I know this question is really dumb but here goes :( I'm MtF transgender and early in transition, so I have very little experience of women's fashion.
So my question is... how high are you supposed to wear a skirt? Like... are most skirts designed to sit fairly high, like around the belly button? Or does it vary a lot? How do I tell how high to wear it, skirts dont come with instructions :P
it varies for different types of skirts! i think the best way to find out is to test at different heights and see where they look the best on your body type.
lately i feel like a-line(like the picture you posted) and skater skirts are in stores a lot, and these usually sit around the waist.
first answer isnt a troll, awesome thanks :) so when u, as a woman (presumably) experienced with clothes try on a skirt in a store, do you know how high its meant to sit just by looking at it?
how high does a pencil skirt sit for example?
thanks i might try them :)
I personally always wear them at the waist, and I feel like that's where they should go.
I'll assume your shoulders are wider than your hips, so try to avoid pencil skirts at all costs, and try to wear wide and short skirts, to emphasize your legs.
I feel it is a moral duty, and in today's society they will likely be surrounded by people encouraging them to do it. It is important to give the contrary opinion before something irreversible is done. This isn't a game.
there's pretty much nowhere in the world where this is treated as a game, and pretty much nobody gets this done without years of consideration. your view of the world as being full of retard social justice warriors and yes men is wrong.
Another vote for waist. I personally also find them most flattering and comfortable because they naturally stay in place and the full part of your stomach is tucked away - if you have something like jeans you were on the hips, you easily get rolls when sitting down with imperfect posture, or leaning forward to grab something etc.
I disagree, it is not that people will openly say 'you must do it!', but there are subtle societal pressures that influence white males in particular into doing things like this.
you're a moron. there's a reason things like your pic makes the news when that happens. because its not normal. it doesnt happen often. most parents are not this clueless. and im sure with about 0.3% of people being trans there are massive societal pressures to do it.
fuck i hope ur trolling... but even if u r there are people who really believe this garbage :|
You seriously think that there are societal influences to change your sex, more prominent than there are influences to live a normal life and be straight and stick to your biological sex?
there's pressure to change your sex yes, when a boy likes feminine stuff there's pressure to identify as a female and then the next step is changing sex
a boy could still be a boy who likes dolls
we've beeig instructed to challenge our sex yes especially in our world if you're young you live on the Internet and being cis is the worst thing one can be
I think you're wildly overestimating how much of an effect a minority crowd of fanatics has on the rest of the world. Most people still get grossed out or irrationally angry at the concept of a sex change, just not on tumblr.
No need to be so rude. I am not just pulling this stuff out my ass. I know what it is like to be a boy raised by a single mother, that is 'so ok' with the idea you might not want to be straight that it is almost like they are encouraging you to deviate from the norm. Growing up I had girls toys bought for me around the house, 'just in case' I wanted to play with them instead of boys toys. I can see how a boy in my situation would have wanted to go along with it to please their mum.
In our generation there are a lot of boys brought up by single mothers also, no father in the home. And the single mother has quite likely taken on a lot the feminist doctrine, the most extreme of which pushes conspiracies about the patriarchy and how straight white men are evil, quite likely compounded by their hatred for the boys father. The boy will quite likely be brought up by their mother, who badmouths his father and men in general, and in an attempt to fit into his mothers world he may want to take on female traits and reject his manhood. And with no father in the house, or any male role model the boy does not have the framework for manhood to begin with.
Also a boy might want to deviate from the norm to be a special snowflake.
And lastly, white straight males are a demonized group in today's society. They are at the bottom of the oppression Olympics scale, and therefore have a lot of bile spilled onto them for who they are. So you could see how this might influence a white male into 'transitioning', they go from evil straight patriarchal male to transgender female. This is one of the societal influences.
For the more cynical man hating feminist women also, I could see how they would want to encourage white men to castrate themselves. A lot of people don't realize just how much these people hate them.
Hmm, I do think that there are specific societal influences for a white male to change his sex, but whether there is more than there are for being straight is a different question. What I do know is that a lot of boys will get caught up in the societal pressures to not being a straight white male. But for most boys they will largely stay straight white males due to other influences, i.e biological desires.
i was raised by a single mother too. she's also an second-wave feminist, though not a toxic cycnical man-hater. im 27 now, very much not a kid, and when i told her a month ago im trans she cried. i mean she wasnt ashamed, she's accepting but she was super worried that she might have messed up raising me to make me be trans.
i never had girls toys in the house. just because you were raised by an idiot doesnt mean the world is going down the toilet. please please dont allow your own experiences to so massively bias your world view. there are 7 billion people in the world and you have the experience of only one.
Dude, the propaganda for an alternative lifestyle stands out to you because you're not used to it. In 85-95% of the books, commercials, tv series, adverts etc you see the picture of the traditional family or of a straight couple. Within society it is accepted for a couple to be kissing, even having a steamy make out session, on the streets, yet walking hand in hand is still frowned upon by plenty of people if it's an all male or all female couple.
Especially for men, all the stereotypical male tropes of the strong, independent heartthrob play into an extreme stereotype of a hyperstraight man always up for sex with women, who is so heterosexual that patting another man on the shoulder is a touching and deep moment.
We just don't see these things as normative or pressure because it's what we're used to, we just see it as normal.
The pressure that you're talking about is more striking and more overt, but extremely contained and slight compared to the dominant culture.
I quite like /fa/, slower feed, get to appreciate some nice aesthetics. If people mention politics I may interject with my stance.
Also /pol/ is overwhelmed by shit posting bot scripts so it's pretty tiresome recently.
>i was raised by a single mother too. she's also an second-wave feminist,
I might be wrong in thinking this, but I think that this is quite possibly the route of why you are considering transition. Regardless of whether it is a good or bad decision to go Trans, there is a trend with here.
LOL did you read my post? i never had any girls toys in the house. actually one time my brother wanted to wear pink to school and she wouldnt let him. are you stupid? how do you think it made me trans?
Yeah I do agree that there are more influences on being straight etc, be it biological influences or societal. But what I would say to you is that there is a concerted effort to push things that end up influencing whites males specifically to deviate from the norm, and this is quite a recent phenomena. I question whether this is in white males interests, whether it is good for them. The influences to be cis have there foundations in our biology and collective history.
We may find ourselves in a time in the future looking back at this age, seeing this stuff as a brief historical quirk, a grave mistake even.
>push things that end up influencing whites males specifically to deviate from the norm, and this is quite a recent phenomena. I question whether this is in white males interests, whether it is good for them. The influences to be cis have there foundations in our biology and collective history.
you're delusional, nobody gives a fuck about "white males"
lol, it's not just toys and room color, those are specific aspects indicative of the type of parent you have. And the type of parent you have can provide certain pressures on your sexuality. Barely anyone is just 'born gay', it is at least a mixture of nature and nurture.
I don't disagree that there are enivornments in which there's a push towards deviating, I just don't think that on a larger scale it's that impactful.
Having said that I think the biggest issue for men is to find a new ideal of masculinity. Right now it seems 50/50 between the feminist idea of what men should be like - which is basically just a long list of don'ts and other negative descriptors. No one feels inspired by a description of what not to be.
And then there is the old school idea of stoic masculinity, which is both increasingly outdated now that men are not necessarily breadwinners anymore, and very restrictive in some aspects (like defining male sexuality and how men should navigate their emotional life).
>Barely anyone is just 'born gay'
of course they are
nothing can make a straight person prefer their own gender for romantic relationships unless they are somehow predisposed to it
>>Barely anyone is just 'born gay'
>of course they are
>nothing can make a straight person prefer their own gender for romantic relationships unless they are somehow predisposed to it
How do you explain correlations like this though? Can it be just a coincidence?
Oh you are a nihilist, fair enough. You don't really have anything important to say about whether people 'give a fuck about white males' then, as this is a political movement that you are probably not very well informed about. Anyone who is remotely interested in politics/philosophy will recognize the trends I am explaining.
I agree with everything here apart from the idea that stoic masculinity is outdated etc because women are bread winners. I still think masculinity has a lot on it's side due to biological realities, we have not quite entered the trans-humanist age yet. A large amount of the female job market is artificially sustained, they work a lot of the government jobs, they have gender quotas, they receive the majority of tax funded assistance, whilst men pay the vast majority. The natural order is still present, even through the attempts at altering it through quotas etc. I would say that this situation is only made possible due to things such as this, and biology etc still remains supreme.
have you ever thought that politics is a big mental masturbation for elderly men?
it's just a show business, like the kardashian show, but for another target group
all those "political movements" are artificially created and hyped by the media to keep people occupied, yet you believe they actually exist in reality
if we all stopped thinking and talking about those "issues" they would disappear by themselves
this is the real red pill
Yeah i don't think abuse is the key influence, the majority of gay people are gay for other reasons, but I think this chart shows that nurture can have an effect, and this is one possible factor that can influence this.
>you will hate men as a woman if your father abused you in the childhood
This is quite likely one of the reasons abuse can result in being non cis. I would say that if the woman was not abused by their father, they would most likely be cis in this instance.
First of all, this is going into a probably at least in part regional matter and I live in an irrelevant European country where it's probably somewhat different. But women actually do it very well here and already are higher educated and making more money than men, if you look at the age categories of 25-35. And this isn't just a matter of quota, either. There are more female students for educations like law and medicine, and have been for years.
Obviously I don't have a similar grasp on what it's like in the US, but looking at an article like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-family-breadwinner-on-the-rise-study-says.html?_r=0
it's not really as you describe it. If you don't want to read it, the main point is that according to a Pew research study, four out of ten families with a child under the age of eighteen now has a female primary breadwinner. And the youngest generations in which women are more succesful still (in terms of education at least) are obviously underrepresented in those statistics.
On top of the breadwinner-aspect, we increasingly live in a feminized society in which diplomacy and social sensitivity typically matter more for say, advancing one's career, having nerve does. Physical strength is at this point perhaps a personal source of pride and admired sexually, but not something that will advance you much in your job.
What has also changed are women's expectations of men. Marriages used to be a pragmatic way to deal with life and life's responsibilities. Now that people mostly marry for love and companionship, women start to increasingly want men who are competent communicators and can provide emotional support, not just a man who does his job, brings in the money and shrugs off his worries.
I do have some sympathy for this. I quite like the idea of an An-cap society where there is no politics, just voluntary interactions. But I will still be concerned about keeping a border between my society and the third world for example. In whatever society we have, there will most likely be collective disputes to discuss.
Yeah but that article is not really addressing what he is saying of whether they're bootstrapped by societal movement and "artificially sustained", or they are actually competing.
Your argument could still reside in artificial sustainment, it is just more socially acceptable for women to work more now.
But how much does it matter if the situation is artificially created if it is reality? The fact is that those women bring in more money than their husbands, and four out of those ten husbands cannot use the idea of being the breadwinner to derive a sense of masculinity from.
I am actually from the UK, are you from Scandinavia, Sweden by any chance?
>And the youngest generations in which women are more succesful still (in terms of education at least) are obviously underrepresented in those statistics.
You have to look at what degrees they are doing though, women are more likely to do courses like social studies, rather than maths, physics etc.
>four out of ten families with a child under the age of eighteen now has a female primary breadwinner.
Have a look at the graph though, the majority of these women who are the primary bread winner are single mothers from broken households. This rise is mostly due to the rise in single motherhood, and for the 15 percent or so women who are the primary bread winner in a family type situation, a large amount of them are working government jobs and quotas. One of my mothers female (feminist) friends actually was the primary bread winner in a marriage type situation, but she worked high up in the local government council, also due to her political beliefs I think she picked a more effeminate male, I think this is quite typical.
>On top of the....career, having nerve does. Physical strength i.sexually, but not something that will advance you much in your job.
>What has also .. increasingly want men who are competent .. off his worries.
It is not so much physical strength, but rather things like male competitiveness and the differing IQ distribution of males and females (men tend be over represented as both idiots and geniuses, whereas women tend to cluster around the center).
>we increasingly ............ advancing one's career, having nerve does.
This doesn't have an effect on whether you can provide results though, be it in business or science, it is rather your IQ, motivation, perhaps some social literacy and general competency level that makes you productive. It has always been this way and always will be.
Figure Victimization rates among lesbian/gay, bisexual, and heterosexual women and men, based on findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults.
SOURCE: Hughes et al. 2010a.
>What has also changed are women's expectations of men. Marriages used to be a pragmatic way to deal with life and life's responsibilities. Now that people mostly marry for love and companionship, women start to increasingly want men who are competent communicators and can provide emotional support, not just a man who does his job, brings in the money and shrugs off his worries.
The money has to come from somewhere though. And as men are the most capable of generating resources, they pay the most taxes. Women on the other hand take the most government assistance tax money.
Biological realities cannot be escaped, unless we become part robot or something lol.
(pic:almost 100% of inventions created by males)
Also, nota bene, I am not against trans-gender, or what-the-fuck else regarding sexuality.
I hope in light of these debates, we can agree we all actually don't care what these people want to do with their bodies or with what they want to identify.
I imagine this argument sparked from simply a concern of whether OP was oppressed or not.
Women will always be biologically disadvantaged in the work place for a variety of reasons. They have periods every month, and now feminists are even demanding paid leave for this! lol
They get pregnant and give birth, therefore meaning time away from work.
Children are best suited being breast fed etc by their mother in the early years, if a mother chooses work over this they are disadvantaging their child. And if a mother goes to work instead of taking care of their baby, their baby has to be sent to a daycare that just costs even more government money.
Women have different hormones etc that do not encourage hard work. Men have high test, drives competition, working hard to out compete others, therefore being more successful.
Women can't a lot of the physical work also that men can.
So many things, more to list.
>>And the youngest generations in which women are more succesful still (in terms of education at least) are obviously underrepresented in those statistics.
>You have to look at what degrees they are doing though, women are more likely to do courses like social studies, rather than maths, physics etc.
Anon, you also forgot to mention that there is a massive over inflation of people going to college/university these days. In the past you had to be really intelligent to go to college, but now any idiot can go, I mean just look at the courses they teach these days.
The truth is, peoples IQ is pretty set in stone from birth. We still have pretty much the same amount of high IQ people as we did 60 years ago, now we send loads of idiots to college, and they are not intelligent enough to do course like Physics, so they did soft courses like social science.
A lot of men have realized going to college is not a viable option, and therefore don't go, they are less likely to do the soft courses women tend to pick.
So you have a lot of women going to college who shouldn't be, doing low IQ courses such as gender studies. A few intelligent women doing some of the high tier courses, a lot of men with high IQ's doing stuff like math, and a few men doing the silly women courses that dont provide value.
You're a fucking idiot and don't deserve to be a woman if you really can't decipher how high your skirt rests. You're embarrassing. If you really don't know, then at least fucking google pictures. There's HUNDREDS available for you to gaze at.
Nah, I'm Dutch.
I'm not trying to claim that women all around do better. Obviously it depends on your frame of reference. And yeah, over here women are also overrepresented in soft courses and underrepresented in physics, math etc.
But at the same time they drop out of high school less often, are employed more often, get higher grades, and more often follow university level follow up education (and higher level high school education).
Obviously there's a lot of disclaimers to add to that. Like the anon who rightfully noted that advancing to university isn't really a mark of success anymore. However, at least where I live this is still the most conventional "succesful" trajectory to walk through as an adolescent. It is something both men and women aim for, and women are lately more often succesful.
Similarly, women might be overrepresented in gender studies, but they're also overrepresented in law and medicine. In 2011, 70% of the new students for medicine were female. There are already more women training to be a surgeon than men. There are more female than male judged in Holland as well. So they might be overrepresented doing degrees that do not directly benefit society, but that doesn't mean they are only doing jobs that no one gives a fuck about.
Also, whereas of course it is critical that most of those female breadwinner families are single parent households, it still means that the traditional male source of pride of providing for your children is not working out there. My point was not so much that women outshine men in this regard, but rather that a young guy growing up today cannot necessarily expect to earn more than his wife. It is at best a risky thing now to base your self confidence on.
I also agree that the stuff you mention like competitiveness is ultimately more crucial to the male work force than physical power, but it is less integral to the conventional idea of masculinity.
Similarly, a lot of stereotypical real men-jobs, like factory work and manual labor, are increasingly taken over by machines. Hell, even being in the army nowadays doesn't necessarily involve the type of man to man combat or shooting that one pictures when thinking of a soldier. At the same time, healthcare is ever growing and women have a big advantage with their emotional intelligence and sensitivity in the sense that these are extremely human qualities that cannot easily be outsourced to machines.
Again though, my main point wasn't whether women or men have a better shot at being employed, and like >>11653256 mentioned women were dealt a bad card by being the ones who physically carry children and give birth. I also feel that women are less predisposed to being ambitious (in the traditional, work oriented sense of the word) and status seeking.
My main point is that I feel that society has changed to much, mainly the workforce and the ideal of a healthy marriage, for men to still benefit from trying to fit into a decades old idea of what the ideal man is like. At the very least I think it can use an update.
Also keep in mind that the alternative is that men lose out because women keep conquering new territory, are very reflective and self aware (as a gender at least) about what it means to be a woman, to be a modern woman, to be a modern mother and modern wife... So if men keep refusing or just not being interested to get into what it means to be a man in 2016 vs what it means to be a man in 1916, the end result will be that they have a two dimensional role model that doesn't address many of the situations they will find themselves in, whereas women have much more freedom and confidence in who they are.
>But at the same time they drop out of high school less often, are employed more often, get higher grades, and more often follow university level follow up education (and higher level high school education).
Might have something to do with conformity... Not even hatin on womenz tho.
Eh, I think it mostly has to do with the school system aligning more with women. Especially primary school, prolonged concentration while being calm and quiet is simply something little girls do better at than little boys.
This entire fucking thread is a mess.
"Hey, can you help me find clothes?"
"Well here's my opinion on gender..."
>Also, whereas of course it is critical that most of those female breadwinner families are single parent households, it still means that the traditional male source of pride of providing for your children is not working out there.
Yeah, because the single mothers are extracting money from men through the tax system. It is like the female equivalent of rape (take a mans money against his will).
I disagree with a man paying an ex money unless it can be showed that it was a mutual decision to benefit their relationship that she'd withdraw from the workforce, stop an education and so on.
But paying money for your own kids doesn't seem like rape to me. Children are expensive.
>Also keep in mind that the alternative is that men lose out because women keep conquering new territory, are very reflective and self aware (as a gender at least) about what it means to be a woman, to be a modern woman, to be a modern mother and modern wife... So if men keep refusing or just not being interested to get into what it means to be a man in 2016 vs what it means to be a man in 1916, the end result will be that they have a two dimensional role model that doesn't address many of the situations they will find themselves in, whereas women have much more freedom and confidence in who they are.
No wonder you want to transition to a woman, you have been raised to have a reality detached and twisted view of gender.
>I disagree with a man paying an ex money unless it can be showed that it was a mutual decision to benefit their relationship that she'd withdraw from the workforce, stop an education and so on.
>But paying money for your own kids doesn't seem like rape to me. Children are expensive.
No, not paying money to you ex. I mean most of these women who you say are bread winners are actually artificially propped up in government jobs and quotas. A small amount of women can perform as well as men in the workforce but it is a minority. A lot of the time women are a liability in a workplace environment, all the lawsuits and drama they bring to the office, all the emotional support and general picking up the slack for them that they expect from the men around them. They are not built for the work place and get in the way.
>So if men keep refusing or just not being interested to get into what it means to be a man in 2016 vs what it means to be a man in 1916, the end result will be that they have a two dimensional role model that doesn't address many of the situations they will find themselves in, whereas women have much more freedom and confidence in who they are.
You will die alone in a pool of cat urine.
If they work and they bring in the main money for their family, they're breadwinners. Whether or not they are propped up is not relevant for the social situation I was describing. Say you are right about everything in this post: then the conclusion is that because they are artificially propped up, they manage to pose as breadwinners. Still the situation is that men do not get the satisfaction of being the one who brings in the cash for his family.
Also, obviously I am not aware of the details of the workforce rules and quotas in most places, but my country does not use quotas for virtually any job position (just for governmental stuff, that accounts for few jobs in a small country) yet women still do better at finding jobs than men. Because they have higher grades, they don't have criminal records and they are typically better educated. It's actually come to the point where the first talk of a prefential policy for men has been uttered.
>typically better educated
But they tend to do silly courses due to being all period'y and having a lower IQ on average than men.
The whole Social justice phenomenon on College campuses is literally low IQ emotional women ruining everything.
I'm not that person but I think you misunderstand. The pressure is not to get a sex change, it is to fit a mold. A transgender person might choose a different mold and this allows them to eventually become normal in the eyes of society and those unaware of the amount of hormones and surgery it took to change their exterior. The idea is to "pass" and join the normal folk again. I won't generalize because there honestly isn't enough research but from what I can hear from those who identify as transgender, those who used to identify as that but think differently now, depending on the circumstances you are in and what people around you encourage - it might feel easier to put on a skirt and shave your beard than deal with looking like a man but not acting it. Especially since it gives you an identity and support group. Same reason people say they are gender queer rather than saying they are girls who like video games and don't like dresses.
The truth is that the majority of women going to College are just wasting resources.
Sure, but let's face it, in this day and age a university degree doesn't matter that much anymore anyway, especially for arts subjects. It's more a pass to the job market than a guarantee that you'll actually find work, there's a huge inflation in their worth.
And given that they are still more succesful (in the NL, I am not saying this is the case wherever you live) when it comes to finding a job, apparently employers don't care and/or they do so much better during schooling that they manage to still come out on top despite having educations of lesser worth.
There is no tranny that passes.
I can put my cat in a dog suit, but it's still a cat, and I will get weird looks. Want to know why?
A CAT IS NOT A DOG
A MAN IS NOT A WOMAN
It's not just a "little weird or different" everyone in the world knows you're a fucking cat but you say you're a dog. Everyone knows. It's mentally healthy. Everyone knows that.
It's like when a cutter goes out in public with cuts all over himself, people grimace and force a smile, but it's obvious that YOU ARE UNHEALTHY.
The same looks obese people get, cutters get, trannies also get.
Can confirm, most the women at my college are pretty average intelligence, but they cater for that with lower tier courses. And don't get me started on all the SJW stuff lol, I knew a girl who did gender studies that would literally call me a white male in a derogatory manner. If it were up to me she would be sent off on a dinghy to Africa, people like that don't deserve to live in a society created by white males.
Women are more likely to leave the work force to have children. We have thousands of working age female doctors that will never work again. Think about that.
Not only that, but professional women do not pull as many hours as the men. When you educate a female doctor, you're getting about 1/2 to 3/4 of a male doctor in terms of quantity of work done and patients seen to.
>There is no tranny that passes.
I know you're really angry here and trying to make a point but you're simply wrong.
>If you think a difference of 1.7 IQ is relevant when you're visiting college I'm guessing you haven't seen one from the inside yet.
Nice attempt, but I think you will you have hoisted yourself by your own petard.
Look again at this >>11653674 , now look at the amount of people on the higher IQ levels. Men dwarf women in amount of geniuses, going from more than double the amount at 140, more than triple at 150, more than quadruple at 160, more than 10 than 10x at 170, 18 times the amount at 175, and finally, there are more than infinity times more males ay 176 IQ than there are women.
Now, in the past it was the geniuses (or approaching genius) who went to college. Now that everyone can go, even people who are like 90 IQ LOL, loads of women have gone. This is largely why there are so many useless and low IQ degrees, to cater for women.
It is indicative of your low IQ that you couldn't spot the significance of the data in relation to College admission.
>college degree doesnt matter
you're right, for 95% of degrees.
if your degree requires calc 2, you can be guaranteed that you're getting an actual education. funny how that works, it's almost like there's an entire section of degrees that women aren't getting
You haven't in any way supported the idea that colleges were opened for a wider audience and general work education rather than elite intellectual to cater to women. It's honestly just absurd , colleges provide a different service to society than universities used to.
It's all in Dutch, that's the point. It might come as a grand surprise but there isn't much international interest in percentages of a specific age group in the Dutch workforce.
Also you are trying to argue that (a lot of) women have no place being in university. What I was arguing is that many women do go to university, many women do find jobs, so it is not as self-evident anymore for the men who are young now and growing up now to assume that some day they will bring in the salary while their wife takes care of the kids or works part time. There is an amount of men who earn a salary secondary to their wife, or are the primary caretaker of the kids instead. Not to mention fewer people opt to have children, so they might just be half of a working couple with a wife who can take care of herself financially just fine. This in my eyes asks for a revision of what it means to be a man, compared to what it used to mean to be a man back in the time when it was obvious that a man was the breadwinner and a woman attended to the children.
And that is not really that related to whether or not women deserve to go to university and take up the place in the workforce that they do. They are there already.
>colleges were opened for a wider audience and general work education rather than elite intellectual to cater to women. It's honestly just absurd , colleges provide a different service to society than universities used to.
Oh so colleges aren't as rigorous as university is what you're saying? Doesn't that basically mean that colleges are dumbed down for women?
Let's be real - across EVERY ivy league uni professors have reported having to lower work load because students simply do not have the same tolerance for work as they have in the past.
Lowered expectations IS catering to women you fuckhead.
Basically, the government saw Intelligent and successful people going through university and they thought to themselves 'if we put stupid people through university they will be high IQ and successful'. Of course this was bullshit, and now you have all these low IQ students with student debts they can't pay off, and perhaps not job. Now, as a by-product of low IQ people being allowed into university/college, a lot of women have now gone, and as women are more prone to conformity and social approval, they felt pressure to go to university, but as women have a low IQ they are for the most part wasting resources doing low IQ courses.
Basically, gender matters, men and women are different. All this propping up of women is just a drain on society, if a woman is high IQ and wants to, sure go university. But the rest can just fuck off and stop bitching.
h-hey thanks for the interesting video and also norwegian language lesson senpai. was very interesting and good for my language skills since i know a bit of swedish :^)
We are going to need so many cats to satisfy these progressive train wrecks in old age.
>Doesn't that basically mean that colleges are dumbed down for women?
No it means they are "dumbed down" to cater to the market's demand for somewhat educated people, not geniuses (or hey, maybe it's the fact that selling college is such a profitable business in America). You could argue women benefit from it more by the percentage evident from the graphs. But that doesn't imply causality as you put it.
np desu, if you are interested, this is part of a series of documentaries
>You could argue women benefit from it more by the percentage evident from the graphs
That's what we're saying - but they don't benefit, because of lowered expectations their degrees are all but meaningless. A highschool education is no different from a degree in English or History from a state college.
No that's not what you're saying. You're saying it is that way "because of women", not that women benefit more from it (assuming we use these IQ statistics and make some other assumptions about who attends college now and couldn't prior).
Ha yep, but also recently I have heard a lot of talk of the government 'forgiving' student debt, because so many students don't earn to pay it off. This essentially means that they will be bailed out by taxation (the majority of taxes are payed by men). The vast majority of women don't get married need to get bailed out by a man somewhere.
>colleges lower standards
>blacks and women flood to college for the easy-to-get-degrees
(read: not engineering, math, science, or tech)
>colleges make bank, because the government promises them money regardless if the customer pays
But I'm sure they totally didn't lower standards to get more brown and female customers. Totally dude, totally.
Yeah it was when the government decided to subsidize education - funny that education standards dropped so much around that time. Must just be a coincidence as our other poster seems to believe. :-)
>>blacks and women flood to college for the easy-to-get-degrees
So this, you have all this African studies crap on US campuses also that is essentially radicalizing them to hate whites, wanting to do violence against them like the BLM movement.
Man the economics of this stuff is so predictable, but yet people fall for it again and again.. Like with Communism they think 'it will be different this time'.
>men want a good product, with high standards to achieve the product
>women just want any product that will make them feel like winners
It's not that they have the right to study - they have for a long time and women have been a majority at college since the 70's I'm not sure what your point is.