About the Equal Rights Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 119
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
sure thing lawdog.... you are the resident expert after super on what goes on in every aspect of everyone's life.

Funny you can't dispute the facts either....wonder why?
You are always welcome to challenge anything I write on this board. But you don't. Instead, you give us this passive-aggressive bullshit, which roughly translates to "I know I am not nearly as knowledgeable or articulate as super, and I am hiding my jealousy under a veneer of resentment."

Which is a stupid way to live your life, but that's for you to figure out.
 
BTW, which troll turned this ERA thread into the DEI thread?

But take a look at yourself, haters. You're shitting on the idea of women's equality. I'm sure somebody is keeping these receipts. I won't be, because you are too shameless to care. But I will remember. And probably you should ask yourself how it came to this point.
 
I read an article somewhere recently (maybe it was on this board?) that said that the percentage of college students who are women is at an all-time high, and that a study showed that one reason many young men aren't attending college anymore is precisely because of the heavy percentage of female students (now 3-to-2 or better at some schools). I know it sounds weird that some guys wouldn't like those odds - many men would love that situation - but there was a story (from a college recruiter, I believe) that when men touring a campus saw the percentage of women in classes they were very negative. It would appear they don't like the competition and still want women to stick to traditional roles.
"and that a study showed that one reason many young men aren't attending college anymore is precisely because of the heavy percentage of female students"

I can only speak for myself, and for male friends close to me, that I've known for 30+ years, but I'm skeptical that a) boys wouldn't want to be around as many girls as possible while in college and b) high school aged boys would actually think deeply enough to be dissuaded by females in college.
 
Yes... As a matter of fact I have. Especially in the last three years.

90% of our training, online and in person were DEI initiatives.

One block of training was done by a private firm they brought in and they basically told us that if you were a "straight, white, male" you didn't earn your position.

Sorry if you don't believe me but it's a fact.

Americans are sick of the BS. They spoke on November 5th. Bye Bye DEI...

Meritocracy should be the way this country is run and it will be.
Meritocracy has never been the way the country has been run.
 
No but he won because some of that 10% is full of women haters.

As a tech guy, you should understand multivariate analysis
Some? Sure. Some are competitive yo-yo-ers. Some wear ladies underwear. I think it's a pretty small number but don't really know. I don't think some women haters in that 10% cohort is nearly enough to explain why Joe won and Kamala lost pretty convincingly. I think a disappointing economy, paired with a lackluster candidate getting dealt a bad hand a couple months before the election and a campaign platform that didn't really connect is enough to explain it.

Eta: On second thought, I guess probably about half of that 10% cohort wears ladies underwear. A much smaller percentage are competitive yo-yo-ers and misogynists.
 
Last edited:
Meritocracy has never been the way the country has been run.
The irony is that most of the people who clamor for meritocracy failed in a meritocratic system. They are the average people that the meristocrats despise. But someone convinced them that they didn't fail because of their lack of merit, but rather because of brown and black people.

Meritocracy is a good value to have, but it can only be one of many and is not the basis for a system. People who doubt that should consider the following:

I have never worked at a law firm that would even consider hiring a graduate of UNC's law school. It's not nearly prestigious enough. Wachtell would only recruit from and hire from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Stanford (though it doesn't get many from there) and very occasionally U Penn. That's all. There are a couple of partners who lateraled in with degrees from places like Georgetown -- but there was also one person who was a good attorney but was not on partner track and would never make partner because she went to Brooklyn Law School (which is a Tier 2 school and not terrible). Jones Day would hire a little bit more broadly, but unless someone had a boffo clerkship, not from UNC. Most of the folks at Jones Day from law schools outside the top 10 basically came along when Jones Day bought their previous firm.

When I was in law school, I met a young woman in one of my classes and she and I took an instant liking to each other. We shared a love of international economic regulation -- her specialty was banking (e.g. Basel framework) and she knew her shit. And we had a lot of other things in common too. One night, after we watched a Herzog movie at her place, things started to heat up but when we had our shirts off she backed off. The problem was that she wanted her guy to have a Rhodes scholarship, or at least a Fulbright, and I had neither. I was like, "but I'm going to be clerking in DC and probably at the Supreme Court!" Maybe she was using that as an excuse, but her previous boyfriend had a Rhodes scholarship, and I heard she married a guy who I know to have been Fulbright, so who knows. In any event, she actually said it, which is not something I ever would. Also, in fairness, she was very young (not a law student; she was part of the Wilson/Kennedy crowd) -- but anyway, I digress.

That's what meritocracy means among the meritocratic. They do not give a shit about anyone. I read an article a while back about PayPal. PayPal, as it turns out (according to Thiel or one of the other principal founders quoted in the article, did not hire people who played basketball. One of the guys studied at U of M, and knew some guys who played basketball, and thought they were idiots -- so they decided not to hire anyone who played basketball, I guess because we're all idiots?

Note that the people I'm referring to are generally NOT liberals. They aren't conservatives, either. They are mostly apolitical. George Conway was at WLRK, and so was Bernie Nussbaum (WH counsel to Bill Clinton), but most of them were into making money (the young woman referred to above was a liberal).

All you race warriors who talk a big game about meritocracy blah blah blah have no idea how much the elites hate them. They think it's the liberal professional elite like doctors and attorneys, but we don't hate them (they hate us). We hate their views and the people they become when articulating those views. But the meritocracy elites -- they have no use for the MAGA zombies who stand in lines at Trump rallies. Trump doesn't either, except insofar as they vote for him.
 
I certainly support the free expression of identity with the exception of some, but not all, athletic contests. If it's going to make some person happy and it doesn't hurt anybody else, go for it. That's more popular than programs that tend to disadvantage certain groups based on their race or their gender like the dei initiatives which I don't support.
Wizard Of Oz Scarecrow GIF
 
LMAO...

sure thing lawdog.... you are the resident expert after super on what goes on in every aspect of everyone's life.

Funny you can't dispute the facts either....wonder why?

!!Oh... enjoy tomorrow please... it's going to be great!!!
44567657-1969-441d-a350-54725faff709_text.gif
 
Have you ever worked at a company that espoused DEI, or implemented DEI yourself as a manager?
I have and currently do. My company, in one of the hallways leaving the main lobby, has a billboard of sorts dedicated to DEI.
 
"and that a study showed that one reason many young men aren't attending college anymore is precisely because of the heavy percentage of female students"

I can only speak for myself, and for male friends close to me, that I've known for 30+ years, but I'm skeptical that a) boys wouldn't want to be around as many girls as possible while in college and b) high school aged boys would actually think deeply enough to be dissuaded by females in college.
From the article:

"In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.

By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.1

By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%

A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln, says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.

But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”

Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.

“There was really only one variable where I found an effect, and that was the proportion of women already enrolled in vet med schools… So a young male student says he’s going to visit a school and when he sees a classroom with a lot of women he changes his choice of graduate school. That’s what the findings indicate…. what's really driving feminization of the field is ‘preemptive flight’—men not applying because of women’s increasing enrollment.” - Dr. Anne Lincoln
For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied. One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition!

Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”
 
No, you and much of the Democratic party are living in that alternate reality. There are too many Democrats that think the only possible reason anyone would vote for a Republican is because they are racist or misogynistic. I just don't think that's true for the vast majority of persuadable voters. It keeps us from embracing issues that people really care about.
No, there's also greed and plain stupidity as reasons.
 
From the article:

"In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.

By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.1

By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%

A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln, says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.

But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”

Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.


For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied. One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition!

Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
Okay. I guess that makes more sense. So, they get into the classroom, see it's a bunch of females and then think to themselves "oh my god, I'm trying to do a woman's job."

That kind of thing.
 
Yes... As a matter of fact I have. Especially in the last three years.

90% of our training, online and in person were DEI initiatives.

One block of training was done by a private firm they brought in and they basically told us that if you were a "straight, white, male" you didn't earn your position.

Sorry if you don't believe me but it's a fact.

Americans are sick of the BS. They spoke on November 5th. Bye Bye DEI...

Meritocracy should be the way this country is run and it will be.
You're a liar.
 
Okay. I guess that makes more sense. So, they get into the classroom, see it's a bunch of females and then think to themselves "oh my god, I'm trying to do a woman's job."

That kind of thing.
Yes, and the article points out that once a profession is viewed as being "feminized" then it is usually devalued by society at large.
 
From the article:

"In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.

By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.1

By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%

A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln, says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.

But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”

Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.


For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied. One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition!

Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
How much of this is: it's become more and more normed that women have careers, over the last century; those careers have progressively become more professional; professional careers require more rigorous training/schooling; women tend to have generally higher marks in persistence, resilience, and emotional intelligence.

The simplistic commentary - young men are less emotionally mature and find themselves intimidated.
 
From the article:

"In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.

By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.1

By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%

A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln, says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.

But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”

Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.


For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied. One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition!

Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
That's interesting. I don't think anything like that is true in law or med schools. There are more female law students than there are male law students now (I think). Has that really affected demand for law school among men? Not that I saw. So is vet school just ahead of the curve? Or is it an exception.

Here's what I see happening: vet school is not considered nearly as prestigious as med school. It just isn't. There's not as much money in the field and the social cachet is much less. I think it's also less demanding (though on that I'm not sure). So it's possible that, as women increasingly filled the professions, vet school was sort of low-hanging fruit. And the idea of "loving animals and helping them" is strongly coded as feminine in our gender roles.

I'd have to see the data and the study before agreeing with any strong conclusion, and I'm skeptical that it is generalizable.

But the presence of this study and the data does suggest that many men still do have some gender-hangups about being feminized.
 
That's interesting. I don't think anything like that is true in law or med schools. There are more female law students than there are male law students now (I think). Has that really affected demand for law school among men? Not that I saw. So is vet school just ahead of the curve? Or is it an exception.

Here's what I see happening: vet school is not considered nearly as prestigious as med school. It just isn't. There's not as much money in the field and the social cachet is much less. I think it's also less demanding (though on that I'm not sure). So it's possible that, as women increasingly filled the professions, vet school was sort of low-hanging fruit. And the idea of "loving animals and helping them" is strongly coded as feminine in our gender roles.

I'd have to see the data and the study before agreeing with any strong conclusion, and I'm skeptical that it is generalizable.

But the presence of this study and the data does suggest that many men still do have some gender-hangups about being feminized.
It's a long article and that section was a small part of it. I can't remember for the life of me what the exact article was or what social media site I saw it on. If I remember I'll post it.
 
Back
Top