If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

That has been said by men. Countless times. We're all still here.

High bar you've set. It has been said by men countless times, but now it's "problematic." "Male only spaces perpetuate rape culture."

 

[Einherjar86]

High bar you've set. It has been said by men countless times, but now it's "problematic." "Male only spaces perpetuate rape culture."

That's not at all what the article I posted said. All it says is that men already have their "only spaces." Which is perfectly accurate.

 

[CiG]

Men have The Boy Scouts for example. Oh wait.

 

[Einherjar86]

 

[Einherjar86]

Men have The Boy Scouts for example. Oh wait.

For the record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampden–Sydney_College

There are other "men's colleges" in America. There are more "women's colleges" (several of which actually accept male students), but only after enrollment at American universities of overwhelmingly male.

It's a myth that there are no "men's spaces" in this country.

 

[Dak]

That's not at all what the article I posted said. All it says is that men already have their "only spaces." Which is perfectly accurate.

For the record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampden–Sydney_College

There are other "men's colleges" in America. There are more "women's colleges" (several of which actually accept male students), but only after enrollment at American universities of overwhelmingly male.

It's a myth that there are no "men's spaces" in this country.

There's a difference between saying male only spaces exist and saying they should exist and have value.

Edit: Wait what? Male undergraduate enrollment is behind female enrollment and falling

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-men-are-the-new-college-minority/536103/

 

[CiG]

For the record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampden–Sydney_College

There are other "men's colleges" in America. There are more "women's colleges" (several of which actually accept male students), but only after enrollment at American universities of overwhelmingly male.

It's a myth that there are no "men's spaces" in this country.

Can't wait for transgenderism to obliterate this gender segregation nonsense on both sides. As is the case with so much of what western feminists make an issue out of, most "male only" spaces are for wealthy men. Feminists are pathologically obsessed with power while they pretend that their targets represent "men" as a monolith when in fact the paradigm of class always makes much more sense, I think.

If women want to squeeze their way into some golf club or fraternity of rich men why should I give a shit? The cream of male society has about as much to do with me as the issues facing the homeless have to do with the scourge of mansplaining.

And like you said, there are more women's universities anyway. Selective outrage.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a difference between saying male only spaces exist and saying they should exist and have value.

They do exist, and they do have value. Not even the female mathematician from the article I linked said they don't. The point is they simply have existed for a long time. There was no need to designate them. Men's spaces exist all over the place--sports teams, social clubs, boys' schools, and countless other nonspecified communities. Your objection is unnecessary.

 

[rms]

That's not at all what the article I posted said. All it says is that men already have their "only spaces." Which is perfectly accurate.

this is dishonest. She's suggesting there are male spaces simply because women aren't around, not that they've systematically not been allowed.

 

[Einherjar86]

this is dishonest. She's suggesting there are male spaces simply because women aren't around, not that they've systematically not been allowed.

It's not dishonest. I never said she was suggesting otherwise.

 

[rms]

Women have spaces that specifically say no men. Men do not have this, and if they do, that barrier is removed. That is the dishonesty

 

[Einherjar86]

Women have spaces that specifically say no men. Men do not have this, and if they do, that barrier is removed. That is the dishonesty

A)

For the record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampden–Sydney_College

B)

You’re the one who posted a link about “structural” problems. Do you understand what that means?

 

[rms]

One of three fucking colleges that no one ever heard of until today . It's impossible to reason with you about women. you already ignored the "women join a subjective field then complain about bias" point so I don't know why I bothered.

 

[Dak]

They do exist, and they do have value. Not even the female mathematician from the article I linked said they don't. The point is they simply have existed for a long time. There was no need to designate them. Men's spaces exist all over the place--sports teams, social clubs, boys' schools, and countless other nonspecified communities. Your objection is unnecessary.

A. You're arguing there technically are male spaces.
B. You're arguing she didn't say there weren't.
C. We aren't arguing about that.

 

[Einherjar86]

One of three fucking colleges that no one ever heard of until today . It's impossible to reason with you about women. you already ignored the "women join a subjective field then complain about bias" point so I don't know why I bothered.

Yeah I almost considered that worth responding to, then realized that no, I don’t.

 

[Einherjar86]

A. You're arguing there technically are male spaces.
B. You're arguing she didn't say there weren't.
C. We aren't arguing about that.

D. You’re making consecutively less sense.

 

[Dak]

D. You’re making consecutively less sense.

rms posted an article about US STEM workers, which showed that women in STEM fields were more likely to curtail involvement or drop from the workforce entirely than men, after having a first child (it also showed approximately the same percentage of both men and women leaving the STEM field). You followed up with an article on a Brazilian mathematician who thinks men are intimidating and wants to create safe spaces for women in mathematics. The article was barely relevant (different country, different statistics), but the sentiment in the article was what rms and I responded to. This sentiment is consistent with feminist propaganda and tactics, which is that men are a problem and must be attacked in every clime and place. Males only spaces are particularly problematic (this is the rationale for the current suit at Yale). But conversely, women need "safe spaces" to enhance their energies, or whatever pseudo-psychobabble or new agey bullshit that needs promoting, depending on the flavor of the feminist.

Male only spaces have been under attack for at least the past five decades, and men have been doing more poorly than women in nearly every economic and educational metric for the past decade plus (in the US), and the gap continues to widen. So some pardon us as we take issue with some solipsistic lamentations from Brazil.

 

[rms]

she is brazilian, but she did get her doctorate and sounded like she researched at a ivy league institution (not going to re-read the article)

 

[Einherjar86]

rms posted an article about US STEM workers, which showed that women in STEM fields were more likely to curtail involvement or drop from the workforce entirely than men, after having a first child (it also showed approximately the same percentage of both men and women leaving the STEM field). You followed up with an article on a Brazilian mathematician who thinks men are intimidating and wants to create safe spaces for women in mathematics.

You chose to focus on one tiny quote from that whole piece. rms posted an article about the impact of children and family demands, specifically pertaining to mathematicians (at least in part), and I offered an article with a female mathematician from Brazil who--wouldn't you know it!--talks about the demands of motherhood:

Being a mother and doing mathematics are two very intense modes of being. How do you balance the two?
I don’t think there is an easy recipe. I became a mother when I was 39, so my career was already established. I can’t imagine how hard it would be for a young mathematician — for a postdoc, it must be very hard. My son, who is almost 3, does not like me to work. If I need to work at home, I try to get him very tired, so he has a very long nap, and then I get maybe two and a half hours of work. But it’s hard, and it really does impact the research. I don’t work on mathematics as much as I used to. But that’s OK. It’s a different period of life.

Becoming a mother made me realize how deep the gender gap goes, how having children affects men and women differently. I’ve seen male colleagues who are back at the institute working, going to seminars, the same week that their children were born. I couldn’t think of doing this.

The first few months of motherhood were very intense for me, and not necessarily in a good way. So I not only didn’t have time, I didn’t have the energy to put myself in the necessary creative mindset. At times I missed math during this period. And I was happy at one point to have to make changes to a paper that had been refereed — it was a good escape. But it was difficult to work, and still, looking back, I probably did more work than I should have.

"Barely relevant"--give me a break, Dak.

This sentiment is consistent with feminist propaganda and tactics, which is that men are a problem and must be attacked in every clime and place. Males only spaces are particularly problematic (this is the rationale for the current suit at Yale). But conversely, women need "safe spaces" to enhance their energies, or whatever pseudo-psychobabble or new agey bullshit that needs promoting, depending on the flavor of the feminist.

She was neither being hostile toward male-only spaces, nor was she saying they shouldn't exist. You're choosing to interpret her words that way for reasons I can only describe as "snowflake-ish."

Male only spaces have been under attack for at least the past five decades, and men have been doing more poorly than women in nearly every economic and educational metric for the past decade plus (in the US), and the gap continues to widen. So some pardon us as we take issue with some solipsistic lamentations from Brazil.

 

[Dak]

You chose to focus on one tiny quote from that whole piece. rms posted an article about the impact of children and family demands, specifically pertaining to mathematicians (at least in part), and I offered an article with a female mathematician from Brazil who--wouldn't you know it!--talks about the demands of motherhood:

"Barely relevant"--give me a break, Dak.

As there are no mentions of a partner, more specifically the difficulties of being a single parent, regardless of sex or career field. I don't know what the Brazilian data suggests, but in the US persons with post secondary and graduate degrees are much less likely to be single parents, and this seems to be partially driven by white/asian representation in, as whites and asians are more likely to have married couple households. Again, based on the data from rms' article, men and women drop out of STEM fields into other fields at approximately the same rate, so burnout due to factors in the fields themselves don't seem sex specific. The difference in dropping to part-time status, or dropping out of the workforce suggests family structure and individual factors, rather than STEM structure issues - which is the opposite of the narrative Dr. Aruajo and others want to advance.

She was neither being hostile toward male-only spaces, nor was she saying they shouldn't exist. You're choosing to interpret her words that way for reasons I can only describe as "snowflake-ish."

Bailey vs Motte.