Post: #26

I would only support it if home economics are taught to girls at school. Else I'd much rather home-school my future daughter. And I'm not sending her to university, big waste of money for what, lots of brainwashing and getting dicked around?

Rather, she can get my money to spend on getting as many books and training courses as she needs. I am all for learning, not an "education".

Post: #27

I really didn't expect the way some people have replied in this thread, laced with a tone of character accusation when the purpose was clearly to stimulate an honest discussion in precisely what the title says:
What role should education have for women?

Perhaps I'd gotten a bit complacent in assuming this is the right place for orthodoxy-free debate and discussion; quite taken-aback actually.

(12-07-2016 10:50 AM)Suits Wrote:  That's the funny thing about 18 year old women. They're considered adults in any country worth mentioning and don't actually need their father's permission to go to college.

I would've been disappointed if this thread hadn't received its dose of Suits snark. Frankly though I'm a little disappointed I didn't get the full image + tagline service.

I guess you could interpret "send" as "mail to in a cage" if you wanted to white-knight. But most people would interpret it as "finance, encourage, and support that they go".

I have these extra questions, if you please:
- What was the approx total debt they incurred?
- Was their marrying within 2 months of graduating the norm and typical case?
- Could they have been dedicated mothers and committed wives, and found husbands, had they not gone to college and spent that money?
- Has that money, interest adjusted, paid itself back?
- Could they have been doing something else equally fulfilling and cheaper during those 3 or 4 years?

(12-07-2016 02:05 PM)LINUX Wrote:  I didn't give any insight because I don't like to argue about stuff like this.

Yes, you just wanted to virtue signal, which is why you've deliberately interpreted the thread question "What role should education have for women?" as "Phoenix wants to ban education for women". This thread was never about getting agreement, in the same way Roosh's "stop rape" article wasn't. It's to encourage discussion on the question it explicitly stated. What role should education have for women?

(12-07-2016 02:05 PM)LINUX Wrote:  Men are always afraid of things they can't control.

That's one reason certain cultures (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal) frown upon women being educated.

And uneducated woman with an uneducated skillset is forced to live a life of servitude, begging the husband not to find someone else because she is unable to survive alone.

Should a woman become educated outside of elementary school isn't a good question compared to "Why do some men not want women to become educated?"

That's a very good question that requires introspection.

And most of the answers to that question have nothing to do with what's best for her, rather what's best for the man who is asking it.

You can't only have two pills guys. 16.7 million color combinations out there and that wouldn't even begin to touch the surface. And sometimes good question lead to better questions and not every question has an answer due to being unaware of the future and all the different variables that can unfold.

And I take all of that personally. I ask this question, to re-evaluate the role of education in women's lives, and you dismiss it lump me in with the Afghans and Pakistanis for asking it? That I need to stop that and take introspection?

Perhaps you are the one who should take introspection, Sir. Are you perhaps projecting this desire to white knight to make up for the way you yourself have treated women? Because you've not been so chaste of any involvement in controlling women, have you? When you were hanging up those fake MRI pictures, claiming you're a neurosurgeon, being on a vasectomy and busting inside those women and saying you're doing it to get them pregnant so you can start a family with them. That you'll then live together in a nice house, telling that to those poor women who's dream is to attain that future. Were you not controlling them too with your fraudulent lying, to better allow you to consume them as a leisure product?

Perhaps you should consider how you've rendered your own will-to-power and if that has been a net long-term benefit to women, before you accuse me and my thoughts of being detrimental to them.

Coming into my honest thought-provoking thread and implying I'm like an Afghan. That my ultimate intent in this question is to control a women like property instead of guide a daughter towards the best life she can have. Fucking disgusting. Absolutely fucking disgusting.

Post: #28

I agree with Phoenix and Cadders.

Nobody said anything about women not being allowed to go to school. The question was "should they." And traditionally, the answer was generally "no."

Also, I don't think anyone wants to "keep women dumb" or anything like that. Kaotic, I don't think your daughter will be "dumb as rocks" if she doesn't attend college. If anything, going to college would make your daughter dumber by brainwashing her into feminism.

Post: #29

@Phoenix

Mate.

In all fairness the question for your poll was "Should women attend high-school / secondary-school?".

What other way would that be taken?

If you had just posted what you had posted in the OP with a more nuanced question rather than if they should be allowed to attend high school or not you would have been fine.

Not to mention this has been done since the end of the Industrial Revolution mind you. That thought process would have even been abnormal 50-70 years ago if not more.

Post: #30

It should be interpreted, literally. According to the plain meaning of the words.

Example: "Should I buy a ticket?". That means "is it a good idea that I buy a ticket", or "is it required that I buy a ticket", or "is it best that I buy a ticket", or "ought I buy a ticket?".

Example: "Should beach-goers wear sun cream?". That means "if someone were to go to the beach, is it best they wear sun cream or not?", or "is it wise for them to wear sun cream", or more commonly "should they wear sun cream"?

Any colouring of the plain meaning of those words is nothing other than the reader projecting onto the sentence what he wants it to mean rather than what it actually means.

The OP also states the poll is an example question within the topic, and that question is also clear in that it says high-school, not education. Education is not school. School is only a type of educational institution, and its the one I specifically single out in the OP and the poll question. On education, I only ask what form education should take and how much there should be, not whether education should happen at all. There is no path, through the plain reading of my OP, to legitimize the way several posters have responded to me in this thread.

A thread shouldn't be an excuse to say whatever you want without regard to honestly reading the OP. If one wants to do that one can post it in the lounge or the delete thread. They can take part in the discussion of "What role should education have for women?" or stay out of the thread.

Post: #31

How do you expect your wife to be capable of educating your children if she herself is not educated?

Post: #32

Post: #33

(12-07-2016 09:30 PM)Mr. Accuride Wrote:  How do you expect your wife to be capable of educating your children if she herself is not educated?

Read the OP. Don't jump to slam fingers on your keyboard. Read the words, understand what is actually written, and then respond.

(12-07-2016 09:36 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

Nobody, especially a hypocrite who hasn't even read the OP before taking the excuse to jump on his guilt-driven white-knight soap box, is calling me an Afghan and a woman controller without getting called out on his bullshit.

Post: #34

Yes. A good high school education will equip you for the real world. I think algebra, for example, is necessary, and most kids begin to learn the basics of algebra in their first year of high school. But education beyond high school definitely isn't necessary. Not to mention should you have kids they will be able to help your children with any homework.

Post: #35

So meaning should women be allowed to go to high school and/or its equivalent? Which atleast means that basic math and reading skills are all that a woman should learn up till the age of 13 if someone answered no. As that's commonly what's taught up until middle school. No Home Economics or other courses that a woman should learn after that if the answer no is selected as well. There is no other meaning besides that in a yes or no context and that possibility being considered.

If anything I didn't expect you of all people to hamster about that within that context. It's fairly clear what that question entails, atleast for those that answered no.

And even if I don't read the OP that poll question should scream the intent of what's in the OP. Whoever started this thread clearly wanted that question to be considered. Perhaps less than the OP, but nonetheless considered.

And on my thoughts on said topic.

Unequivocally yes. Including a Home Economics class for women. And a proper etiquette course(think table manners, how to dress/act in a professional or formal event, etc.) for both sexes. The reason for that being that the purpose of high school/other secondary education institutions is to instill advanced reasoning skills beyond simply the ability to read, write, and do basic math as well as personal curiosity.

They fail miserably at this, but that should be intention even if it isn't. I deal with enough charmless and generally dull women as it is don't want any more.

Post: #36

(12-07-2016 09:56 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  So meaning should women be allowed to go to high school and/or its equivalent?

Unbelievable...

I won't even respond to that directly, I'll just apply your level of English comprehension (and that's a US flag right?) to the above example sentences.

Example: "Should I buy a ticket?". That means "is it a good idea that I buy a ticket", or "is it required that I buy a ticket", or "is it best that I buy a ticket", or "ought I buy a ticket?".
CDSG => which means "should I be allowed to buy a ticket", "is it allowable that I buy a ticket", "ought I be permitted to buy a ticket?".

Example: "Should beach-goers wear sun cream?". That means "if someone were to go to the beach, is it best they wear sun cream or not?", or "is it wise for them to wear sun cream", or more commonly "should they wear sun cream"?
CDSG => which means "should people be allowed to wear sun cream on the beach", "should wearing sun cream be permitted?".

Perhaps when Suits comes back he can give you an English lesson, before you call me a hamster again.

Post: #37

(12-07-2016 10:03 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:56 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  So meaning should women be allowed to go to high school and/or its equivalent?

Unbelievable...

I won't even respond to that directly, I'll just apply your level of English comprehension (and that's a US flag right?) to the above example sentences.

Example: "Should I buy a ticket?". That means "is it a good idea that I buy a ticket", or "is it required that I buy a ticket", or "is it best that I buy a ticket", or "ought I buy a ticket?".
CDSG => which means "should I be allowed to buy a ticket", "is it allowable that I buy a ticket", "ought I be permitted to buy a ticket?".

Example: "Should beach-goers wear sun cream?". That means "if someone were to go to the beach, is it best they wear sun cream or not?", or "is it wise for them to wear sun cream", or more commonly "should they wear sun cream"?
CDSG => which means "should people be allowed to wear sun cream on the beach", "should wearing sun cream be permitted?".

Perhaps when Suits can come back he can give you an English lesson, before you call me a hamster again.

English isn't even my first language yet it appears I know about what the connotation of words are or not unlike you. Because as it looks like I'm not the only one interpreting those words as what I stated above and even in your own damned context. Lets rearrange some words shall we.

"if someone were to go to the beach, is it best they wear sun cream or not?"

"if high schools schools and/or their equivalent exist, is it best for women to go to them or not?"

"is it wise for them to wear sun cream?"

"is it wise for women to go to high schools and/or their equivalent?"

The connotation isn't lost on anyone with a brain.

I didn't even attack your line of thinking as being on this forum has a certain ideological bent and by that bent I knew what you intended for this thread to be. But if I had looked at that question as it was. You know perfectly well what it means.

But enough with that. I don't feel like arguing semantics with someone who doesn't even want to admit their own mistakes.

Post: #38

From the OP, you say you are having dificulty linking long term success to school in any way whatsoever.

What ways exactly did you try?

A simple google search of female CEO's, engineers, and any other high level position would tell you they all went to school. The reason people are taking your post this way is because you say you have tried something, but don't say how or present any evidence of trying, and frankly it doesn't seem you have tried at all since a trivial amount of effort will give you the link you claim you cannot find.

You can't call families disgraceful for allowing daughters to attend college without presenting some semblence of a position why, which you did not. You just claimed you tried to find a link, couldn't, and thats all. Didn't even address the opposing argument, just went straight to namecalling families "disgraceful". Thats why you are catching flack.

Post: #39

I think women in school school is less of an issue than women in the workforce, since the vast majority of women only attend school due to social pressure and to obtain credentials for employment. Completely do away with affirmative action and sex-based hiring quotas and the reality is that women simply would not be economically or socially competitive with men for most jobs. There is then much less incentive for women to seek out educational credentials through schooling, with most instead opting to get married and become mothers. The small percentage of women who are able to compete evenly with men would not need affirmative action and could hold their own without it. And obviously there would still be strong female representation in traditionally feminine jobs like nursing, teaching, childcare and so on. But most women would rather be supported by a man and start popping out children around 18, and they (and society as a whole) would be better for it.

Post: #40

Personally, here in the US I think most women would rather party their entire 20s and hook up with random alphas than settle down with a man and have babies. Sure they will regret it later, but most women hitting 18 in Westernized countries do not want to settle down. I do agree that society would be better if this were not the case.

Post: #41

(12-07-2016 09:20 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  @Phoenix

Mate.

In all fairness the question for your poll was "Should women attend high-school / secondary-school?".

What other way would that be taken?

If you had just posted what you had posted in the OP with a more nuanced question rather than if they should be allowed to attend high school or not you would have been fine.

Not to mention this has been done since the end of the Industrial Revolution mind you. That thought process would have even been abnormal 50-70 years ago if not more.

It's times like this where the intellect of the manosphere can be overstated, and one needs to deliver a KISS wording to avoid any deviation from the intent. Not to say that we're on the same level as the ROK/BB Forums crowd, but even on RVF, our views on womens' role in society run the gamut from "a curtailing of the worst excesses of feminism" to a more hardline "women should be banned from setting foot outside the household" belief that would make hardcore Taliban clerics blush. Like it or not, vive la difference.

The corollary, yes it's easy to conflate "should XYZ partake in ABC?" as "Should we ban XYZ from partaking in ABC?" (or in debating parlance, "This House Would prevent XYZ from partaking in ABC." Irrespective of the fact that there is a clear and definite line between the two proposals, it's pretty understandable to have taken the former in the context of the latter. No deliberate putting of words in Phoenix's mouth. Even though Phoenix isn't necessarily one of the more extreme manospherians, the nature of the 'sphere would suggest that both ideas would become confused when brought up for discussion.

I personally took a little while to see the distinction, though secretly I was hoping it'd be the other intent, not out of some streak of Schadenfreude, but because this is one of those women's issues I was interested in seeing the 'sphere have a say in, along the classic ones like Female doctors which was important enough for Johnbozzzzz to dupe, and the women in careers thread.

Post: #42

(12-07-2016 10:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  I think women in school school is less of an issue than women in the workforce, since the vast majority of women only attend school due to social pressure and to obtain credentials for employment. Completely do away with affirmative action and sex-based hiring quotas and the reality is that women simply would not be economically or socially competitive with men for most jobs. There is then much less incentive for women to seek out educational credentials through schooling, with most instead opting to get married and become mothers. The small percentage of women who are able to compete evenly with men would not need affirmative action and could hold their own without it. And obviously there would still be strong female representation in traditionally feminine jobs like nursing, teaching, childcare and so on. But most women would rather be supported by a man and start popping out children around 18, and they (and society as a whole) would be better for it.

I disagree with the bolded statement. Girls who go to co-ed high schools and colleges (i.e. the vast majority of girls) usually end up delaying marriage and having flings with guys in the meantime. That is a bigger overall problem for society than women in the workforce.

Plus, girls don't really learn anything useful in school, aside from basic reading, writing, and arithmetic (which you can teach them yourself). Not to mention all the feminist bullshit they would be brainwashed with in high school and college. On the other hand, when women go into the workforce, at least they are being productive in one way or another. They're obviously not as productive as men, but at least they're doing something that contributes to society. The reason why women didn't work throughout most of history is because being a housewife was a full-time job. Clothes and diapers had to be washed by hand, and in many cases sewn by hand as well. In face, all housework had to be done by hand and was time-consuming. Cooking and childcare were also a woman's responsibility. Women had no time to work. Nowadays, lots of housework (like laundry and dish-washing) is automated, and clothes are affordable to buy at the store. A woman who doesn't work will be home all day and get bored and unproductive at home while her children are in school.

I do agree that women should not waste their child-bearing years on pursuing a full-time career. Just because a woman decides to fulfill her natural calling to reproduce from a young age doesn't make her dumb. In fact, it makes her smart. Child-bearing years are a non-renewable resource, and the older a woman, the more likely the child will be mentally retarded, Down syndrome, or fucked up in some other way.

Post: #43

Post: #44

(12-07-2016 09:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  I really didn't expect the way some people have replied in this thread....

Is this thread not going in the direction you were hoping for?

(12-07-2016 09:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 10:50 AM)Suits Wrote:  That's the funny thing about 18 year old women. They're considered adults in any country worth mentioning and don't actually need their father's permission to go to college.

I would've been disappointed if this thread hadn't received its dose of Suits snark. Frankly though I'm a little disappointed I didn't get the full image + tagline service.

Better?



All jokes aside, I agree this is a valid discussion. I just found the some of the phrasing rather unusual. We've had a few threads that featured discussions about what we would "allow" our daughters to do and I think all of these topics would be better served if we did use more realistic terminology such as "support" or "finance."

It's one thing to have a conversation with guys that you personally know, but on a forum like this where some members absolutely refuse to meet other members, it's probably best to be specific in what we write.

There are guys who live in an aspergery world where when they say they plan to refuse to allow their non-existent future daughter to do something, they literally mean that they plan to refuse to allow their non-existent future daughter to do something.

There was a guy a little while back who was literally vowing to force his non-existent autistic daughter to date only men with on the autism spectrum.

I'm fairly certain he was serious.

(12-07-2016 09:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  I have these extra questions, if you please:
- What was the approx total debt they incurred?

I don't know the actually number, but they were both debt free within a year of graduating.

(12-07-2016 09:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  - Was their marrying within 2 months of graduating the norm and typical case?

While not unheard of, it definitely wasn't the norm.

(12-07-2016 09:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  - Could they have been dedicated mothers and committed wives, and found husbands, had they not gone to college and spent that money?

Unlikely. Their husbands wanted educated women who had experiences and could handle an intelligent conversation. Neither of my sisters would have developed into the desirable women that they are without the college experience. They simply wouldn't have been exposed to the people and experiences that they needed to grow.

(12-07-2016 09:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  - Has that money, interest adjusted, paid itself back?

Absolutely.

(12-07-2016 09:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  - Could they have been doing something else equally fulfilling and cheaper during those 3 or 4 years?

In theory, yes, but without the wisdom that comes with age, they wouldn't have been aware of the opportunities that potentially existed.

Also, by choosing to go to a school that matched their beliefs, they increased their chances of finding a suitable mate significantly. I'm fairly sure that if they hadn't pursued a post-secondary education, they would have wasted their time on unfulfilling jobs and either failed to find a dependable lifelong mate or ultimately been disappointed by their choices and either chose someone that didn't fit what they were looking for or simply remained unmarried.

As well, my older sister had a specific career objective in mind, which would have been impossible without going to and graduating with a 4-year degree. In purely numeric terms, I'm not sure about the value of her degree, considering that she become a full-time mother after only working 5 years total following graduation, but the personal development that both the school education and the work experience offered was absolutely indispensable to her personal development and has led to her being a more satisfying and helpful mate for her husband.

Post: #45

Some think women shouldn't be allowed to attend university?

But I love university sluts!

Same opportunities as men, but do away with quotas and let the cream - regardless of whether said cream has a dick or a pussy - rise to the top.

Post: #46

(12-07-2016 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  All jokes aside, I agree this is a valid discussion. I just found the some of the phrasing rather unusual. We've had a few threads that featured discussions about what we would "allow" our daughters to do and I think all of these topics would be better served if we did use more realistic terminology such as "support" or "finance."

(12-07-2016 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  There was a guy a little while back who was literally vowing to force his non-existent autistic daughter to date only men with on the autism spectrum.

Well, as long as your daughter is under 18, you still have custody over her (assuming you and the girl's mother are together). You don't have to allow her to do anything you don't want. After she turns 18, she is legally her own person, but if you raised her right and she respects you, she will be far more likely to listen to you. Kids who have been raised right (i.e. traditional home, etc.) and love and respect their parents don't just turn 18 and begin ignoring their parents and going against what they've been taught.

Of course, saying you will only let your daughter date autistic men is retarded, but I think it is perfectly fine to say you won't allow your daughter to date casually, and you will only allow her to consider marriage to men you approve of. This was the norm in pretty much all patriarchal societies. Just because most men are failing in their job as guardian of their daughters' sexuality doesn't mean you have to be like them.

Post: #47

(12-07-2016 11:55 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  All jokes aside, I agree this is a valid discussion. I just found the some of the phrasing rather unusual. We've had a few threads that featured discussions about what we would "allow" our daughters to do and I think all of these topics would be better served if we did use more realistic terminology such as "support" or "finance."

(12-07-2016 11:34 PM)Suits Wrote:  There was a guy a little while back who was literally vowing to force his non-existent autistic daughter to date only men with on the autism spectrum.

Well, as long as your daughter is under 18, you still have custody over her (assuming you and the girl's mother are together). You don't have to allow her to do anything you don't want. After she turns 18, she is legally her own person, but if you raised her right and she respects you, she will be far more likely to listen to you. Kids who have been raised right (i.e. traditional home, etc.) and love and respect their parents don't just turn 18 and begin ignoring their parents and going against what they've been taught.

Of course, saying you will only let your daughter date autistic men is retarded, but I think it is perfectly fine to say you won't allow your daughter to date casually, and you will only allow her to consider marriage to men you approve of. This was the norm in pretty much all patriarchal societies. Just because most men are failing in their job as guardian of their daughters' sexuality doesn't mean you have to be like them.

Post: #48

(12-07-2016 09:16 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Also, I don't think anyone wants to "keep women dumb" or anything like that.

I'm very encouraging to the women in my life. I always try to find the silver lining.

(12-07-2016 09:29 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  "Should beach-goers wear sun cream?".

Is that how the British say it? I've only heard sun screen, sun block, or suntan lotion (slightly different I think). I'm too white not to use SPF 50. Team Banana Boat.

Post: #49

I believe that women should be free to attend if they want, but with 1 limitation: NO LOAN possible for non-STEM majors.

Post: #50

(12-08-2016 01:32 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  I believe that women should be free to attend if they want, but with 1 limitation: NO LOAN possible for non-STEM majors.

I'd take it a step further for both men and women. Either no loans for non-marketable degrees or additional scholarships and subsidies for marketable degrees. I say marketable vs. STEM because I'm not sure if you include various business or law degrees in that category.

I always tell the bern-outs I come across that college should be free if you are actually going to contribute to society after graduation or just serve up coffee and draw little hearts in the foam with your gender studies degree.