I actually agree with Schlafly that more men would go to college if there was a chance they could play on a sports team there (not just intramurals). But I don’t have any evidence of this other than my own family experience and observations.
I am not going to click on anything having to do with her. That’s the way to make it clear that she is irrelevant. If she appears to be clickbait, she’ll get more exposure. No thanks.
I had enough of her lying and hypocrisy back when she was paid to travel the country opposing the ERA.
I have to say that I did not expect to hear a conservative like Phyllis suggesting that colleges admit 50% boys and 50% girls, essentially proposing the type of affirmative action program that conservatives have opposed for such a long time.
To me the right question is why have boys become less successful in high school? It is the same question I have with URMs. What is happening that is causing boys to struggle to compete with girls? This really needs to be fixed earlier than when they get to college.
There is some rather aggressive ageism on this thread, rather than focusing on what she actually said.
She spewed the same silly garbage 40 years ago. So seems not much has changed as she entered senescence.
Phyllis Schafley - a blast from the past.
Just what the heck is she saying here anyway: The imbalance of far more women than men at colleges has been a factor in the various sex scandals that have made news in the last couple of years. Is she referring to rape on campus? So women are dressing more provocatively in order to attract the small pool of eligible males and this is why there are more rapes?
And bashing title IX for abolishing Men’s sports. How about looking at how many women’s sports opportunities it opened up and the benefits women get from playing sports at college.
I agree that bashing Title IX was the wrong approach. It should be college administrators she is bashing. Title IX does not prevent colleges from offering more men’s athletic programs, it just requires them to add womens’ programs. It is the colleges themselves that decided to drop men’s sports so they could reduce the expense of having to add womens’ sports. But I guess her argument is that without the mandate of Title IX, mens’ sports would not have been cut. Womens’ sports could have been added without Title IX.
They could have been but weren’t
How will more percentage of testasterone on the campus will reduce the sex assults on women?
Bizarre logic, does not make any sense.
The sex assults are driven by testasterone, not by female hormones.
And the more we restrict police, the more of any assults we will have, which is another side or the story…
Miami
I think what she is implying is that when college women have to compete for the attention of a limited resource of men, it causes them to put themselves into sexually dangerous situations they would not otherwise have to do when it is the men who are competing for women’s affections.
That doesn’t make sense though, on a variety of levels. First of all, women don’t have to “put themselves into sexually dangerous situations” in order to get sexually assaulted. Although many high-profile stories of campus rape have been about strangers raping women at parties, the truth is still that women are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know and trust - a boyfriend, a friend, a classmate. The “dangerous situation” is simply an every day event - relaxing in the dorm room, studying together, getting helped home by someone they thought was a friend to be trusted. Competing over male attention doesn’t increase that.
Also, what kind of “sexually dangerous situation” does a woman ‘put herself’ in because she is competing for male attention?
The argument is also absurd because it presumes that minority numbers give men less power instead of more. Men being in the majority at colleges would give them even more social power, not less. I also wouldn’t say that increased enrollment of women in college has drastically changed social relationships in the sense that Schafly is talking about. Before women went to college, college-educated men dated mainly non-college-educated women (and later, women at the nearby women’s colleges) in their socioeconomic bracket. There was always more competition among women than men, though, because men had all of the societal power and connections, and because women needed the sponsorship and oversight of men to survive (because they were prohibited from participating fully in the economic system).
Heterosexual men and women between the rough ages of 18 and 25 have always dated and partied together. And quite frankly, they have always hooked up with each other, too. It’s that social mores were more delicate so people kept it a secret and didn’t talk about it. I’m willing to bet that hook-up culture is no more prominent now than it was in the 1950s, nor are friends with benefits a new thing. It’s just college students are more willing and able to freely talk about it without suffering social consequences.
That’s not even getting into the frankly sexist assumption that men want sex and women want commitment. A few of these articles have interviewed young women who have said that they actually prefer hook-ups or FWB arrangements because they are focused on school and career right now and don’t want to devote emotional energy to maintaining a relationship, or because they enjoy sex and just want to have some fun before settling down. Conversely, a lot of young men have voiced the desire to have emotional relationships with young women on college campuses. There’s probably more variation within the groups than between them.
And her solutions are ridiculous. Eliminating college loans won’t force students to work to pay for school; the students who need to work to pay are already working; the students who don’t have to work to pay will continue to not have to work to pay, and will have exactly the same amount of time for parties and greek life.
The other thing that we all need to remember is that women (and men) get sexually assaulted off campus, too. Most young people don’t go to college and most women who are sexually assaulted are not college students. They get assaulted in the workplace, by intimate partners, at entertainment venues, at work, in prison, everywhere. So clearly it’s not gender disparities that cause sexual assault on campus. It’s something else.
At least Schlafly has a theory that makes sense from a supply-and-demand standpoint. What’s your theory?
There are many, many places in the world where female companionship is rare, either because of an actual shortage (battlefields) or a culturally imposed rarity. It seems pretty clear that it serves to increase sexual assault not decrease it. The pattern across the globe through history seems to be that men just take what they can’t get some other way. If supply is short and she is unlikely to choose you, then what’s a guy to do?
Among other logical fallacies, in her “new math” she seems to forget that not all people of either gender are straight.
In the same vein, saintfan, if you are a man in high demand by many women, why spend time courting or asking permission when you can operate under the assumption that women will tolerate whatever you demand from them because they are desperate, and in many cases you might be right? Those women who try to stick to conventional rules of relationships will be laughed out of the police station or courtroom because no one does that anymore.
Adding to say that maybe it works for men in both situations.
Who thinks like this? Thats ridiculous. And any guy that does is a class A jerk and not worth spending 5 minutes on.
Who thinks like that? Rapists, duh.
Exactly what Jym said.
My partner was one of about 5 straight guys in our residential college. NONE of them acted like this despite a plethora of single women.
IMO, it shows an extremely negative outlook on the world to assume that people will act like donkeys just because they can. (And it definitely hasn’t been my experience)
What’s your theory, romani?
While there are some sexual preditors on college campuses, as elsewhere, to believe that any notable proportion of male college students think like that is scary, bay.