Yes I agree but I think thats a problem with how college functions in a country and with how high education is being passed in such country. Not with the idea of women getting high education itself
Should young women go to college? If not, what should they (realistically) do?
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
Yes I agree but I think thats a problem with how college functions in a country and with how high education is being passed in such country. Not with the idea of women getting high education itself
If you use single, childless men as your benchmark for what you should be able to afford in life, you will invariable end up selling yourself into slavery in some way or another, for the illusion of obtaining what you think you "deserve."
Having little or no meat in the diet for a while is an example of having to be frugal. It does not denote a situation which is materially unable to sustain life and wellness.
You are speaking from a place of indignation at the thought of having to live like a poor person. That is all.
Editing to add: dishwashers and kitchen workers also never go hungry - as long as you don't work for some huge corporate franchise with weird rules where you'll get fired for eating something that was going to be thrown out anyway because it has to be "destroyed" for tax/loss purposes or whatever.
No I'm not. I'm speaking from a place of indignation at the thought of a group of people being systematically denied to seek better living conditions than straight up poverty because of their biology. Having little or no meat in the diet is poor diet and poor health.
Literally nobody is suggesting this.
What I'm saying is that you've been lied to, and the thing you think is an opportunity for everyone is a BAD DEAL for most.
I thought your point was that single/divorced women should not be allowed to receive high education in a capitalist world? And technological too. You know we already have supermakets (for example) nowadays who are fully automated and have no human employees right?
There is a lot of truth within this forum based on real life experiences - those who attended higher education and those who survived without it just fine.
A trade is far more valuable than a degree mill education.
Your statements with choice terms are fluent in higher education’s “soft science” disciplines- “systematic.”
If I may ask what country are you referring to when you say a “group of people are being denied education based on biology” or am I misreading your statement.
A trade is far more valuable than a degree mill education.
Your statements with choice terms are fluent in higher education’s “soft science” disciplines- “systematic.”
If I may ask what country are you referring to when you say a “group of people are being denied education based on biology” or am I misreading your statement.
Getting a college education as a “backup option” may make more sense if not for the huge amount of debt + wasted time you incur over something that isn’t even your first choice in life. If the unexpected happens and you need a Plan B, there are other options and it isn’t just dishwashing. I’ve worked in kitchens and that is a last resort for most people IMO. Sure if you have to, then you have to. That’s life. God will also provide in tough circumstances. I think the problem with encouraging women to go to college as “backup” to a stable marriage is that it’s most often not needed and carries more of a risk than a reward at the end of the day. Some people may be glad they had that option, but for the vast majority it’s bad advice from the start.
There is a huge difference between saying "women shouldn't do X because it is most likely to disadvantage them in function and fact..."
vs. saying "women shouldn't BE ALLOWED to do X because they are women."
In your case, assuming you are not deliberately swapping my actual arguments out for ones you are familiar with and comfortable rebutting -- I would recommend that you not worry so much about "higher education" until you have gone back and done some work on your critical reading skills.
Also, no need for the constant laughing reaction and We are just having a discussion.
You are misreading my statement big time. I did not speak about any country denying education to a group of people based on their biology
"Your statements with choice terms are fluent in higher education’s “soft science” disciplines- “systematic.”"
Really? You think so? Interesting. How about we talk about the arguments being made here?
I need the laughing reaction as much as any woman needs a college education, if not moreso.
Should women go to college? Sure. What I think should absolutely not happen and should be reformed immediately is the preferential treatment of women both getting into and while attending college. In other words, end the affirmative action across the board.
This story is more than just college and my statement above applies across the board to all levels of education. Here's how it went down. In the 70s-80s-90s, as feminism, unfortunately, gained power, they talked about the "lost girl", which was the contention that education hitherto was male-centric and, therefore, disadvantaged females. This lead to educational reforms specifically catered to just females. As a result of these initiatives, education was re-made to become female-centric, which meant it preferred, or better yet, discriminated in favor of females.
Whereas this resulted in elevating females it did so at the expense of the males. This is validated by the disappointing statistics we see with boys today. The operating assumption within the school system is this - males are defective females. As disappointing as the stats are for boys today, can we really be all that surprised? And, moreover, can we really be all that surprised with these stats when the system is so blatantly one-sided towards women only?
So, what happens if affirmative action initiatives are removed? For that matter, what happens when merit is the primary factor in selection? I can tell you with firm confidence that males will quickly regain any ground they may have lost relative to females. This goes for the working world too. It's not so much a matter for our side to devise ways to remove females from the workplace or school, though, appealing at first, it's 1. impractical 2. requires heavy-handed authoritarianism, which makes us no better than them, and 3. Is ultimately unnecessary because removing affirmative action will induce the kinds of conditions we all desire. All we really need is a get rid of the slanted "playing field" and let the chips fall where they may.
Aside from having more Asians, which is totally fine, men of all kinds will take the lead once again. My confidence comes from this fact. It was necessary to artificially create conditions to make women competitive, ergo, rig the game. If females were truly equally or even "superior" as they really like to think of themselves as then they would have outdone men eons ago and there would never have been a patriarchy. But, aside from the recent blip in history, again a female-centric society, this has never been the case. Small exceptions notwithstanding, but, those obscure tribes in some remote parts of the world remain frozen in time and literally live in mud huts. Such outliers must be ignored.
The good news for us is that when the field truly is level, men dominate.
This story is more than just college and my statement above applies across the board to all levels of education. Here's how it went down. In the 70s-80s-90s, as feminism, unfortunately, gained power, they talked about the "lost girl", which was the contention that education hitherto was male-centric and, therefore, disadvantaged females. This lead to educational reforms specifically catered to just females. As a result of these initiatives, education was re-made to become female-centric, which meant it preferred, or better yet, discriminated in favor of females.
Whereas this resulted in elevating females it did so at the expense of the males. This is validated by the disappointing statistics we see with boys today. The operating assumption within the school system is this - males are defective females. As disappointing as the stats are for boys today, can we really be all that surprised? And, moreover, can we really be all that surprised with these stats when the system is so blatantly one-sided towards women only?
So, what happens if affirmative action initiatives are removed? For that matter, what happens when merit is the primary factor in selection? I can tell you with firm confidence that males will quickly regain any ground they may have lost relative to females. This goes for the working world too. It's not so much a matter for our side to devise ways to remove females from the workplace or school, though, appealing at first, it's 1. impractical 2. requires heavy-handed authoritarianism, which makes us no better than them, and 3. Is ultimately unnecessary because removing affirmative action will induce the kinds of conditions we all desire. All we really need is a get rid of the slanted "playing field" and let the chips fall where they may.
Aside from having more Asians, which is totally fine, men of all kinds will take the lead once again. My confidence comes from this fact. It was necessary to artificially create conditions to make women competitive, ergo, rig the game. If females were truly equally or even "superior" as they really like to think of themselves as then they would have outdone men eons ago and there would never have been a patriarchy. But, aside from the recent blip in history, again a female-centric society, this has never been the case. Small exceptions notwithstanding, but, those obscure tribes in some remote parts of the world remain frozen in time and literally live in mud huts. Such outliers must be ignored.
The good news for us is that when the field truly is level, men dominate.
Ok. So I misunderstood your main point then. I thought you were defending the idea that women must not be allowed to receive high education and I pointed out why I think this is wrong
Yeah I noticed. I'm sorry your hardships are taking such an emotional toll on you
That is part of the argument - as where there are “conditioning” terms being used within the higher education system (as a whole) that produces the very arguments you are making.
This is the point:
@triplechoc hang in there.
Nothing personal.
May I ask what country you are from, and are you attending or have you earned a degree?
Accurate. Although chains throw out an alarming amount of food (our freezer is well-stocked, lol).
Last edited:
I'm glad this is cleared up, then - because I do not think this at all.
It's a cute attempt at a jab - but hardship and austerity have actually filled my existence with good humor and good people, and have bestowed upon me a profound sense of love and appreciation for life and living, and for all of the many blessings God has granted me (which a more privileged and entitled version of myself might have deemed below her station). I endure all my hardships with a real smile on my face, and a fire of determination burning in my bosom every morning when I wake, no matter how hard the demands of the day before me.
Know what never did that for any sane woman? College.
Can you please explain me how the word "systematically" was incorrectly used in my argument? Cause accusing it of being a "conditioning term being used within the higher education system that produces the argument you're making" doesn't prove my argument wrong.
I'm from Brazil and I'm attending college (stem by the way)
Here is a thought I had when I was younger, and which I considered unethical at that time, but have been reconsidering in light of my growing understanding of the times we live in:
With the way the system is structured here in the US, at least, I think it is entirely appropriate for young married women of the lower economic classes to enroll in community college in order to take advantage of any and all available financial aid programs which can help offset the cost of housing and other living expenses for the young couple as they prepare to start a family.
We are in the midst of a spiritual and cultural war - so I suppose I MUST condone taking and using the enemies' resources against them where possible. Funds and other resources allocated for the systematic subjugation of women via brainwashing and wage slavery are a legitimate target for capture and use in battle.
But I believe it is VERY DANGEROUS for women to go into "higher education" 1) single, and 2) possessed of the notion that the institution is there for their benefit.
With the way the system is structured here in the US, at least, I think it is entirely appropriate for young married women of the lower economic classes to enroll in community college in order to take advantage of any and all available financial aid programs which can help offset the cost of housing and other living expenses for the young couple as they prepare to start a family.
We are in the midst of a spiritual and cultural war - so I suppose I MUST condone taking and using the enemies' resources against them where possible. Funds and other resources allocated for the systematic subjugation of women via brainwashing and wage slavery are a legitimate target for capture and use in battle.
But I believe it is VERY DANGEROUS for women to go into "higher education" 1) single, and 2) possessed of the notion that the institution is there for their benefit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
God bless and best of luck with your studies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
God bless and best of luck with your studies.
I absolutely agree.
I live in Germany and have gone to university here. It's state sponsored, so very cheap - I paid 600€ per year roughly. Most finish with no debt, some with a very small amount of it because they got financial aid from the state (where I believe they only have to pay back 50% of what they got if I'm not mistaken.)
And yet I would not recommend going to university. I think it's still a net negative for women. You get indoctrinated, either get a useless degree or have to waste many years getting a useful one, and then if there's a sizable gap between getting the degree and wanting to work in the field, you have to start from scratch anyway, especially in stem. My mom got an IT degree in the 80s, but after us children were out of the house and she wanted to work in the 2010s that degree wasn't really good for anything anymore.
Also re: not being able to get by on minimum wage - if you're not starting out super poor, meaning you can afford having a computer and internet, there's lots of jobs available that pay more than minimum wage but don't require a degree.
And yet I would not recommend going to university. I think it's still a net negative for women. You get indoctrinated, either get a useless degree or have to waste many years getting a useful one, and then if there's a sizable gap between getting the degree and wanting to work in the field, you have to start from scratch anyway, especially in stem. My mom got an IT degree in the 80s, but after us children were out of the house and she wanted to work in the 2010s that degree wasn't really good for anything anymore.
Also re: not being able to get by on minimum wage - if you're not starting out super poor, meaning you can afford having a computer and internet, there's lots of jobs available that pay more than minimum wage but don't require a degree.