Schlafly probably used the term “sex scandals” because she doesn’t think they were really assaults.
@bay: here are some theories (which also reference others’ theories): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joyce-mcfadden/is-the-way-we-raise-young_b_5948942.html
http://gendersexuality.uchicago.edu/projects/sexual_assault/pdf/2006_armstrong_ethnography.pdf
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=socssp
http://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=undergrad_rev
Well, now you’re just projecting stuff into her column. The most recent sex scandal in the news is the UVA Jackie thing which didn’t even happen, it seems. And, the man shortage may have been a factor there since the accused man was apparently imaginary.
I see, since the last post about sexual assault was #91 and I didn’t log on soon enough, it was too late for me to mention it on post #96? There must be new CC rules I missed…
102: it's not that it "didn't even happen", it's that she apparently named the wrong fraternity in the UVA investigation, and apparently the wrong guy was also accused, with proof he was not in either the wrong fraternity or the one it really was.
To say it “never happened” is glossing over facts. Just like Rolling Stone was glossing over facts by reporting the wrong fraternity name in the first place.
Well think again, jym. I did not say it was a fact; I was responding to others who dismissed the idea as a theory. I realize that you are determined to be offended by everything I write. Please feel free to put me on your ignore list, which I actually thought you had already done in another thread.
@rhandco
You are apparently missing some info on the UVA case. She accused an imaginary person with a photo hijacked from Facebook and named him Haven Monahan and had her friends texting with him which was traced back to phony phone numbers that most people now think were her accounts. in other words, she was posing as her alleged rapist. Yeah, I’m sticking with didn’t happen on that one.
I quoted what you said, bay. Are you now saying you didnt say it? And FWIW, please refrain from trying to tell me what I think or what I should or shouldn’t do. I can decide that for myself. No need for you to project or instruct.
People are trying to have a conversation.
Uh, no jym, I didn’t say I didn’t say it. I said I said it, and provided context.
I wouldn’t blame Schaflys ignorant commentary on her advanced age. She has been spewing misogynist statements her whole career.
But I feel for her. I expect she wouldn’t have predicted that when she became elderly, she would have a middle aged gay son still living with her.
I don’t see how the idea that campus gender imbalance has been bad for women is misogynistic. Dismissing the possibility that it might be impacting women in a negative way, or refusing to consider ways it might be impacting them seems misogynstic to me.
Logical fallacies…gotta love em’!
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/us/uva-rape/
So seven men not five. Big difference when you are being sexually assaulted, you should have asked them to take numbers.
So yes, it was sexual assault but not vaginal intercourse.
So she said she was bleeding through her clothes, but her “friends” (the same ones who convinced her not to tell anyone so their reputations would not be ruined?) said “they would have noticed something wrong”.
Already heard about the frat being misidentified, Rolling Stone should be sued for that.
As for the texting thing, that she could have made up the guy (like guys never use fake names especially if targeting someone) and texted herself, can’t that be proven?
It seems abundantly clear that either the girl was subject to a sexual assault by multiple men that night, that night that all her friends report remembering different stories as “clear as day” because Jackie was so traumatized, OR she had a complete mental disconnect and is paranoid schizophrenic.
Which is sadder - Rolling Stone being fooled by someone like this, or the journalist “helping” the story out by fudging details, or someone having such a complete and persistent mental breakdown?
This really happened:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1983/3/23/student-accuses-u-of-penn-frat/
http://articles.philly.com/1991-09-16/news/25802565_1_fraternity-staar-ato
And in this article:
http://www.thedp.com/survivingsilence/Penn-decades-long-history-of-confronting-sexual-assault.html
Notice this from the last article in particular:
"The incident prompted an impassioned discussion on sexual assault and cultural norms. Some students denied that what had occurred was rape — claiming instead that the alleged victim merely exercised poor judgment due to intoxication.
“The young lady went out and got herself in trouble,” an ATO member told the DP when the story broke. “She was not in the most sober and upright state, she was loose and wild, imbibing many things and she was flaunting herself.”"
As for “alleged,” not one person either in ATO when I went to Penn, nor when my friend went there at the time of the “allegations,” doubts that the gang rape occurred.
The RS story has been wholly discredited and nothing is abundantly clear there except that the reporter’s career is over and the magazine is a joke and the girl has some problems. What they are is unknown. That doesn’t mean similar cases didn’t happen, obviously. But my post was about that case only. To clarify.
OK, in the interests of fairness, I went back and re-read Schlafly’s article. My considered opinion is that it is profoundly stupid. Even if there is some shred of truth in the idea that a disproportionate number of women results in more power for scarce men (which I doubt), her thoughts on why this imbalance has happened and what to do about it are nonsensical. Also, if she wasn’t talking about sexual assault issues, what sex scandals is she claiming were caused by the imbalance? I can’t imagine what else she could mean by this. But, as I suggested above, I think she can’t bring herself to say that the imbalance is causing more sexual assault, because then she’d have to diverge from the fringy talking point that all the assault cases are phony.
The real question, probably, is why are boys falling behind girls in high school? That is most likely the explanation for why more women are matriculating in college. Encouraging college sports for men won’t do much to address that issue.
I hope you also noted in your re-read that Schlafly did NOT say that fewer women should go to college (shamefully faux secondary reporting said that) or play sports. She was advocating for more men to go, because having fewer men hurts women, in her opinion. I’m not sure how anyone can be offended by someone arguing to stop hurting women.
There are plenty of unfilled college seats every year that could be filled by more men. We know that men perform better on the SAT math, and lower grades overall than women doesn’t necessarily mean more men can’t do college work in general. I think I learned right here on CC that LACs are athletically focussed precisely to keep their male student numbers up, so what’s wrong with the sports theory?
We need to know why men aren’t applying in the same numbers as women and why they don’t do as well grade-wise in high school, and whether the difference in high school grades really matters to college success.
Are there? I’d like to see a cite for that. As of 2012, there were 4.6 million men in four-year colleges, and 5.9 million women. I’d like to know where those 1.3 million unfilled college seats are, to bring men up to parity.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.70.asp
Here’s one source, CF: http://www.forbes.com/sites/schifrin/2014/05/30/50-great-colleges-still-seeking-fall-students-and-offering-tuition-discounts/
I don’t know how many unfilled seats there are, just that there are some, which tells us that the current supply exceeds the demand. Even if all seats were filled, however, that would not tell us that there are not an equivalent number of men who are qualified to go but didn’t go. It also does not tell us whether the criteria currently used for admission doesn’t discriminate in a way that disadvantages men’s admissions chances or discourages them from applying, or even matters to college graduation success. There are a lot of unanswered questions that, if we care about the gender imbalance, need to be addressed.
Fewer people overall should go to college. Many of them are just victims of the pseudo-corporate academia machine.
We have rules at my college regarding suspension of students who get lower than a 2.0. But you can fail the same course over and over with your advisor letting you into the course without the pre-requisites in the first place. We have kids who are not college prep and HS GPA as low as 2.0, and they are admitted. Some have to take Algebra 2, which is 10th grade for college prep, freshman year of college, three years later. They take calculus the second year of college, IF they pass. I had a student in one of my fall classes who had to take a specific pre-requisite, like everyone is supposed to. He didn’t take it. I didn’t know that, if I did, I would have kicked him out when he could have gotten a full refund. But I found out later when he was failing my class. Some “advisor” and the registrar let him register for my class without the pre-requisite. Who cares, because then it is up to me to pass him or fail him at my whim, giving his failing work, but given that me failing him will result in him being behind a full year, with nothing to take in the spring.
It really disgusts me how many kids’ lives are ruined by forcing them into the “college or else” mode. Dropping out when you have substantial loans is a lot worse than never going to college in the first place, or waiting until you have a job and get tuition paid for.
And it really disgusts me that the “available seats” stat is seen as some kind of need for college students when it is really an indication of greed of colleges to increase enrollment.
Sarah Lawrence College, mentioned in the article linked to in #117.
77% acceptance rate. 10:1 student:faculty ratio.
4-year graduation rate: 62%
6-year graduation rate: 69%
59.7% full-time faculty.
They say they get 35% from the top 10% HS rank, and 66% from the top 25% HS rank. Does it take a genius to figure out that maybe, just MAYBE some of those kids who were lower ranked didn’t belong in college? Because they couldn’t graduate in 6 years?
So what are they doing wrong? Or, what are their clients doing wrong? What are the 21% of students who enter Sarah Lawrence College doing wrong? Or are they victims of this “everyone must go to college or they will be unemployed, and they must go at 18 or else” mentality?
I do not know ANYONE who teaches college who believes that every HS graduate should go to college three months after they graduate HS. It is just not appropriate for many kids.
And therein is the great lie. We don’t need more kids in college, we need the right kids in the right colleges, CC up to Ivy, and we need to provide everyone else with the right path. If someone is failing out of college, does ANYONE try to see if a better path would be appropriate? No, they take their money and say “see ya” if you fail out, and you’re reviewing your loan balance.
The point of raising it in this thread was to respond to the idea that adding more men to the college population would come at the expense of women’s attendance. Right now, it appears more men can be added without impacting women. How many more is unknown. And even if more men were added, they might be more qualified than the women that are shut out, and that is how we are supposed to be operating now, isn’t it?
Your comments beg the larger question of whether it matters how many in our society go to college, and whether we should encourage people to go. Currently, our country seems to be in an “everyone needs to go to college” phase, exemplified by the President’s recent proposal to make all com colleges free.