Tag Archives: Feminism

Commentary

Obama aims to destroy math, physics and computer science

1 Comment

Story by Christina Hoff Sommers in the Washington Post, or here on AEI. (H/T The American Enterprise Institute)

I bet you thought that Obama was pro-science, didn’t you? Nope. Not only is he directing funds towards unproven ESCR and away from useful ASCR, but he also means to destroy university education in the fields of math and science. Leftist politics is more important than science for Obama.

Here’s what he plans to do:

In an October letter to women’s advocacy groups, he declared that Title IX, the law that requires universities to give equal funding to men’s and women’s athletics, had made “an enormous impact on women’s opportunities and participation in sports.” If pursued with “necessary attention and enforcement,” the same law could make “similar, striking advances” for women in science and engineering.

That campaign pledge is hardening into policy, which ought to give people pause. In February, the Congressional Diversity and Innovation Caucus met with academic deans and women’s groups to plan for the new Title IX deployment. Nearly everyone present agreed that closing the gender gap in the laboratory is an urgent “national imperative.” What they failed to consider, however, is how enforced parity might affect American science.

To start with, consider the effects of Title IX:

Consider the situation at Washington’s Howard University. In 2007, the Women’s Sports Foundation, a powerful Title IX advocacy group, gave Howard an “F” grade because of its 24-percentage-point “proportionality gap”: Howard’s student body was 67 percent female, but women constituted only 43 percent of its athletic program. In 2002, Howard cut men’s wrestling and baseball and added women’s bowling, but that did little to narrow the gap. Unless it sends almost half of its remaining male athletes to the locker room, Howard will remain blacklisted and legally vulnerable. Former Howard wrestling coach Wade Hughes sums up the problem this way: “The impact of Title IX’s proportionality standard has been disastrous because . . . far more males than females are seeking to take part in athletics.”

Allison Kasic over at the Independent Women’s Forum writes about recent cuts at Kutztown University.

She writes:

The latest victims of gender equity appear to be men’s soccer and swimming at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania.  The school announced at the end of March that it would be cutting both sports effective at the end of this season.

…The “gender equity” law guides school’s program decisions through its rigid proportionality requirements (aka gender quotas).  For background on Title IX’s demands, read this as a starting point.  And, lo and behold, after students, parents, and coaches started asking questions about Title IX, the school admitted that many factors, including Title IX were taken into consideration.

IWF writes about Title IX quite a bit, and they have some of their pieces linked here.

UPDATE: Alison K. at the IWF sent me a couple of links on Title IX.

  • A thorough overview of Title IX’s impact on athletics is available here.
  • If you are looking for something shorter, this is basically the Cliff Notes version.
News

Why fiscal conservatives should care about marriage

1 Comment

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Free Canuckistan! Thanks for the linky, Binky!

The percentage of out-of-wedlock births is now 40% of all births. Does this have an effect on the size of government? FOX News has a story on the breakdown of the nuclear family. (H/T Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)

Excerpt:

…births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

…And more women – especially those in their 30s and 40s – are choosing to have children despite their single status.

For some reason, and I know what that reason is, society has decided that men are unnecessary to the task of raising children. A man’s job is just to supply sperm and money. And that money is taxed away from men by the government and redistributed, via expensive social programs, to unwed mothers. And this is how the state takes over the traditional role of men as protector and provider.

The House Ways and Means Committee knows about the effect of raising children without fathers.

US House Testimony on Child support and Fatherhood proposals (Hearing 107-38).  June 28, 2001, online House version; http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/6-28-01/record/chillegalfound.htm) — Father absence, a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for; filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders.

So then why does the government continue to subsidize out-of-wedlock birth? When you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you tax something, you get less of it. Is this so hard for social progressives to understand? Too much compassion, without standards, costs society in the long run, (see Jewish scholar Dennis Prager’s piece here).

More statistics on the cost of fatherlessness here at Fathers for Life..

Polemics

Debt and the return of real men?

Leave a comment

Captain Capitalism posted this rant which is an excellent, although very snarky, read. He starts with the fictitious case of Cindi, a suburban princess whose every need was provided for by her hard-working Daddy. But Daddy had to take on enormous amounts of debt in order to buy Cindi everything her heart desired.

Much like debt misled suburbanite Cindi to think free Audi’s, nightly dinners at Applebee’s, free food clothing and shelter, and avoiding any real career that requires math was “standard,” the amount of debt the government and economy as a whole has taken on has brainwashed nearly 3 generations of Americans to be similarly overly optimistic as to just how easy their lives should be. Debt has allowed pretty much every American to live above their means of support. Debt has allowed pretty much every American to live a life that does not produce the wealth necessary to support it. If you can’t afford a car, take it out of your home equity line. You don’t like math or science? That’s alright, piss away some of your dad’s money majoring in political science. Don’t have a down payment for a house? Don’t worry about it, we’ll loan you 100% of the money anyway. But the problem is not just the obvious unsustainability of this behavior, but even worse is how it corrupts and destroys society’s ability to live in the real world.

And where has this avoidance of math and science, normalization of debt and instant gratification led us?

You think the divorce rate in this country isn’t due to people being spoiled rotten brats and thinking marriage is some kind of trial balloon?

You think the childish and [very bad] behavior of people having “kids” and then dumping them off at daycare to have somebody else raise them because the kid was too much of a burden for them to handle, but they still wanted them anyway would have flown during the frugal 40’s?

Would teenage pregnancy even exist if the government wouldn’t perpetually bail these losers out because the government can perpetually “rollover” its debts and borrow more to finance a litany of social programs?

Would you have such a volume of frivolous lawsuits and parasitic lawyers in this country driving up the cost of doing business and destroying the standards of living?

Would you have seemingly endless legions of “environmentalists”… who have no real talents or skills, but find themselves pointless, effortless, made-up crusades to give their meaningless lives meaning at the expense of our freedoms and $3 per gallon gas?

He goes on to argue that the worsening economy will be a boon to real men. The decline of government revenues will reduce the availability of social programs to “solve” social problems that result from poor decision making. (And by poor I mean lacking wisdom, lacking respect for the moral law).

When Jimmy gets Cindi pregnant at 15 and the government is out of money, there will be two real men (the father of Jimmy and the father of Cindi) with shotguns and baseball bats ensuring Jimmy gets a job, goes to school and marries Cindi, not for Cindi’s sake, but for the child’s sake.

When somebody breaks into the house and the cops are too understaffed dealing with the crime wave that happened once the state released all those prisoners to “save money,” he’ll be the one shooting the burglar to protect himself and his family.

When a woman wants to get married and have children, the real man will wait until he’s financially stable, the country has a future, and make sure he is able to provide the kid a decent upbringing ALL THE WHILE MAKING SURE HE DOESN”T GET DIVORCED.

I am worried that the rising tax rates and inflation will cause men to withdraw irreversibly from any enterprising behavior. Big government may help people to feel more secure about making poor decisions. But responsible men fear higher taxes and punitive divorce courts… they are less likely to work hard and to marry.

Real men are just not in demand so long as marxist-feminist welfare state is there to provide everything that real men used to be sought after for. And the big appeal of the state is that it doesn’t ask for anything in return from its dependents.  But why should real men work to pay for social programs to fix the problems of other people?

One of my best friends, Andrew, got married to a fabulous Christian woman who spent time as a missionary in Russia. Men are in a terrible state in Russia – there are few real men. Her experience in Eastern Europe really helped her to understand how important the right man is for the responsibilities of marriage and parenting.

She chose to marry someone who would not only care for and provide for her, but who also understood Christian beliefs and would be able to pass them on to her children in an informed and persuasive way. But today, there is no vision for men as husbands or fathers, nor any vision of marriage as a worldview-incubator for children.