Men Flee Feminized college campi

Started by Gabriel, Dec 07, 2005, 06:24 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Gabriel

Related to Docs post. It is Rush Limbaugh's take on it.
For Audio:
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/05/12/120605_6_college.asx


Quote

RUSH: Sunday in the Washington Post there was a piece by Michael Gurian. "Michael Gurian is a family therapist and he's founder of the Gurian Institute, an educational training organization." His most recent book written with Kathy Stevens is 'The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and in Life.'" So he's a good guy. He's got a good mission here, and his piece is called "Disappearing Act, Where Have All the Men Gone? -- No place good," he says, and he begins the piece this way -- and I'm going to just give you some excerpts because some of this stuff in here makes sense, and I think a lot of you will agree with it along with me. He says, "In the 1990s, I taught for six years at a small liberal arts college in Spokane, Washington. In my third year, I started noticing something that was happening right in front of me. There were more young women in my classes than young men, and on average, they were getting better grades than the guys. Many of the young men stared blankly at me as I lectured. They didn't take notes as well as the young women. They didn't seem to care as much about what I taught -- literature, writing and psychology. They were bright kids, but many of their faces said, 'Sitting here, listening, staring at these words -- this is not really who I am.' That was a decade ago, but just last month, I spoke with an administrator at Howard University in the District [of Columbia]. He told me that what I observed a decade ago has become one of the 'biggest agenda items' at Howard. 'We are having trouble recruiting and retaining male students,' he said.

"'We are at about a 2-to-1 ratio, women to men.'" At this point, I said, "Well, why is anybody surprised at this? What do you expect? The universities are feminized. They're 'politically correct.' They're filled with female-oriented propaganda. I wonder if that could be part of the problem." I mean, look, let's say you're a guy. When this news first came out yesterday of a 2-to-1 ratio, Snerdley had the typical horn-dog male response: "Alright, how do I get there?" instead of the sensible response, "Wait a minute. If there's a 2-to-1 ratio it means some smart guys aren't showing up because otherwise they'd go but the lure of meeting women is still not strong enough to overcome what they encounter when they get there." Now, what could that be? Well what kind of courses in the last ten years, 15 years, have female college students been treated to? Well, we've had courses like those taught by Catharine MacKinnon at the University of Michigan, which is "all sex is rape, including the sex of marriage." We've had major institutions of higher learning creating all of this animosity in women for men. They go to school, and they're told that their future is bleak and dismal and they're going to have to overcome all these obstacles because men are a bunch of predators. They can't be counted as fathers; you've got to keep them away from the kids because they'll abuse them.

"Get to know the social workers in your town because soon your kids are going to be being cared for by them, because you can't count on this worthless guy that you're going to marry out there. He's going to run out on you. He's going to have affairs with his secretary," and all that sort of stuff. Then you look at the courses that men have to take, "women's studies" and so forth and so on. I mean, these universities have been turned into citadels of feminism, citadels of liberalism, citadels of political correctness -- and that's not who a guy naturally is. Now, you can take a guy, and you can feminize him. Michael Kinsley and Alan Alda prove it. Most of the liberal guys in Washington have been feminized. They are case-history examples for how this has been done, but normal guys who don't want to end up like Alan Alda or Michael Kinsley or any of the other feminized "liberal lion" guys in Washington, DC. They're saying, "What good do I need to put up with this for?" Plus, why pay all this money to go there and listen and get preached to about what a rotten SOB I am just because of my gender? Well, let's continue with the piece.
"Howard is not alone. Colleges and universities across the country are grappling with the case of the mysteriously vanishing male. Where men once dominated, they now make up no more than 43% of students at American institutions of higher learning, according to 2003 statistics, and this downward trend shows every sign of continuing unabated. If we don't reverse it soon, we will gradually diminish the male identity, and thus the productivity and the mission, of the next generation of young men, and all the ones that follow." I've got a story here in the stack, by the way. Some state has just said that college experience -- not a degree, but college experience... Here it is. Indiana. "The Indiana State Police are dropping a longtime requirement that would-be troopers have some college education, a requirement that's been in place for more than a decade that says state police candidates must have either 60 credit hours of college or previous police or military experience. Starting as early as next year, trooper applicants will need only a high school diploma or to pass the General Education Development Test to apply for the agency. The superintendent says the goal is to increase the number of candidates, especially minorities who want to work..." Oh, don't let Jesse Jackson hear this! Oh, jeez.

What Jesse Jackson is going to take out of this is that we need to lower the education demands otherwise we're not going to get enough black candidates. That's not what the guy is saying, but if the Reverend Jackson gets a hold of this... I can tell you exactly why this is. They don't have enough candidates because there aren't enough men going to college at all, much less getting degrees, so their field of candidates for the state trooper position in Indiana is been depleted. So they gotta throw that out to expand the universe of applicants. It fits hand-in-glove with this story. "The trend of females overtaking males in college was initially measured in 1978." I would rewrite this. The trend of females overtaking...college was initially measured in 1978. Yet despite the well-documented disappearance of ever more young men from college campuses, we have yet to fully react to what has become a significant crisis. Largely, that is because of cultural perceptions about males and their societal role. Many times a week, a reporter or other media person will ask me: 'Why should we care so much about boys when men still run everything?'" Yeah, well, where the hell does that kind of asinine thinking come from? That comes from the class envy orientation that people get: Well, men are just powerful brutes! They run everything. Women are serving at their pleasure, blah, blah. Why should we give anything to them? Why should we care what's happening to them? They still run the show.

"It's a fair and logical question," says Michael Gurian, "but what it really reflects is that our culture is still caught up in old industrial images. We still see thousands of men who succeed quite well in the professional world and in industry -- men who get elected president, who own software companies, who make six figures selling cars. We see the Bill Gateses and John Robertses and George Bushes -- and so we're not as concerned as we ought to be about the millions of young men who are floundering or lost." Well, Gates didn't go to college. He didn't get a degree. Steve Jobs dropped out of college. You're finding more and more really successful entrepreneurs who didn't waste the time there -- and one of the reasons they're not going, folks, is because for the truly bright it's a totally waste of time, but the curriculum and with the feminization of these places who wants to put up with it, especially told what a rotten creature you are on a daily basis! But anyway, these guys are there. The young men who are working at the lowest level of most dangerous jobs instead of going to college, they're sitting in prison instead of going to college. Yeah, well, committing crime and going to jail will keep you out of college." Yeah, well, committing crime and going to jail will keep you out of college. I mean, we have to acknowledge that. Men "who are staying out of the long-term marriage pool because they have little to offer young women" (Laughing.) On that one, folks, I'm going to take a break. We will continue after the break with more of this because there is a lot more -- and it's not just this story.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Kate O'Beirne happened to write, in National Review Online today, a response to Michael Gurian's piece about where have all the guys gone. Kate's got a book out next January called, "Women Who Make the World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining or Schools, Our Families, Our Military and Sports." I wrote a blurb for this book because I so partiality agree with the concept, "Women Who Make the World Worse," and how their radical feminist assault, etc. It's a very great treatise on any of them and where it's all gone wrong. By the way, folks, do you know what day it is today? I almost forgot to mention this to you. Do you know what today is? Today is the day that DVD of season four of the TV show "24" is released. I, of course, already have multiple copies for the purpose of giving it away for Christmas. But for the rest of you in the real world, the retail version's out and available today. (interruption) What? You don't like the title, Dawn, "Women Who Make the World Worse and How their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining...?" It's not about all women. It's not "Women Make the World Worse." It's "Women WHO Make the World Worse." It's sort of like a Who's Who of women who have screwed us up, and do you know...? (interruption) No, Kate doesn't know you. So you can't be in the book, so you needn't worry about it. So, anyway, Kate says:
"In his welcome Washington Post 'Outlook' piece, 'Disappearing Act: Where Have the Men Gone? No Place Good,' Michael Gurian reports that colleges and universities across the country are 'grappling with the case of the mysteriously vanishing male.'... But he doesn't explain who is to blame for boys' alienation from our current schooling regime." So she writes, "So I will. It's radical feminist academics, theorists, and activists. Gurian explains that boys 'dominate the failure statistics in our schools' beginning in elementary school and continuing through high school. Boys lag behind girls in reading ability by 1 ˝ years, a disparity that persists into college. This diminished educational achievement consigns young men to the lowest-level jobs, lands plenty in prison, and takes many out of the long-term marriage pool. He counsels that we abandon the 'boys-are-privileged-but-the-girls-are-shortchanged emphasis of the last 20 years.' No kidding. This 'emphasis' that has so disadvantaged our boys is the fundamental tenet of feminist educational policy that is subsidized by tens of millions of public dollars in the name of a phony 'educational equity.' Take reading achievement, as one example of what feminism has wrought.

"With the federal government's clout and cash, feminists have dictated the rewriting of textbooks to conform to their notions of gender equality. At its 1973 convention, NOW resolved to take 'dramatic action' to see that dangerous sex-role stereotypes were erased from textbooks, and within a year they had the Women's Educational Equity Act to advance their campaign with funding for alternative curricula. The editors, publishers, administrators, bureaucrats, and teachers' unions that make up the feminized education establishment have eagerly adopted the feminists' destructive gender agenda. The result is what NYU psychology professor Paul Vitz calls 'Wonder Woman and the Wimp' stories that little boys understandably have little interest in reading. Sandra Stotsky, a reading specialist and research scholar at Northeastern University explains, 'Gone are the inspiring biographies of the most important American presidents, inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs. No military valor, no high adventure. On the other hand, stories about adventurous and brave women abound.' Peggy Orenstein is one of the feminist theorists who welcomes the 'gender-fair' regime that has turned our classrooms into reeducation camps for our sons.

"She has noted approvingly that 'perhaps for the first time, the boys are the ones looking through the window' when classrooms are adorned with women's pictures and bookcases are crammed with women's biographies. We parents of boys have meekly allowed gender warriors like Peggy Orenstein to treat our sons like unindicted coconspirators in history's gender crimes, while parents of girls permit their daughters to be patronized as helpless victims of a phantom, crippling sex bias in America's schools. Michael Gurian notes the casualties without identifying who created the battlefield for their campaign of intimidation and indoctrination." Much more could be said about this as well, but I don't want to devote the whole hour to this, but you remember the joke that I have told you, the old newspaper headline joke? God calls s reporter from the New York Times and says, "You know, I was watching Oprah the other day, and it's over. I have concluded the human race is a failed experiment. I'm ending the world tomorrow," and the New York Times reporter asks, "Can I have an exclusive on that?" He doesn't even try to talk God out of it, just wants an exclusive. God says, "No, I'm calling others other papers." The Times guy grouses. God hangs up. God calls USA Today, calls Wall Street Journal, calls the Washington Post.

The next day, the headline in the New York Times is found on page A-16: "God Says World to End Tomorrow." USA Today, front page headline: "God Says World to End Tomorrow; We're Doomed." Wall Street Journal: "God Says World to End Tomorrow: Markets to Close Early." Washington Post: "God Says World to End Tomorrow, Women and Minorities Hardest Hit." Well, guess what? (CNSNews:) "The debate over climate change evolved into a battle of the sexes Monday at the 11th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal. The spokesman for a feminist-based environmental group accused men of being the biggest contributors to human-caused 'global warming' and lamented that women are bearing the brunt of the negative climate consequences created by men. 'Women and men are differently affected by climate change and they contribute differently to climate change,' said Ulrike Rohr, director of the German-based group called..." I can't pronounce it. Who cares? The last two words are "Environment, Sustainability."

She "is demanding 'climate gender justice,' left no doubt as to which gender she believes was the chief culprit in emitting greenhouse gasses." She said, "'To give you an example from Germany, it is mostly men who are going by car. Women are going by public transport mostly.'" She "was standing in front of her booth, which featured a banner calling for 'creative gender strategies' from 'rural households to global scientific bodies.'" So the joke's true! Here they're talking about global climate change is going to ruin everybody, going to destroy us. Men are the culprits; women hardest hit. Well, this is a classic example of what Kate O'Beirne is talking about. This kind of radical feminism shows up in institutions, and guys that go to school hear about how they are more responsible for all the world's ills, including whatever women are unhappy about, than anybody else. Why do they want to put up with it? They've heard about it for all these years. Why mess with it? And why pay whatever tuition costs to subject yourself to this?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Ann in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. It's nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hi. Thank you.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I can't believe I'm on. I've been listening since February of 1990 --

RUSH: Mmm-hmm?

CALLER: -- and I guess I was just calling about need of education. I really believe that women need the college advantage because they get passed over if they don't have that, where a man can start in the work room or in the mail room and work his way up, and they'll take a man more seriously than a woman --

RUSH: Oh, jeez. (laughing)

CALLER: -- and I woman needs that college education, otherwise they get passed over. I've seen it happen many times.

RUSH: You know what I'm tempted to say? "Women can start on the couch and work their way up."

CALLER: That's true, but that -- I wouldn't do that, but I know there are women out there that have. But, umm.
RUSH: Well, look, I understand. Sorry. It just was the first thing I thought of when you said that, and I just had to share it with you. I understand the point that you're making, and it dovetails with the notion of it's still a disadvantage to be a woman out there, because men just naturally have a leg up when it comes to promotion and so forth. But, you know, something, I have a little different take on it now.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: I'm not denying that what you say has been institutionally true, but I don't think it's as universally, institutionally true today. I think women, in fact -- and I'm being dead serious about this -- have far many more options in corporate America than men will ever hope to have. For example, a woman can come out of college; she can get the job. A lot of companies today, to keep the federal government and the EEOC and the Jesse Jacksons and the NAGs off your back, hire women whether they're as qualified or not, because they'll fulfill a statistical quota requirement that makes the company look good, and they will promote them on the same basis, and at the same time more qualified maybe men are not being promoted and not being hired.

Then, let's say this woman sat some future date, the biological clock starts ticking (ticking), and the woman says, "You know what? I want to have a baby," and of course, we love that. Motherhood, apple pie -- and the woman's allowed to take maternity leave, sometimes of a year, depending on the company. Then you've added family and medical leave so while she's caring for the baby, she can take to the dog to the vet. All the while her job is protected, and she can go to the management and say, "I want to have a baby. I'm pregnant. I want my maternity leave." You got it. You got it, and somebody gets transferred to cover her job until she comes back. Then when she comes back, she comes back and assumes the job she had at that moment and the pay at that moment and whoever was doing her job while she was gone goes back to wherever they were or what have you. Then a couple years later or maybe two months later she says, "You know what? I don't really want to work. I want to stay home and raise my child." Oh, great, because society loves motherhood at home. So fine. Go home.

If an average male employee tried one of those stunts, "Pssht!" Out the door. His career is ruined. Once that kind of stuff is on his résumé, he's histoire. Turn the tables. Say a guy, at age 30, his wife gets pregnant. He goes to the boss, "You know, my wife is pregnant. I want to stay home and help her raise the baby during my maternity leave." You what? You what! So he can't do that. Then he comes back after the maternity leave if he gets it and says, "You know what? I'm going to be the one to raise the kids. I'm leaving, and I want to be the one to raise the kids." His future is over. Once he's made the decision to do that, once that's on his résumé, he's not going to get hired. Women have that option. I'm not upset about it. I'm just telling you it's far more flexible for women in corporate America than it is for men, but by the same token, a lot of management is very much aware of the new trend that women who come out of college all revved up and geared up for the career world. The statistics are increasing rapidly after the birth of their first child, more and more of them are deciding not to go back to work.
CALLER: Well, I took time off when I had my first child, and it definitely had implications at work for me.

RUSH: What kind?

CALLER: Well, I didn't get a raise that year, or if I did, it was substantially less than what the other women in my work group got, and there were other promotional opportunities, and I was again passed over. So I think what you just described for men did happen to me when I took that extended time off for my first child. I didn't do it for my two subsequent children. So I did learn.

RUSH: Wait a minute, wait. You didn't take maternity leave for your two subsequent children?

CALLER: I did, but not the same length. I took six months for the first one and only like 12 weeks, I think, for the second one.

RUSH: Okay, I have to ask you an honest question, ma'am. Six weeks of maternity leave, and you said that you didn't get a raise.

CALLER: No, no, no. I took six months.

RUSH: Six months. Okay, six months -- I'm sorry, that's what I meant to say -- and you didn't get a raise.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: All right. Now, I have to ask, because I deal with this all the time. I have to ask you: On what basis did you earn one?

CALLER: That's true, and that's basically what my supervisor told me, that they had to review me on what I did while I was there, and I was only there for six months of the year.

RUSH: So you felt penalized, though? You felt penalized because you got pregnant?

CALLER: Well, not really that. But, you know, I thought, "Well, why don't you just review me on the six months of my work that I was there?" But they didn't look at it that way.

RUSH: Well, that's because they were paying you --

CALLER: I know.

RUSH: -- for work you weren't doing when you were at home.

CALLER: That's true. That's true. But there are consequences if you do take the time off, and I don't think it's just solely for men. I think women do experience that, too. So...

RUSH: Well, you know, I, frankly, don't know a guy... (exhaling) Well, I'm sure there are. I know journalists like Bob Woodward who take leaves of absence to write books and come back.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: But I don't know that it happens with men with a frequency. I don't know that men have the opportunity because of something that happens to them biologically and they automatically qualify for six months of leave for anything and --

CALLER: I understand.

RUSH: -- come back and have their jobs, but that's okay because we understand. You know, we respect motherhood in this country. We revere it and we cherish it and we want to do what we can to promote it. That's why these policies exist. But what's interesting is that even after acknowledging all this there can be feelings of bitterness on the part of the person who has had these benefits offered and extended to them. I appreciate the call, Ann. Who's next on this program? Steve in Cleveland, you're next, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I wanted to say that I think you're missing the good news for men in this report about women outnumbering men in college two to one.

RUSH: I seldom "miss" good news, so tell me what it is.

CALLER: The good news is because universities are that bastion of liberalism, affirmative action applies and it will be easier for men to get into college than women as long as liberals are consistent.

RUSH: Well, but you're missing the point. Men are not going because they don't want to. They're not going to college because they don't want to. I'm sure the reasons are varied, but largely it's because what their experience has been there and what they're going to find there. You know, it really isn't all that complicated. Back in the days where -- let's take this example in the story that in classrooms you had pictures up there of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln and Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower. That made the feminists mad. It made them mad. "It's unfair to women! Why, where are the pictures of powerful women?" Okay, put some pictures of powerful women. Eventually the men pictures came down. Now, every time I say this, it makes people mad, but if you're going to put pictures of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison on the wall in your classroom, you can't replace them with women. There were no "founding mothers" in this country.

The Biscuit Queen

Rush is awesome.

Think we can get Glenn Sacks onto Rush's show? I would PAY to see that one. Two great THINKERS brainstorming?  

I love how that women changed her tune once Rush laid it all on the line for her.

You know, why aren't we asking men like Rush, Dr. Dobson, and others who are very pro-male to be working with us. They have the listener base, and the big name, and they are on our side.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

scarbo

Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Think we can get Glenn Sacks onto Rush's show?


I'd like to see that, too, but Glenn is already on record as not wanting to portray himself as a Rush-worshipper.

slayton

Awesome, Rush is good.

(for your health that is).

Thomas

I'm ordering Kate O'Beirne's soon-to-be-released book "Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports".

Here's a link to her article in National Review Online, where she points out why boys are failing in school.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob.asp
We Are Self-Exterminating Through The Collapse Of Fertility Rates.
The Death of Birth.
Fertility Rates Magazine.

SecondToDie

I don't really like Rush Limbaugh, mostly because he's a necon cheerleader, but at least he's unafraid to take on the feminists, unlike Dubya.

whome112

I don't like Rush, he's too conservative. I do attempt to listen to anyone who will speak out for males in the areas we need help.

BTW: Dr. Dobson pro male? WHAT? This is the guy who says women never beat their husband and never beat their children and are perfect saints and ... I've argued with the nitwit, he's as bad as Dr. Phil in most areas and worse in others.

whome
ay what you mean: Mean what you say.
http://jwwells.blogspot.com

LSBeene

Speaking of Glenn Sacks ...

Did he give up on his show, did I miss an announcement?  When is his show going to continue?

Plz inform the resident blond guy.

Steven
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

scarbo

I know y'all are gonna be shocked by this, but Hugo don't agree: http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/12/blaming_the_fem.html

Gerard Velthuis

Ok at first I didn't think much of this Hugo-guy and frankly I didn't care.
But having seen his website really pisses me off. I can't say I am very surprised since apparently he is a gender studies professor and we all know how these people are / think.
Frankly I get sick of these people coz they are all teeling half-truths and lies and they make men look very bad and glorify women in every issue possible.

Having seen his photo also explains a piece of the puzzle.
He looks like a man who rather goes with the flow than to dare row against it.
Again, this is very typical for these kind of professors. They rather support women in every aspect possible than to dare say some bad things about women, whether true or not. After all, nowadays if you support women and / or bash at men you know you are always at the "good" side.
There will be much less criticism and maybe even appraisal than there would be if you would criticize women / feminism.

I take back my words of leaving this person alone (I didn't even have an idea he was a gender professor) so I say:
Go get the man!
But it is too bad he fled from this site to his secure and safe (nobody-opposes-him) environment
t is time men start behaving like men again and stand up for their rights, instead of behaving like conformist push-overs.

antimisandry

I added my two cents here
ny man living in this feminized world has got to be tough to tolerate it.

>> http://antimisandry.com <<

Hugo

Thanks for the link, fellas.  And no, I have no interest in debating y'all.

But Glenn's given up his show to concentrate on his written material,and possibly, go into debating -- with guess who?

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/09/considering_deb.html

scarbo

Quote from: "Hugo"
But Glenn's given up his show to concentrate on his written material...

You sure? His website (www.hisside.com) still says:
Quote
His Side with Glenn Sacks   is a nationally-syndicated men's and fathers' issues radio talk show hosted by columnist and commentator Glenn Sacks on Sunday evenings.

And even though he hasn't had a show in months, until he changes the website I'm not convinced that he won't be back on the air someday.

contrarymary

Quote
Rush is awesome.


Rush makes me puke.
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

contrarymary

Quote from: "whome112"
I don't like Rush, he's too conservative. I do attempt to listen to anyone who will speak out for males in the areas we need help.

BTW: Dr. Dobson pro male? WHAT? This is the guy who says women never beat their husband and never beat their children and are perfect saints and ... I've argued with the nitwit, he's as bad as Dr. Phil in most areas and worse in others.

whome


Well, you're a better man than I am.... :wink:   I can't.  I just can't.  He makes me sick.  And I think T., a self-proclaimed conservative Republican (who wants to know what the HELL happened to his party) would throw me out if I ever did.
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

Go Up