Where Are the Boys?

This article has gotten a lot of play in conservative and Men’s Rights circles, as it laments the supposed disappearance of men from higher education. Now, were young men rapidly disappearing from college, or systematically being paid less for their work, or relegated to low-paying industries, I’d say it’s time to do something. And I agree with the author that the high school drop-out rate is a huge problem, particularly among urban and low-income youth. But is he right that boys are losing out on college?

Well, no:

Problem is Gurian’s alarming statistics are flat wrong. Men are NOT disappearing from college campuses. In fact, a higher percentage of all college-age men in the United States are going to college than ever before and this trend has held steady for two decades. What’s really happening is that women are going to college in greater numbers, and college campuses have expanded and multiplied to accommodate them.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 1983 some 27 percent of all college-aged American men (ages 18 to 24) were enrolled in college. In 2003 that number was up to 34 percent.

But at the same time, in 1983 only 21 percent of American college-aged women were enrolled in college, and that number climbed more steeply to 41 percent of all college-aged women two decades later.

Gurian writes: “The trend of females overtaking males in 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.”

Again, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2003 there were 7.2 million men enrolled in degree-granting institutions and 9.6 million women. This is hardly a disappearance of men.

Ok then.

Posted in Education, Gender | Tagged | 47 Comments

It was only a matter of time…

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn’t, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn’t a threat to anyone – it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world’s melting pot was our nickname. It didn’t mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.

Nope, not joking. And the article is called The Jewish Grinch Who Stole Christmas.

But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion.

Which would make sense, if there had ever been a president who wasn’t a Christian.

It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase “separation of church and state” actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.

Actually, I think it’s the Supreme Court that “conned” the American people into believing that tconcept, but if Burt wants to credit the ACLU, hey, thanks.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a “Merry Christmas” will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver’s license.

They really need better fact-checkers at WND — or at least people who have a basic understanding of the right to religious expression and the establishment clause. The ACLU won’t “slap you with an injunction” for saying “Merry Christmas” — but they go after religious displays on government property, or religious exercise in public schools. At the same time, they’ll defend your individual right to exercise your religion. It’s not that confusing, and it shouldn’t be this controversial.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority. I am getting the idea that too many Jews won’t be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

Uh… over-the-top, anyone? Really, though, I can’t say I’m surprised that the anti-Semitic undertones of this debate have finally been brought to the forefront.

Posted in Holidays & Celebrations, Religion | Tagged , | 57 Comments

Oh Townhall…

Amanda did it the other day, and I’m stealing the idea. Shorter Townhall:

Ben Shapiro
: I haven’t actually seen Munich, but since it’s written and directed by Hollywood liberals it is probably not only supporting the homosexual agenda, but also pure evil. And since it’s about the Israel-Palestine conflict and it’s not being produced by a total right-wing or left-wing nutjob, we can assume that it might actually portray the conflict as complex and nuanced when, really, it isn’t at all. What it comes down to is that Israel has never done anything wrong ever, and if you criticize the Israeli government you’re an anti-Semite, even if you are both Jewish and the producer of Schindler’s List. Additionally, Palestinians are like Hitler. Best you-couldn’t-make-it-up-if-you-tried quote: “This is the problem: Today’s left, and the Hollywood left in particular, sees everyone as human.” Oh, the horror!

Dennis Prager: Here’s some marriage advice you’ve never heard before: (1) Marry your best friend, not just some dude; (2) Marry someone who you’re actually attracted to; (3) Marry someone with basic social skills. And — you won’t believe this one — even men can find women more attractive over time. Amazing.

Thomas Sowell: Lots of us here at Townhall write really bad books that no one wants to buy. If you are a real Christian who does not hate Christmas, you will buy them.

Terance Jeffrey
: The Solomon Amendment is about a basic Constitutional right: freedom of choice. The Supreme Court should use the example of car salesmen to decide this case. And that, my friends, is why I failed Understanding Consitutional Basics 101.

Armstrong Williams: The real heroes in the world are working class people who, clearly, are all men. Where are the women, you ask? Well, they get two mentions: (1) Unnamed female neighbor has a brother (Billy) who is serving in Iraq; and (2) the “peers having babies out of wedlock.” Which is how it should be.

Tagged , , | 55 Comments

The REAL Hot 100

The REAL hot 100 are young women who are smart, savvy, and actively trying to make the world a better place. They contradict the popular notion that sex appeal is all young women have to offer.

The REAL hot 100 also highlights the important — but often overlooked — work young women are doing. Are you a younger woman who is REALLY hot? Do you know a younger woman who is REALLY hot? Submit a nomination today!

Subjectified and honored, co-sponsored by Feministing.com. Make a submission (psst, Jill).

Posted in Feminism, Politics | Tagged , , | 14 Comments

The Abortion Capital of America

Is our own New York City.

New York has the highest abortion rate in the United States. One in ten abortions is performed here, and seventy percent of those are performed in New York City. But it’s not because New Yorkers are abortion-crazed heathens — it’s because New York has historically been, and continues to be, a haven of safe and accessible abortion.

Women come from all over the country to have abortions in New York. Here, low-income residents can pay for their procedures through state Medicaid funds. There are no parental consent laws, meaning that girls in this state don’t have to cross state lines or risk abuse to terminate a pregnancy. There are no waiting periods, so that when women decide to terminate a pregnancy, they can do it early — no repeat clinic visits, no paternalistic “go home and think about it” requirements.

And New Yorkers have made it this way.
Continue reading

Posted in Reproductive Rights | Tagged , , , | 27 Comments

The Opt-Out Revolution

Are they or aren’t they? File this under “thanks for telling us the obvious”:

Working mothers may be stressed by the double job of caring for their careers and their families, but they are not leaving the work force because of it, a report has found.

Continue reading

Posted in Domesticity, Feminism | Tagged , , | 62 Comments

Solomon Goes on Trial

This case is an interesting one. The Solomon Amendment requires that colleges and universities allow military recruiters on campus in order to receive federal funding. The problem, though, is that many schools — including NYU Law — have anti-discrimination measures which bar discriminatory employers from recruiting on campus. So, for example, if a particular law firm had a policy of only hiring whites, they wouldn’t be allowed to come and recruit.

The JAG Corps, which recruit law students, operate under the same discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as the rest of the U.S. armed forces. This policy clearly violates NYU’s anti-discrimination standards, the same way a law firm that had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for non-Christians would be in violation.

NYU has been at the heart of this issue for decades, as it was the first law school to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy. A decade later, the Association of American Law Schools required that this policy be applied at all accredited institutions. Now, an NYU alum is one of the people arguing Rumsfeld v. FAIR, the case against the Solomon Amendment, and NYU Law is one of the only FAIR-participating schools that is willing to be publicly named (other schools joined on anonymously; still others joined under “faculty of,” so that the university itself isn’t responsible).

Some argue that if a university’s anti-discrimination values are so strong, they should simply waive the federal funds and keep recruiters off campus. But it’s not that simple. When the Solomon issue first came up, NYU Law made the decision to forgo the federal money in order to continue their policy of non-discrimination. But the amendment was then expanded so that if one branch of a particular university barred recruiters, the entire university lost federal funding — so if the law school didn’t accept the federal funds, the entire university would miss out. This, obviously, is a problem at a school like NYU, where the law school is better funded by directed alumni donations than the rest of the university. And we aren’t talking about pocket change here — Harvard and Yale, for example, would each lose $300 million if they didn’t comply with Solomon.

Others would say that the school should leave it up to individual students to decide which organizations they interview with. But by allowing a group to recruit on campus, the school is tacitly approving it. Should we allow “whites-only” companies to recruit here, and let students make up their own minds? I would argue that a consistent anti-discrimination policy sends a tough message to employers that discrimination will cost them — indeed, anti-discrimination policies were key in integrating women and people of color into the workforce (although it’s worth noting that law firms, especially the big ones, are still run primarily by white guys).

The military claims that they’re desperate for recruits, and interviewing on campus is key to their survival. That’s all fine and good, but if you’re so in need of good employees, stop discriminating against gays and lesbians. You’ll have a whole new pool of people to recruit from, and you won’t have to deal with progressive universities shutting you out, or students protesting your presence on campus (last year, when the JAG recruiters came, OUT-LAW members and other law students protested so loudly that the recruiters left early).

But this is all just background. The real issue in the case is the First Amendment rights of universities, specifically freedom of speech and association. And unfortunately, it looks like it’s a losing one. The government is making the argument that raising a military is a compelling Constitutional interest, and that raising a military requires recruitment. They say that universities are welcome to use their right to free speech and association by barring recruiters from campus; they aren’t being required to have the military there, they just stand to lose federal funds if they don’t. The FAIR attorneys argue that, when we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that the university needs, the policy is deeply coercive — particularly since the entire university loses funding if even a single, generally separate branch like the law or medical school refuses recruiters. But from the Supreme Court justices’ responses so far, it doesn’t look like this argument is getting very far — and it’s being argued that it could set a dangerous precedent for other accept-it-or-lose-funding federal rules, like No Child Left Behind and Title IX.

I’m obviously hoping that law schools will retain the right to reject discriminatory recruiters, without financially punishing the entire university. We’ll see what happens. I’ll be writing more about this in the coming days.

WSJ, SCOTUSblog, the blog of the American Constitution Society, and Law Dork have more.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , | 37 Comments

Congrats…

To my dear friend and favorite DJ Dave H, who has just been crowned the 2005 Mr. East Coast Rubber. I had the great pleasure of serving with Dave as an NYU undergraduate orientation leader, and he was kind enough to DJ at my graduation party. I can’t think of anyone more deserving of this high honor, and I’m proud to say that I knew him when.

Posted in Vanity | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Morality of Rape

I really didn’t want to post anything about V-x D-y ever again. I stopped reading his blog. I agreed with commenters who said that linking to him only gives him more attention. I won’t write out his whole name — that way, when he googles himself for masturbatory material, hopefully he’ll come up short. I vowed never to link to him again.

Except now he has a column on WorldNet Daily about the same issue, where he spells out his “Christian Libertarian” beliefs even more clearly (and, naturally, they’re even more offensive than you thought):

The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – rape is a sin, a willful pollution of a temple that rightly belongs to God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian need hesitate before asserting the act of rape to be evil and justly holding the rapist accountable. But this ethic does not offer a blanket excuse to victims, near victims and would-be victims either, since the element of consent – which today draws the dividing line between sex and rape – can also provide a contrarian condemnation of the woman’s own actions.

Rape isn’t bad because it’s harmful to people — it’s bad because it pollutes God’s house.

To put it more clearly, if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman’s victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.

And there you have it: Rape is no worse than consensual, but extra-marital, sex. And unless you were hiding in your house, wrapped in clothing from head to toe, and not even thinking about sex, you aren’t wholly innocent if you’re raped.

Oh, plus he’s just flat-out wrong about Christianity. There are, in fact, different kinds of sins, and some are taken more seriously than others. All sins can be forgiven, sure, and we’re all sinners, but all sins are not created equal. Glad my twice-a-year church visits have taught me something that even a Christian Libertarian with a Satanist haircut doesn’t seem to understand.

His basic point is this: Only Christian morality makes rape “bad,” and even then it’s only as bad as any other sin (or, though he doesn’t say this explicitly, perhaps he means it’s only as bad as any other sexual sin). Without Jesus, we have no basis to make moral judgments.

For someone who claims to be a member of Mensa, this seems like a pretty shallow wade into understanding morality — and one has to wonder about a person who truly believes that the only reason something is wrong is because a certain book tells him so.

Posted in Crime, Sexual Assault | Tagged , , , | 53 Comments

State-by-State GOP Scandal Scorecard

Having a tough time keeping track of all the indictments, ethics violations and scandals plaguing the Grand Old Party? Well worry no more, friends, because the state-by-state GOP Scandal Scorecard is here. This handy-dandy tool lets you keep all the corruption straight. And thank goodness for that.

Thanks to Nora for passing this one on.

Posted in Crime, Politics | Tagged , , , | 13 Comments

On the Myth of Inherent Female Bisexuality

Freudian psychoanalysts held that all people, male and female, are born bisexual and like a light switch held between on and off, will usually fall into one of two extremes. Freudians, on the whole, did not consider homosexuality to be an aberration or sickness in and of itself, but that societal pressures would undoubtedly contribute to unhealthy fetishes and sexual behaviors.

Following the light switch analogy, Alfred Kinsey’s famous scale would be like a dial pointing somewhere between homosexuality and heterosexuality: a continuum where the large majority resides very near the heterosexual end.

The twentieth century, with the discovery of a molecular basis for inheritance, saw a sharp rise in the use of terms like “inherent” and “predisposition” in lay discussions of animal behavior. Incidentally, it is of no surprise that discussions of human behavior dwell on human sexuality. Coitus, fornication, fucking, whatever you like to call it, is fun. It’s fun to do; it’s fun to talk about.

Continue reading

Posted in GLBTQ, Sex | Tagged , , , , , | 44 Comments

You Like Us, You Really Like Us!

The 2005 Weblog Awards are up, and Feministe has been nominated in the Best Liberal Blog category! Exciting!!

It’s a huge compliment to be grouped with the other nominees — the list includes some of my favorite blogs, and it’s a pretty big ego boost to be placed in the same category as them. Check ’em out, they’re fantastic, and all very worthy of your votes. There are some great blogs nominated in other categories as well, so scroll through the whole thing. And as usual, there are a whole lot of excellent blogs that didn’t get nominated, or didn’t make the final cut — feel free to leave links here of blogs you think we should all check out, and keep them in mind for next year.

Voting begins Monday December 5th and ends December 15th. You can vote for one blog in each category every 24 hours. Happy voting!*

*(I don’t know why I’ve been using so many exclamation points lately. Annoying, isn’t it? I apologize, and I blame contracts outlining.)

Posted in Blogging | Tagged , , | 23 Comments