in much of the world. Too many people have pressure to waste money in universities to get a mostly useless piece of paper to get a job.