Sue,
It is not surprising me how many "smart" kids fall for feminism's lies in college. I didn't have my "awakening" until I dated a very smart girl while I was in college.
While dating her she said somethings to me that "woke me up". She had a few newspapers to look up the same story and when I asked her why (Aren't ALL newspapers the "same", reporting unbiased news!?) she told me that she wanted to get several "slants" on the same story. After she gave me a more detailed explanation and helped me to understand that MSM news WAS biased I was stunned.
She then, realizing how naive I was, showed me how Newsweek, Time, and several other publications had become more interested in reaffirming what their readers WANTED to hear versus reporting the "unslanted truth".
It was that and how a buddy of mine studied advertising and told me: "if you want to know who the show is 'playing to' all you have to do is turn off the sound, and watch who the commercials during the show are targeted at."
I was, like many of college age, completely naive. And I think that unless you come from a home where some things are EXPLAINED like this you don't know until years later.
I also had the naive opinion that professors and their texts were "unbiased" and presenting "truth". I got set straight on that too, but only by my third year in college. I was a very smart person, but also incredibly naive.
So, the reality didn't dawn on me until much later. And it pissed me off that I had swallowed so much of this one sided crap and PAID for the indoctrination.
So, when addressing college kids, who are by definition: young, cocky, full of themselves (who isn't at that age!?), and SURE they are gaining "truths" .... GENTLY ... GENTLY point out some of the things I just said. It'll take time to settle in, and they may not thank you at the time ... but maybe years later they'll remember you as the person who "woke them up". That's how it happened to me.
===========================================
To address what "Alpha Male" said:
Just back from lunch and read yet another letter to the editor in today's paper calling for the mandatory vasectomy when the man does not financially support the woman or marry the woman.
Her advice was for men to protect, abstain, sterilize, or practice homosexuality. NOTHING about female responsibility for her actions.
Once again buddy, remember that newspapers and MSM have largely HAD to give up their objectivity. Nooooooooooo I do NOT excuse them, because if they don't want the job, no one is forcing them to do it so shoddily.
The newspapers and MSM are competing to sell their product and that means that offending the women who read it with "well, yep, he should be responsible, but so should the girl who opens her legs and thinks that opening between her legs is a welfare "slot machine" that just hit triple 7's" is going to piss off women readers.
But, that DOES come from feminist indoctrination wherein a woman's choice is sacred and inviolate.
I thought of something and
this is critical the next time you hear about "dead beat dads" and "men abandoning the home":Point out the usual that women are the ones who initiate the divorces ... and you'll get the usual answers:
What did he do to "drive her" from the home, "maybe it was abuse" etc etc
But here's the critical point:
Ask the person how many women give up their children to adoption, safe haven abandonment, and to their parents "temporarily" ....
We should get those #'s and point out that with so MANY women doing this, that the person you are talking to probably has NEVER read an article (I haven't found one) decrying the abandonment of children by women.
And the #'s are HUGE (notice the BACK LOG of people waiting to get kids, but how MANY are adopted and how many are in the state system due to voluntary "giving up" (read: if they were men it would be abandonment) of their children.
I've tried this argument and I get what Gonzo calls: "the fish face" (wide eyes at the MENTION of this, open and closing of mouth with no sound).
I have gotten: "But, but, but .. she wasn't ready", "there may have been a 'host ' of factors in that decisions" and other excuses and mitigation.
To which you reply: "but, gee, about 30 seconds ago you had a completetly different attitude. It was one of uncompromising "children's interest" and responsibility. How is that different?"
And THAT always gets me the "fish face".
Give it some thought.
Steven