Home › Forums › Other › OT: “The End of Men”: Women dominating college/New Jobs, can’t find marriageable prospects
- This topic has 165 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
eavesdropper.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM #569546June 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM #568627
paramount
ParticipantThis is all due to estrogens in plastic leaching into food products creating more and more girly men.
June 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM #568722ParticipantThis is all due to estrogens in plastic leaching into food products creating more and more girly men.
June 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM #569231ParticipantThis is all due to estrogens in plastic leaching into food products creating more and more girly men.
June 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM #569336ParticipantThis is all due to estrogens in plastic leaching into food products creating more and more girly men.
June 21, 2010 at 7:20 PM #569620ParticipantThis is all due to estrogens in plastic leaching into food products creating more and more girly men.
June 21, 2010 at 8:10 PM #568637eavesdropper
Participant[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]
HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!
CE[/quote]
Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.
Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.
I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.
June 21, 2010 at 8:10 PM #568732Participant[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]
HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!
CE[/quote]
Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.
Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.
I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.
June 21, 2010 at 8:10 PM #569241Participant[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]
HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!
CE[/quote]
Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.
Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.
I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.
June 21, 2010 at 8:10 PM #569345Participant[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]
HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!
CE[/quote]
Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.
Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.
I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.
June 21, 2010 at 8:10 PM #569630Participant[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]
HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!
CE[/quote]
Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.
Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.
I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.
June 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM #568728Participant[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.
As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.
June 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM #568823Participant[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.
As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.
June 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM #569333Participant[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.
As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.
June 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM #569438Participant[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.
As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.