This is a discussion on Double Standards within the Feminist/ Misandry anti misandry forums, part of the Why We're Here category; Men are the new minority on college campuses. At Bucknell the disparity is small: 51 percent of campus is female, ...
- 24th-June-2008 #1
Men are the new minority on college campuses. At Bucknell the disparity is small: 51 percent of campus is female, while 49 percent is male. However, as shocking as it may be, even though there are a million more men than women ages 18 to 24 in America, men make up a mere 42.6 percent of students enrolled in college nationwide. And, according to USA Today, the gap is growing.
While these numbers may be encouraging to Bucknell's men as they head downtown on Friday night, on the whole the trend is disturbing.
Men are not, however, merely a minority in numbers. Manhood as an idea is hardly celebrated on campuses. Instead, masculinity is treated as something shameful. Men are labeled violent. Film series at Bucknell are dedicated to deconstructing the traditional notion of manhood. Fraternity brothers are stereotyped as ticking time bombs of sexual assault. The male minority is deemed the architect of a patriarchal conspiracy.
Over the past few decades colleges have built up Women's Resource Centers and other "safe havens" and "supportive environments" for women on college campuses. These centers, including Bucknell's, have been used to address perceived injustices and help women gain a foothold in higher education. Congress also created laws intended to level the playing field, like Title IX.
However, while Title IX has been used almost exclusively to fix inequalities faced by women, it was not written as a women's equity law, but rather a gender equity law. Taking a close look at the legislation, it seems evident that Title IX should require a shocking move from Bucknell: the elimination of our Women's Resource Center.
According to Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments to the 1963 Equal Pay Act, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
There is a common misconception that Title IX only relates to women in sports. However, Title IX addresses any federally funded educational program or activity (and because Bucknell receives federal funds it must comply). The text of the law never even mentions the word "athletics" or "sports." Instead, it defines a program or activity as "all the operations of a college, university, or postsecondary institution."
Certainly a resource center is an operation of the University. Moreover, it seems evident that when the text of Title IX explicitly requires institutions with father-son events to also have mother-daughter events, then institutions boasting a Women's Resource Center ought also to provide a Men's Resource Center.
According to today's interpretation of Title IX, however, this is not the case. When asked why, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights defended the principle of Women's Resource Centers saying the centers must actively bar men before they can be considered exclusionary under Title IX.
Bucknell's general counsel, Wayne Bromfield, reaffirmed this, noting, "No person at Bucknell is excluded from participation in the programs and activities of the Women's Resource Center." In fact, he suggested that the WRC would like men to "feel motivated to attend and partake of the programs and resources."
At first glance this position seems reasonable. Interim WRC Director, Dean Badal, is a fabulous person and she wouldn't discriminate against men.
However, we are dealing with a Women's Resource Center, whose mission is to: "Work toward the feminist goal of affirming the dignity of all women and empowering them to control their own life choices." Through a variety of co-curricular supportive services, educational, cultural, and social programs, we try to address the needs of women on campus.
One cannot deny that this mission, at the very least, discourages men from seeking "affirmation" and "co-curricular supportive services" and more likely makes them believe that they are not welcome to request these things.
Calling it a "Women's" Resource Center doesn't help matters much either. Common sense tells us if it was meant for women and men, it would be called a Student's Resource Center.
Put simply, there is a de facto denial of benefits for men, even if there isn't a large field hockey player standing at the door ready to club us in our patriarchal organs.
Moreover, it is likely that men have in fact been physically excluded from at least one WRC event. In the spring of 2005 the SIRENS sponsored an event titled "That Takes Ovaries," where the attendees- yes, you guessed it- needed ovaries.- However, the event was held at Uptown, which requires a trained employee to monitor its expensive sound equipment.
The only available employee was a man. However, then-WRC Director Molly Dragewicz forced him to stand outside the building (the student involved believed that the WRC was a sponsor of the event, but the WRC and president of the Feminist Majority - formerly SIRENS - refused to confirm or deny that fact). There were, "No Boys Allowed."
Whether it is through implication or outright expulsion, the male minority population is "denied the benefits" of the WRC, and thus the equal opportunities mandated by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.
In spite of this, the law has allowed this disparity to continue. However, if Bucknell wanted to comply with the spirit of Title IX, then the WRC ought to be eliminated.
Elimination of the WRC would not be a novel approach to achieving Title IX compliance. In 2001, the University made the "difficult" decision to eliminate varsity wrestling. The stated reason for the change was an effort to comply with the "substantial proportionality" requirements in Title IX. Simply put, at the time 48.5 percent of the Bucknell student body was female, and only 47.1 percent of participants in varsity athletics were female. This was deemed too great a disparity, and varsity wrestling was eliminated in an effort to correct the imbalance.
If a 1.4 percentage point disparity (which is legally acceptable) could result in the elimination of a popular varsity sport, then a 49 percentage point disparity in opportunities for "supportive services and educational, cultural, and social programs must be addressed.
That is, the Women's Resource Center appears to be in flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of Title IX and ought to be eliminated to bring balance to the opportunities made available on campus.
However, while the legal reasons may not be clear - they are certainly unclear to this author - the practical reason there is a WRC and no MRC is obvious. Even as men continue to fall behind in higher education, and drop-out rates in high school and college for men continue to rise, patronizing college administrators continue to view women as a weak class in need of protection, while men are ignored completely.
The statement is: boys just don't matter as much as girls. If you're a male who was sexually assaulted (and according to campus stats for every two women sexually assaulted there are 1.14 men) you don't matter as much as the woman. If you're a male with an eating disorder (for every four women with anorexia there is one male according to the American Journal of Psychiatry) you don't matter as much as the woman.
It is profoundly perverse that we have a resource center devoted to helping a significant majority on campuses nationwide and promote a set of views that dominate academia.
To address this problem, a leveling effect ought to be applied. No special privileges for women and no special privileges for men. Equality is what common sense, and the law, requires.
The arguments against a WRC are plentiful. We all know the Women's Resource Center is inherently silly. Moreover, it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Title IX.
- 24th-June-2008 # ADSAdvertisement Circuit advertisement
- Member Since
- Advertising world
- 24th-June-2008 #2
Re: Double Standards
What you are saying is one law for all. Sounds perfect. Unfortunately, if we can't get equality, we can't get one law for all.
There will not be a woman's anything. Just a persons.
But violence is something women have every right to complain about.
Why do men solely concentrate on what is unfair to them from women?
Why have men not cared about men harming other men?
What are the chances of men walking down the street getting murdered by a woman compared to a man?
But if men don't care about violence of men on men then they certainly won't care about men on women violence? If men don't care about men raping men then why will they care about men raping women?
The violence will rule. There is no 2 ways about it.
I was told at the beginning of my journey that men were the key. If you can't get men to be nice, you won't get fairness in anything.
And so the cycle will continue again. Maybe some where down the line in generations to come, you will get men and women working as a team.
Men are disposable because men want to be disposable. Women don't want to be disposable. But one day, both men and women will value life above control.
Actually, I may be wrong. Men want more prisons and tougher sentences.
Women want social changes. For children to be raised well so they don't end up in prison.
I don't know any more if I chose the right lobby group. I think the penguins in Aussie should have rights. People look at them when they come from the sea at Phillip Island and say, "How cute". But then they run over them on the way home. No-one sees it because the rangers get out at 4am to remove the dead penguins. The mummies who will not be coming home to the nest to feed the young who must now die and be eaten from rats.
That would have been a better lobby group for me, I am thinking.
- 24th-June-2008 #3
- Member Since
- Nov 2005
- My Blog Entries:
Re: Double Standards... it seems evident that Title IX should require a shocking move from Bucknell: the elimination of our Women's Resource Center.►My blog / Your Blog
The most offensive thing you can do to a feminist is treat her with FULL equality.Wife : "I dreamt they were auctioning off dicks. The big ones went for ten dollars and the thick ones went for twenty dollars."
Husband : "How about the ones like mine?"
Wife : "Those they gave away."
Husband : "I had a dream too...I dreamt they were auctioning off pussy. The pretty ones went for a thousand dollars, and the little tight ones went for two thousand."
Wife : "And how much for the ones like mine?"
Husband : "That's where they held the auction."
Re: Double Standards
Those are interesting points....men inflict violence upon each other far more often than they do toward women....and more men die because of other men...why aren't men addressing those issues? Why aren't all of us addressing those issues? Women/feminists probably aren't going to be able to fix that if they tried (not to say they shouldn't try)...but men have to take some responsibility somewhere for the harm they cause each other. It's a big problem....
- 24th-June-2008 #5
Re: Double Standards
What happened is that men were happy for women to have rights. But the rights went overboard and men started losing.
Much like the homosexual movement we are seeing now. Religion is now on the line.
You and I were born into this fight. You and I never had a say. In fact, most men here did not have a say either.
We were just kids like our own kids. We trusted our world just like our kids do. We (if lucky), came from a good home. We grew up and saw the powers that be were corrupt but we didn't care too much because the people all around us seemed OK as long as we understood the rules of life.
We were more lucky than you know, to be honest.
The old people in this on both sides say the other side lies. And the funny thing is that neither side is lying and yet both sides are lying. It is a very personal affair. The woman's movement destroyed families. It was meant to do so but the men didn't know this. Now that the men know they are anti the movement. But they didn't generally get to know until it affected their own family and some of these men have been married numerous times. They couldn't fight it because the movement was about freedom and they had no right to just grab their women by the hair and drag them home.
On the one hand men and women had their roles. But on the other hand men were the princes. When the feminists got control things changed and the women became the princesses.
Neither side can come together because the war is not between your male mates and your female mates.
It is all about sex, power, money, blah, blah, blah. It is all about control.
Have you heard the news on Magarby saying that only God can take him down? The UN will have to do it. Humanism will have to do it.
But the people, the you and me in this are thinking, "Fuck this, from the frying pan into the fire".
I stand you on holy ground Tera, because you are an addict. A recovering addict. I have more hope in you and in our gangs who families the most of the children needing care than I do in people that only care about their own standing.
But I understand their caring. This is their life and they want what is best for them.
You and I are gifted too. Never lower yourself. Ah, but you know I won't let you anyhow. I have witnessed the best of business men and women and judges say, "If only all people could have the chance for such a spiritual journey."
You should choose addiction for your expertise Tera. We are the light now.
Women are big in this area and in biology.
Re: Double Standards
"What are the chances of men walking down the street getting murdered by a woman compared to a man?"
wimin dissect their ex's in the Family Law Courts to a lingering death of eternal peonage payment taking care to deny him access to his own kids
Re: Double Standards
their is a nation of dis-possed ex husbands on the USA paying their peonage dues to their succubus
- 24th-June-2008 #8
Re: Double Standards
Tera asks:men inflict violence upon each other far more often than they do toward women....and more men die because of other men...why aren't men addressing those issues?
Men have been containing the violence of CRIMINAL men for hundreds of years if not thousands. And you ask when are we going to address the issue? Are you serious? !
There has been an expolsion of accusation against innocent men going on for a generation now. The police, including the legions of women who now are in the police forces of all western countries have led the charge against these innocents, leaving the criminals to get on increasing their mayhem.
In Victoria, Oz a few years back we had a gang war. The gangsters themselves did what the police were not able to. They went on a killing spree, reducing their own criminal population. The police were too busy breaking down doors of innocent men accused of DV by lying women out to get a free friggin' ride.
The crims contract 'fee' rose to $140,000 a hit. Frankly I would advocate putting a bounty on violent crims, say $50.000, and let anyone do it and collect. It is cheaper than paying for cops to sit on their arses waiting for a DV call out.
Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum
Love the Sinner but not the Sin.
“ For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. “
(and within ourselves)
(Ephesians 6:12 (KJV)
A Feminist is a human being who has lost her way and turned vicious.
If you meet one on the road as you Go your Own Way,
offer kindness but keep your sword drawn.
- 24th-June-2008 #9
Re: Double Standards
The police are PC. And you know that too. The contracts the gangs take are as simple as $1,000.
Your wonderful days of men at war are gone. And the longer there is no war, the longer they are gone.
I never wanted you to go to war and I saw my friends fathers after war BTW.
- 24th-June-2008 #10
Re: Double Standards
BTW, I really hate to show the great Percy up. He is a man who has spent decades against feminism.
And of course our policemen in Australia are what men considered worth while.
I am just astounded really. But I just can't bring myself to show what really goes on.
Fuck, I hate this BS. Dreading the fact that I write this, I will do it in the best interest of the MRM. The cops in Victoria are .... please let me clear my throat.... please just bear with me while I miss a few heart beats saying these wonderful words....
Oh this is just killing me. ...
Oh, fuck,. oh shit.,....
OK, OK, OK, I will say it.
The Victorians cops are good guys.
BTW, I didn't say whose good guys they are.
You may also enjoy reading the following threads, why not give them a try?
- By gaynorbarry in forum Discrimination & Sexist Double StandardsReplies: 4Last Post: 1st-October-2009, 09:27 PM
- By Feckless in forum Discrimination & Sexist Double StandardsReplies: 19Last Post: 5th-July-2008, 02:03 PM
- By KellyMac in forum Discrimination & Sexist Double StandardsReplies: 29Last Post: 11th-March-2008, 11:30 AM
- By Rebadow in forum Discrimination & Sexist Double StandardsReplies: 1Last Post: 29th-July-2006, 05:08 PM