Far more women than men attend cllege now, but do the forces of political correctness celebrate this achievement? Of course not. It's just another way for women to be victims. Here are excerpts from this New York Times article. Why are women the victims? Because for the first time, they need to assume the role men have always assumed -- pursuer. Funny that men weren't the victims all those years before that. Please note the suggestion that women are forced to have sex when they don't want to -- the gender imbalance on campus has created a situation where women are perpetually raped -- forced to endure intercourse when they don't want to (and, yes, I know it's not rape -- the forces of political correctness would say it's rape). Good thing men never have to do things they don't want to do in order to keep a woman happy (like, um, get married). Newsflash to writers who write this sort of inanity: when women are victims of everything, people naturally conclude they are victims of nothing.
EXCERPTS:
“I was talking to a friend at a bar, and this girl just came up out of nowhere, grabbed him by the wrist, spun him around and took him out to the dance floor and started grinding,” said Kelly Lynch, a junior at North Carolina, recalling a recent experience.
Students interviewed here said they believed their mating rituals reflected those of college students anywhere. But many of them — men and women alike — said that the lopsided population tends to skew behavior.
“A lot of my friends will meet someone and go home for the night and just hope for the best the next morning,” Ms. Lynch said. “They’ll text them and say: ‘I had a great time. Want to hang out next week?’ And they don’t respond.”
Even worse, “Girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with, to lock it down,” Ms. Lynch said.
. . . .
“On college campuses where there are far more women than men, men have all the power to control the intensity of sexual and romantic relationships,” Kathleen A. Bogle, a sociologist at La Salle University in Philadelphia, wrote in an e-mail message.
. . . .
“Women do not want to get left out in the cold, so they are competing for men on men’s terms,” she wrote. “This results in more casual hook-up encounters that do not end up leading to more serious romantic relationships. Since college women say they generally want ‘something more’ than just a casual hook-up, women end up losing out.”
W. Keith Campbell, a psychology professor at the University of Georgia, which is 57 percent female, put it this way: “When men have the social power, they create a man’s ideal of relationships,” he said. Translation: more partners, more sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message.
Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Far more women than men go to college, which must mean . . . women are victims, of course!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
When women were a minority on campus, it was because they were oppressed and men were keeping them down-waaaahh! We're victims because we're a minority-waaaahhh! Now that they comprise a majority on college campi, they're still victims?! Bitches should just STFU. You got what you wanted, Ladies! Now quit your whining...
Check out this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-february-3-2010-atul-gawande
Samantha Bee goes to a men's support group. I really don't know what to think about it (except that it's funny). I don't think MRA groups are helping the cause when they remind me of feminist groups.
--BB
First, thanks to BB for this tip.
Second, MarkyMark,you are correct. They got what they wanted. That it's not perfect should have been entirely predictable. Funny that none of them ever thought of this before. Rights carry responsibilities. For men throughout history, the responsibilities carried more responsibilities.
Got an eyeful of the archives on a referral. I am sickened. You claim to opppose HATE comments, yet allow them to stand. I think you're a sham.
This was posted on your blog by Anonymous on Jan 12, 2010 8:53:00 AM, and I couldn't find a toilet quick enough to *vomit*.
GG, an old hag, by definition, is one with a cunt so dried up and caked shut from years of disuse it would take a sledgehammer and steel chisel just to break through. And after having broken through who knows what one will find in there - bats, mold, mildew, an STD-infested stinkhole, or all of the above? That my dear GG is you.
Go away and fuck yourself with your vibrator and your cats. Your presence here is superfluous. Like all of your kind.
No hate implied there.
MartyMark says *bitches should STFU*. Again no hate implied.
No longer an FRS sympathizer.
GREG
@GREG...
GG handled the situation quite well I thought.
I'm not sure what it is that you expect. Is everybody else supposed to come over all white knight and spring to the defence of GG's presumed honour?
Reality is that GG doesn't need that as she quite adequately demonstrated at the time. She's survived far worse experiences than being called names on a web site.
I'd like to advance the theory that all men have been raped by women throughout history.
No man really wants sex - he is the victim of a natural design inimical to his interests that makes him suggestible and vulnerable to sexual propositions made usually by women. His thinking mind would rather pursue more interesting and wholesome pursuits, but it is women who always confront him and trick him into betraying his own better judgment by appealing to sexual urges.
Accordingly, all women should be covered from head to foot and forbidden from communicating with men in any way - or locked up if they fail to comply - so that men cannot be raped. If a woman should insist on provoking men, she should be imprisoned for life, and/or have her genitals removed (especially in the state of Louisiana).
Having sex with men should be considered the most heinous crime a woman can commit, worse even than murder. The effect on a man's life and mental well-being is permanent
and life-threatening, and this criminal scourge must be ended immediately.
Any woman who shows any sexual interest to any man should be immediately entered on a sex offender's registry and banned from employment and contact with children, and be forbidden from living anywhere near a school.
This mirrors my college experience. When I was in high school I was the guy girls chose when they could not get the truly handsome boys. They could settle for me without severely impacting their social status because I qualify as "cute." However, in college I found girls were much more interested in me and had I shared that interest I might have been able to date women who would otherwise not show me the time of day.
I do find it hysterical, however, that these women feel victimized by actually having to take the initiative and ask men out on dates, pay for their own drinks, wait to see if the man they call picks up the phones or texts them back and settle for men they feel are below their standards.
Since college women say they generally want ‘something more’ than just a casual hook-up, women end up losing out.”
When did not getting everything you want become "losing out"? The sense of entitlement here is astonishing.
Christ Greg, you're seriously going to cease sympathizing with people falsely accused of rape because some asshole said mean things to a troll on the internet?
Tell you what mate, go with god, if that's your depth of character then the falsely accused are better off without you.
This is GOOD news. Game is working; women are having to compete in the sexual marketplace on men's terms. Since women are pursuing, the power of crying 'rape' is completely diminished.
And btw, when I was at college, similar things happened to me. LOL!
I recall this one girl trying to grab me to get me to dance. I didn't even KNOW her. How uncivilised is that? I can't see any guy doing that to a girl, seriously. He would at least talk to her first.
This particular specimen just grabbed at my arm and tried to pull me away from my friends. I shook her off and pushed her away slightly (uh oh! Domestic violence!) She looked embarassed and moved off.
Hmm. Call me cynical, but somehow I think that "something more" and "losing out" refer to a woman's hardwired preference of finding a mule to hitch to her wagon.
"“When men have the social power, they create a man’s ideal of relationships,” he said. Translation: more partners, more sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message."
No wonder women are confused about how to treat men, with knobs like this spouting off on college campuses.
Male ideal of sex is "more partners, more sex?"
More sex, yes. Only in a world where "lesbian bed death" values reign supreme would an act that solidifies relationships and brings men and women together be demonized so.
More partners? I don't think so. And the fact that he spouts stuff like this tells us more about his opinion of masculinity than it does about the preferences of men as a group.
As for commitment, well, we all know which sex commits over the long haul and which one has difficulty keeping their word, subject to the sway of emotion as they are.
The characterisation of women as 'victims', however, is sickening.
And it's a perfect example of what I call categorical dissolution.
We have two categories - those things which women can conceivably be victims of, and those things which women would simply like to happen but have not happened.
For the first category, there must be a victimiser. For the second, there must not be.
This is categorical dissolution, because the second category is dissolved into the first.
As such, a victimiser must be found, for those things which happen to women that they did not want to happen.
The obvious scapegoat is men, and it doesn't even need to be explained how men are 'victimising' women.
Women want more choice of sexual partners: favouring the sexual caste system, they want there to be winners and losers. They do not want to run the risk of being the losers themselves.
And so, somehow, in the dysfunctional minds of the people who peddle this crap, men are to blame, for there not being more of them.
Men who exist are responsible for there not being more existing men.
Or ... perhaps it is affirmative action programmes, etc., which have resulted in less men being on college campuses?
I suppose men are now to blame for going along with affirmative action programmes, and giving women a 'leg up' over themselves.
And we haven't even talked about the obvious victims -- the young men who are staying away from college in droves because they are young men.
Indeed, Pierce.
They're the victims when only a minority attend college - yet when the situation is reversed, they're still the victims.
Maybe we should just change things back to how they were, then, with only a minority of women attending?
No ... that's victimisation again.
What women want, is to be the majority at college, and for there to be more men there.
THAT is what they want, and any other situation is the victimisation of women.
They want to have their cake and to eat it too. They want to be the powerful majority, and the coveted minority, both at the same time.
It's men's fault for not making reality illogical.
"What women want, is to be the majority at college, and for there to be more men there."
Excellent, Snark!
"What women want, is to be the majority at college, and for there to be more men there."
Great quote and it's so true. This is the best example of ALL the problems women cause. People say it's impossible to know "what women want". No it's not, it's quite simple. They want EVERYTHING. Literally. They want things that are polar opposites or simply can't exist together and then cry and act like victims when they can't get what is impossible.
A good example is how they want the bold, exciting bad boy but expect him to be like that when they want but also be good and sweet to them when they want that. And then cry when the bad boy is... bad to them...boo hoo.
The fact that they have these idiots bending over to try and make women victims bc there are more thna them defies logic. The basis is "Now on campus women aren't treated special and that kind of victimization is just not fair"
WOW I wrote a comment to the article and not only did it not get posted but they actually shut down comments on the article all together. I should be proud I guess. This is what I wrote, I hardly think there's anything wrong with it except it doesn't concur that women are victims.......
This article and some of the comments are beyond pathetic. It is just another addition to the never ending whining that women are victims. How utterly ridiculous that some simple minded people can take the fact that women make up a majority at a university and try to spin it as they are "victims" because of it.. What this article is really saying is "women aren't being treated special so that makes them victims". Such examples are "OMG....guys won't even buy girls drinks!!!!" Oh, the horror. The commenter who goes on to blame this "victimhood" on any negative thing that happens to women afterwords is just perpetuating the belief that yes, women are weaker than men. "They weren't treated special by men in college so this forced them to choose bad relationships after graduation and even causes eating disorders!" Really? You really think women are that weak minded? If so then maybe they should be taken out of higher education so their weak minds wont get overloaded and so they wont have to deal with the trauma of being a majority.
So when men are the majority, women are the victims. When women are the majority, women are the victims. It's amazing how when women are forced to take on roles and responsibilities men have been responsible for they suddenly become "unfair". Hmm, think about that one.
Anon1358,
You didn't say anything wrong, of course; you were dead on target. What was wrong is that it didn't conform to their PC, women are victims philosophy. That's why your comment wasn't published; you didn't say what they wanted to hear.
MarkyMark
No it's not, it's quite simple. They want EVERYTHING.
Arab Proverb: Women want toasted ice.
Anon at 3:06
I like that post ...that is awesome!!!
You should post that in as many places as possible!
"Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said. "
This would be hilarious if these people were writing satire instead of policies that adversely affect men's lives.
Although it hurts my brain to read such imbecilic nonsense, when people finally do come to their senses, pieces like this will be able to be held up as evidence of why women are no longer allowed to vote.
"WOW I wrote a comment to the article and not only did it not get posted but they actually shut down comments on the article all together. I should be proud I guess. This is what I wrote, I hardly think there's anything wrong with it except it doesn't concur that women are victims......."
I have experienced this sort of thing on forums relating to various issues. Sometimes posts are deleted and other posts not published, when they are in no way objectionable, for no other reason than that the arguments put are simply too compelling and make the author and/or other posters look silly. You should take it as a compliment. It is the sincerest form of intellectual flattery to be threatened by arguments put forward by an opponent, and a clear acknowledgment of intellectual cowardice to be unwilling to debate them.
There are an awful lot of people out there who are extremely narrow-minded and insecure and see everything as a threat to their existence.
A quick google search on the good Professor turns up this gem.
"..professor, psychologist, author, world-class expert on narcissistic behavior, self-control, self-esteem and entitlement. ............
Dr. Keith Campbell is co-author of the groundbreaking work, THE NARCISSISM EPIDEMIC: Living in the Age of Entitlement (Free Press, New York, NY, 2009). He is an Associate Professor at the University of Georgia who specializes in the study of individuals and their close relationships."
Well Professor, you should know. You are an expert at pandering to female entitlement and the belief that the world should revolve solely around female preferences and needs.
Although it hurts my brain to read such imbecilic nonsense, when people finally do come to their senses, pieces like this will be able to be held up as evidence of why women are no longer allowed to vote.
Ka-ka-kaboom! Anon1701 NAILS it! The above quote and conduct alluded to is prima facie evidence of why women were NOT allowed to vote or otherwise hold power.
LOL as feminist claims get more ridiculous it will become even harder for anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skill to ignore the hypocrisy.
Jay,
Just yesterday it was declared that SLEEP is the next big feminist issue.
http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/02/empress-isnt-wearing-any-clothes.html
The sleep thing was great. They're just like children, they come with nonsensical idiocy and society says "thats great honey". If women actually worked long hours or any hours at all, Oprah wouldn't be a billionaire
It becomes clearer why no civilization larger than a village has ever been run by women.
The problem is not their intellect or their capacity to be educated - it is simply their inability to be held to account.
Civilizations are like large machines. They have large and small parts all working together on a framework of rules - and it is these rules that define how the civilization works and how it can be sustained. Some of these rules we call 'Law', others 'Social Convention' or 'Tradition', and yet others we might call 'Common Sense'. But these rules need to be observed and enforced, otherwise the civilization collapses. It becomes like the machine that has become too rusty and too weak to stand up under its own weight.
Since women have gained the ascendancy, their commission of crimes has increased but the jails do not reflect this. Executed criminals are even less likely to be female than they were. Everywhere one turns, where women are in charge there is no accountability.
No matter how accomplished women think they are, no matter how many degrees, no matter how many high offices, if women won't hold other women to account they will leave a trail of destruction behind them.
Intellect is worthless without rigor, discipline and the willingness to discern between the worthy and the worthless, no matter what's in their underwear.
"I have experienced this sort of thing on forums relating to various issues. Sometimes posts are deleted and other posts not published, when they are in no way objectionable, for no other reason than that the arguments put are simply too compelling and make the author and/or other posters look silly."
So have I, and I agree, but unfortunately we've also seen something similar on this blog. What many don't realize is that being proven wrong is a good thing, as it brings one closer to the truth.
Otoh, calling women "bitches", and suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to vote, is entirely counter-productive and just makes us look bad.
". . . but unfortunately we've also seen something similar on this blog."
Try Feministing instead.
The bloggers here are very spirited but this blog allows a lot of room for debate. I see a trend here that they are trying to catch some of the women-hating.
Axel, thanks for your comment -- I used it as a springboard to explain myself, and to admit I why I was wrong, on another thread.
Axel, thanks for your comment -- I used it as a springboard to explain myself, and to admit I why I was wrong, on another thread.
"Try Feministing instead."
So your point is that we shouldn't try our best because others are worse?
8:14, yeah, Anon -- that's my point. What a stupid ass thing for you to say.
"8:14, yeah, Anon -- that's my point. What a stupid ass thing for you to say."
Then what exactly is your point?
1:17: Please keep it civil. No meed for that. (And I see you posted earlier in the day, too -- so my comment goes double.)
Oops, I meant the 8:54 comment -- I thought the later one was a duplicate.
Follow-up on this, and blatant double standards ... an oversupply of men, rather than women, is met with cries of "eureka!"
Bridget Jones's Inevitable Future
Post a Comment