Why Aren’t Feminist Groups More Concerned that So Many Universities Discriminate Against Women

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,458
This puzzles me as well. I think that feminists groups don't want to concede they have won and women are now ahead of men on most matrix


http://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/19/why-arent-feminist-groups-more-concerned



This puzzles me. It is routine for many colleges and universities, particularly mid-level liberal arts schools, to discriminate against women in admissions. Believing that they have "too many women," these schools refuse admission to female applicants whose academic credentials would have been more than sufficient for a male applicant. Why don't we hear more complaints from feminist organizations?

Alison Somin and I wrote about this a few years back in a short essay entitled Affirmative Action for Men?: Strange Silences and Strange Bedfellows in the Public Debate Over Discrimination Against Women in College Admissions. We were motivated in large part by the fact that some feminists actually had opposed an empirical study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the subject (and as a result the liberals on the Commission cancelled the study).

In the case of a state school or a private professional or graduate school that receives federal funds, such discrimination violates Title IX. But some do it anyway. "We are, after all, the College of William and Mary, not the College of Mary and Mary," one state school admissions officer said.

For private colleges, Title IX is more lenient. It allows sex discrimination in admissions, but not once students are admitted. This was intended to allow single-sex colleges to receive federal funding, but it also allows liberal arts schools that don't want women to outnumber men by too much to have different admissions standards.

But legal or illegal, I would have expected feminist organizations to be at least concerned and to want a study conducted. There are so many things that get labeled sex discrimination that aren't really sex discrimination. It surprises and troubles me that honest-to-goodness sex discrimination gets ignored.

Maybe feminist organizations don't want to draw too much attention to how well females are doing these days in school, because it hurts the narrative that women are the underdogs. But women form a 56% majority of collegestudents. And they are a majority of those in law, medical, and dental school.

Alternatively, maybe the leaders of feminist groups are reluctant to speak out for fear of undermining the case for affirmative action for racial and ethnic minorities. They may perceive themselves as part of a broad coalition of left-leaning activists first and advocates for women in particular only second.

One of the questions we address in the essay is whether the Department of Education's athletic-centric enforcement of Title IX is a contributing factor to discriminatory admissions policies. A time-honored way for a small liberal arts college to recruit male students used to be to offer them the opportunity to play varsity athletics--something they are less likely to qualify for at the big sports-powerhouse universities. But for reasons that we explain in the essay, complex Title IX enforcement policies make this strategy difficult and expensive for schools. Some schools would rather just discriminate outright in admissions. It's easier and cheaper.

These Title IX enforcement policies could be tweaked without causing women who want to participate in athletics to be denied equal opportunity. And doing so would reduce the incentive for schools to just discriminate against women outright in admissions. Such changes would also likely improve opportunities for women who prefer non-athletic extra-curricular activities, such as chorus or drama club. Alas, feminist organizations appear to resent any suggestion that these policies, which they advocated in the first place, may be backfiring.
 
Better yet, when are they going to demand equal treatment with regards to the draft? For jobs with the federal government only male applicants have to be registered for Selective Service. And I'm pretty sure that in some states to get a drivers license you need to be registered for Selective Service but only if you're a male.
 
Better yet, when are they going to demand equal treatment with regards to the draft? For jobs with the federal government only male applicants have to be registered for Selective Service. And I'm pretty sure that in some states to get a drivers license you need to be registered for Selective Service but only if you're a male.


^^^^^ This ^^^^^

A Million Times This !!!

Make them register for selective service and Their Asses will be Begging to get back in the kitchen.
 
Better yet, when are they going to demand equal treatment with regards to the draft? For jobs with the federal government only male applicants have to be registered for Selective Service. And I'm pretty sure that in some states to get a drivers license you need to be registered for Selective Service but only if you're a male.
They should.


I think the UN should step in and try to make this a norm for Western countries(Then try to get non-western countries on board).....Get atleast 50/50 women/men in armed forces(ooo and I mean combat roles)......I know the UN can't do shit, but they can encourage it.


Lets see women dying for their fellow countrymen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enough is enough!!!!!!!!!!!!! For millennia men have been dying in the battlefields!!!!!!!!!!!! It's time for women to join us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


True Equality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I really have no idea. Help me understand war room!
 
Better yet, when are they going to demand equal treatment with regards to the draft? For jobs with the federal government only male applicants have to be registered for Selective Service. And I'm pretty sure that in some states to get a drivers license you need to be registered for Selective Service but only if you're a male.
And to apply for financial aid men also need to sign up for the Selective Service.

I would be okay with accepting this inequality if women could accept being barred from combat roles but there's a selective outrage here that betrays the hypocrisy.
 
Better yet, when are they going to demand equal treatment with regards to the draft? For jobs with the federal government only male applicants have to be registered for Selective Service. And I'm pretty sure that in some states to get a drivers license you need to be registered for Selective Service but only if you're a male.

Who fucking cares?

Like being draft eligible has impacted your life at all.
 
Maybe because they understand that the point of fighting for equal rights for women doesn't mean that every area requires a fight at all times. More importantly, they probably realize that the equal treatment argument when it came to education was based on the idea that women shouldn't be educated at all. Now that this specific battle has been won, they can move on to other battles and leave schools to manage their student populations as they see fit.

Perhaps they're not as insane as suggested by some and recognize that this isn't an area that requires broad attention anymore and have moved on to areas requiring greater attention.
 
They should.


I think the UN should step in and try to make this a norm for Western countries(Then try to get non-western countries on board).....Get atleast 50/50 women/men in armed forces(ooo and I mean combat roles)......I know the UN can't do shit, but they can encourage it.


Lets see women dying for their fellow countrymen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enough is enough!!!!!!!!!!!!! For millennia men have been dying in the battlefields!!!!!!!!!!!! It's time for women to join us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


True Equality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Always a complicated conversation because the moment we see threads about women in certain sectors, we get a broad breadth of comments specifically about how they shouldn't be there unless they meet standards crafted for male physical strength.

I try to avoid that conversation because it's a tough one to have. You can't want someone to share in your industry but also insist on an entry standard that you don't think they can meet.
 
Always a complicated conversation because the moment we see threads about women in certain sectors, we get a broad breadth of comments specifically about how they shouldn't be there unless they meet standards crafted for male physical strength.

I try to avoid that conversation because it's a tough one to have. You can't want someone to share in your industry but also insist on an entry standard that you don't think they can meet.
I don't even agree with letting them into combat roles even if they pass the same requirements because women are still more prone to injury which means they're more likely to be the weak link in combat and given how many flunk out in training for it its not even worth the cost.
 
Always a complicated conversation because the moment we see threads about women in certain sectors, we get a broad breadth of comments specifically about how they shouldn't be there unless they meet standards crafted for male physical strength.

I try to avoid that conversation because it's a tough one to have. You can't want someone to share in your industry but also insist on an entry standard that you don't think they can meet.

They aren't male strength requirements they are the requirements for the job.
 
Always a complicated conversation because the moment we see threads about women in certain sectors, we get a broad breadth of comments specifically about how they shouldn't be there unless they meet standards crafted for male physical strength.

I try to avoid that conversation because it's a tough one to have. You can't want someone to share in your industry but also insist on an entry standard that you don't think they can meet.

Look if we have to lower our standards or come up with better tech to make soldiers carry less shit etc...Hell even give them roids, Im all for it...along as true equality is met.


Enough is enough...Tired of young men just being disposable to fucking human societies.



Also IMO if women were in Combat as much as men.....Since Society Values women's lives much more(remember women and children saying), then perhaps Leaders would be more wary of going to war since the general public wouldn't want to see their daughters slaughtered in the battlefield.


and yes that makes a huge difference...We are use to hearing "Our sons are getting killed in the battlefield", and in a weird way we have become immune to it because thats how war has been forever....but if we suddenly hear "our daughters are getting killed in the battlefield", it will have a profound effect to society and I believe people would be less acceptive of war.
 
I don't even agree with letting them into combat roles even if they pass the same requirements because women are still more prone to injury which means they're more likely to be the weak link in combat and given how many flunk out in training for it its not even worth the cost.

All of which I consider viable arguments for reducing their presence...until someone turns around and makes the "dangerous jobs" argument to suggest female hypocrisy. Because the "dangerous jobs" rationale is actually about male rules for access, not female.
 
All of which I consider viable arguments for reducing their presence...until someone turns around and makes the "dangerous jobs" argument to suggest female hypocrisy. Because the "dangerous jobs" rationale is actually about male rules for access, not female.
The military is the one exception for me though and really only combat roles. If women want to work as coal miners or construction workers I'm okay with that but we all know they won't in any meaningful numbers.
 
They aren't male strength requirements they are the requirements for the job.

Set from a time when only men were allowed to perform the job. But that doesn't really change my argument.

If the standards are such that very few women can pass them then it invalidates the double standards argument that frequently comes up. That argument as presented can be summarized as "Why don't more women try and enter these male dominated fields with a higher risk of mortality?" The ignored element is that those fields tend to have entry standards that are extremely difficult for women to meet and the men in those fields do not want the standards lowered. While the reason for wanting the standards to remain unchanged can be perfectly valid, it also means that women aren't avoiding those fields so much as the men are saying that women can't do the job.

That would leave women with a very tricky argument: They would have to prove equal interest in a field where they know prior to application that they won't meet the entry standards. It's like a man with no legs being asked to justify why he didn't enter a foot race (girlfriend killing South Africans aside, lol).
 
The military is the one exception for me though and really only combat roles. If women want to work as coal miners or construction workers I'm okay with that but we all know they won't in any meaningful numbers.

But don't those jobs also have physical standards? I know that in some construction jobs you're required to be able to lift a certain amount. I'm not sure about coal mining.
 
But don't those jobs also have physical standards? I know that in some construction jobs you're required to be able to lift a certain amount. I'm not sure about coal mining.
Well I'm sure they do but I don't advocate outright shutting women out from those fields like I do in the case of combat roles in the military. Plus if you're going to work for a small contractor(in the case of construction) the requirements are likely less strict. Their primary pool of potential employees are 5 foot tall Guatemalans so I think a reasonably in shape woman could find a job in construction.
 
Well I'm sure they do but I don't advocate outright shutting women out from those fields like I do in the case of combat roles in the military. Plus if you're going to work for a small contractor(in the case of construction) the requirements are likely less strict. Their primary pool of potential employees are 5 foot tall Guatemalans so I think a reasonably in shape woman could find a job in construction.

Not really, a 5 foot tall male is still notable stronger than a woman several inches taller than him because female upper body strength lags mens significantly. And the smaller the contractor the greater the number of individual, strength based tasks that are required to be performed.
 
Not really, a 5 foot tall male is still notable stronger than a woman several inches taller than him because female upper body strength lags mens significantly. And the smaller the contractor the greater the number of individual, strength based tasks that are required to be performed.
My dad is a small contractor and I've worked with him plenty. I guarantee you there are crossfit bitches out there who can bench more than me but are they willing to get their hands dirty? Haven't seen many women who are on construction sites.
 
Back
Top