Post: #26

(07-12-2012 12:55 PM)kosko Wrote:  Romney and Obama are the same. This shit would of happen if him, or Romney were in office. These men are nothing more than puppets once in the oval office.

Wake up.

Wake up?

The two parties have changed some in the past 40 years.

This much I'm sure of: Obama didn't give a fuck about my demographic when he got elected into office. He could care less about my vote.

This has just crossed the line. Where are young non-URM male students suppose to go? They should go to India to study? Freedom to the pursuit of happiness...for some.

I will give Romney my vote because I couldn't bear to vote for someone who doesn't give a fuck about young men who could be the future engineers of this country.

Post: #27

Are we still 25th in the world in education?

What makes this move so ironic is that the US always says "RUH-ROH! We're not smartest in the world!!!!1 WE GOTS TO ROO ROMETHING RAGGY!"

And then they just strip education from guys wanting to get into STEM.

Oh well. I wish they had Vermin Supreme running instead of these two guys. At least he says weird shit and knows it!

Post: #28

@kosko

I am well aware of the financial interests controlling America politically and I have seen that George Carlin video countless times. You are preaching to the choir. I do not support either party and like I said I will probably vote third party. I would actually recommend that instead of not voting.

Here is a cool video for you to check out if you haven't seen it. It is Aaron Russo, who shot a documentary called America Freedom to Fascism, before he passed away. In this short clip he talks about befriending Nick Rockefeller and what was told to him regarding feminism. You'll probably like it:





@jr Illegal immigrants are bankrupting many states due to the welfare system, lack of health insurance, not paying property tax, not paying automobile insurance, etc. and this gets spun by the politically correct faction (you) to mean Republicans are racist. Take a look at California for an example of what I mean by bankrupt. Does the republican party have racist white people in it? Yes. Do the democrats have racist black and hispanic people in the party? Yes.

Now which of the two parties is playing the race card for the political advantage of particular races and sexes? Democrats want to create privileged classes of citizens which extra rights and privileges - just look at affirmative action, diversion of funds for feminist interests, and pandering to minority groups and illegal immigrants. Is Romney proposing special placement in jobs for white people? No. The opposite is true of Obama and affirmative action. Marxism is his ideology, BOTH cultural and political. JR, if you support affirmative action, then you support racism.

Here is a video of Obama speaking to the National Council of La Raza. La Raza means "the race" and is an organization that seeks to divide Americans, based upon racial lines, and advocate special rights for hispanics. Their motto is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada," which translates to "For the race, everthing. Outside the race, nothing." A motto which they now seek to deny, but nonetheless is used. As you can deduce they are about as interested in "equality" as feminists.





What would happen if Romney pandered by speaking to the KKK? You would lose your shit, but if Obama panders to La Raza, it's okay. He's black.

Who is campaigning on the fact that there is a war on women? It is not Romney and the republicans. Now they are forced to respond to that, however, because Obama and the cultural marxist democrats originated it.

NOW and other feminist groups endorse Obama, expect more in the second term

From the article:

“I, as the president of the Feminist Majority am announcing that we are endorsing President Obama and Vice President Biden,” Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal said at the press conference. “We have compared the records of the Obama/Biden ticket and of Mr. Romney and it is a stunning comparison… with, obviously the Obama ticket favoring and pushing into the future equality for women, the other wanting to roll back the gains.”

Here is what Romney has to say:





See the difference? Both parties may be corrupt, but democrats are the the ones pushing the economic and cultural marxist (politically correct) line - as I said before it is the parties raison d'être, and they no longer are the democratic party of FDR and JFK.

Now do I trust Romney? No. I think he will be beholden to corporate interests. I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. If you vote democrat, however, you need to know what you are voting for.

Post: #29

(07-12-2012 03:16 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Now which of the two parties is playing the race card for the political advantage of particular races and sexes?

Both.

Post: #30

(07-12-2012 03:20 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 03:16 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Now which of the two parties is playing the race card for the political advantage of particular races and sexes?

Both.

How do you figure? Please list specifics.

Edit: After all J.R. earlier you said:

"At this point, when it comes to political correctness, the only difference between the two parties is that Democrats pander to the self-righteous indignation of women and minorities, while the Republicans pander to the populist white crowd who want to blame everything on brown people."

So how is Romney going to grant white people and men special benefits and privileges? I don't see it. I have just listed example after example of how Obama and democrats do just that. In fact this whole thread is about this administrations department of education wanting to put quotas on men in education.

Post: #31

Goddammit, how did this become another Obama bashing thread? WTF???

Post: #32

(07-12-2012 03:29 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 03:20 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 03:16 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Now which of the two parties is playing the race card for the political advantage of particular races and sexes?

Both.

How do you figure? Please list specifics.

I'm a little tired of race and politics threads, so I'm just going to sign off on this one. I'll only say, if you can't see the way that certain members of the right use all sorts of dog whistles to blame all of America's problems on brown people, then you're not paying attention.

Post: #33

Spoken like a true politically correct adherent, j.r. I don't blame you for giving up, you never had a foundation for your case in the first place. What you have just said is the equivalent of a feminist saying "if you can't see men oppress women you are not paying attention."

Post: #34

And in other news, cheering crowds of young men enrolled in technical schools in India spontaneously erupted.

Post: #35

(07-12-2012 03:30 PM)dragnet Wrote:  Goddammit, how did this become another Obama bashing thread? WTF???

We are speaking about Obama because:

"The United States Secretary of Education is the head of the Department of Education. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet, and 16th in line of United States presidential line of succession. The United States Secretary of Education deals with Education policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat..._Education

Who else should we be talking about?

Here is a picture of the Secretary of Education that Obama appointed. His name is Arne Duncan. You tell me, alpha or beta?

Post: #36

(07-12-2012 03:48 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Spoken like a true politically correct adherent, j.r. I don't blame you for giving up, you never had a foundation for your case in the first place. What you have just said is the equivalent of a feminist saying "if you can't see men oppress women you are not paying attention."

As a matter of fact, some men do oppress women. And, likewise, some women are useless cunts who expect something for nothing. The world is complicated like that.

Post: #37

Quotas are unconstitutional. As usual, people do not read statutes. Here is a link to the text of Title IX: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

20 U.S.C. 1681 (b) states:

"Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other area: Provided, that this subsection shall not be construed to prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex."

Notwithstanding the general hostility to boys in education, and in view of the text of the statute (and I will caveat this by saying I am not an expert in Civil Rights law), how does the statute allow for quotas?

Post: #38

(07-12-2012 04:07 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 03:48 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Spoken like a true politically correct adherent, j.r. I don't blame you for giving up, you never had a foundation for your case in the first place. What you have just said is the equivalent of a feminist saying "if you can't see men oppress women you are not paying attention."

As a matter of fact, some men do oppress women. And, likewise, some women are useless cunts who expect something for nothing. The world is complicated like that.

Well one party is devoted to giving special rights and privileges to minorities and women at tax payer expense - the democrats. There may be some bigoted republicans out there, but are they trying to create biased opportunities for white people or fund and create legislation favoring men? That's the difference.

Post: #39

(07-12-2012 04:19 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 04:07 PM)j r Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 03:48 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Spoken like a true politically correct adherent, j.r. I don't blame you for giving up, you never had a foundation for your case in the first place. What you have just said is the equivalent of a feminist saying "if you can't see men oppress women you are not paying attention."

As a matter of fact, some men do oppress women. And, likewise, some women are useless cunts who expect something for nothing. The world is complicated like that.

Well one party is devoted to giving special rights and privileges to minorities and women at tax payer expense - the democrats. There may be some bigoted republicans out there, but are they trying to create biased opportunities for white people or fund and create legislation favoring men? That's the difference.

Open a history book, dude. This country was founded on giving special rights for white people and legislation favoring men. And that's not political correctness; that's just plain historical fact.

Post: #40

I'll believe this when I see it actually implemented. There is a difference between urging schools to actively encourage women to go into STEM fields and restricting men from going into those fields via quotas. I do not believe in some massive conspiracy to prevent men from majoring in STEM fields. The seats are available, it is just that a lot of (non Asian) Americans aren't taking the opportunity.

I don't even see how they could do it in most schools for anything other than an engineering department. For all the schools I went to, switching majors in the college of arts and science (where math, bio, chem, physics, and sometimes computer science are located) was simply a matter of filling out a form and taking the classes.

Second, I am in graduate school for a STEM major right now. The bulk of the folks in my field are Asian (probably 60-70%). Then there are some white men, then there is me. I've had classes where there wasn't a single non-Asian woman. I'm looking at pursuing either another master's or perhaps a doctorate later. Again, both options are packed with Asians (mostly men, but some women). Even amongst the whites I see in these graduate programs, a huge number of them are Eastern European immigrants. Like I said, non-Asian Americans, of any gender, just are not choosing these fields in huge numbers.

What I am worried about is that folks will use this as some bullshit excuse as to why they never majored in a STEM subject, and are instead working as an assistant barista at Starbucks.

Post: #41

ps - You're talking to someone who has never cast a vote for a Democrat in his life. Until a dew years ago, I would have had no problem identifying as a Republican. Then, however, I realized that this whole two-party system is just about pitting one group against another, while the same shit happens.

Post: #42

This is revolting, but how likely is it actually going to happen? I can imagine that the opposition would be immense from various sides. The whole concept is simply idiotic and detrimental to US economy and competitiveness. We have a shortage of IT workers and now we would drastically limit the enrollment into these fields? Only 17% of CS majors are women, reason being that the vast majority of women simply don't want to do it or are not talented in this area. Let's say we want to bring it to 50/50, I doubt that more women would jump in - result could be that we could have only 1/3 of CS enrollment from present (already too low) levels. Done by artificial quotas. Are you fucking kidding me?

I found this critical article written by a executive director of a conservative feminist organization:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabrina-sc...06715.html

Anybody has some sources from a more mainstream sources? I just don't believe this would get passed. It would be close to a political suicide for anybody pushing it. The republicans would eat democrats alive for this.

Post: #43

(07-12-2012 04:27 PM)joehoya Wrote:  I'll believe this when I see it actually implemented. There is a difference between urging schools to actively encourage women to go into STEM fields and restricting men from going into those fields via quotas. I do not believe in some massive conspiracy to prevent men from majoring in STEM fields. The seats are available, it is just that a lot of (non Asian) Americans aren't taking the opportunity.

I don't even see how they could do it in most schools for anything other than an engineering department. For all the schools I went to, switching majors in the college of arts and science (where math, bio, chem, physics, and sometimes computer science are located) was simply a matter of filling out a form and taking the classes.

Second, I am in graduate school for a STEM major right now. The bulk of the folks in my field are Asian (probably 60-70%). Then there are some white men, then there is me. I've had classes where there wasn't a single non-Asian woman. I'm looking at pursuing either another master's or perhaps a doctorate later. Again, both options are packed with Asians (mostly men, but some women). Even amongst the whites I see in these graduate programs, a huge number of them are Eastern European immigrants. Like I said, non-Asian Americans, of any gender, just are not choosing these fields in huge numbers.

What I am worried about is that folks will use this as some bullshit excuse as to why they never majored in a STEM subject, and are instead working as an assistant barista at Starbucks.

It's not just STEM. I took a test for a finance certification and 50 percent of the people taking the test were Asian. It's weird to see that many Chinese people randomly together in one place.

Post: #44

(07-12-2012 04:27 PM)joehoya Wrote:  I'll believe this when I see it actually implemented. There is a difference between urging schools to actively encourage women to go into STEM fields and restricting men from going into those fields via quotas. I do not believe in some massive conspiracy to prevent men from majoring in STEM fields. The seats are available, it is just that a lot of (non Asian) Americans aren't taking the opportunity.

I don't even see how they could do it in most schools for anything other than an engineering department. For all the schools I went to, switching majors in the college of arts and science (where math, bio, chem, physics, and sometimes computer science are located) was simply a matter of filling out a form and taking the classes.

Second, I am in graduate school for a STEM major right now. The bulk of the folks in my field are Asian (probably 60-70%). Then there are some white men, then there is me. I've had classes where there wasn't a single non-Asian woman. I'm looking at pursuing either another master's or perhaps a doctorate later. Again, both options are packed with Asians (mostly men, but some women). Even amongst the whites I see in these graduate programs, a huge number of them are Eastern European immigrants. Like I said, non-Asian Americans, of any gender, just are not choosing these fields in huge numbers.

What I am worried about is that folks will use this as some bullshit excuse as to why they never majored in a STEM subject, and are instead working as an assistant barista at Starbucks.

Yes, exactly, good points. I don't believe it either. Simply not going to happen.

Post: #45

I wonder if I should still be set on studying CS in America in a few years

Post: #46

(07-12-2012 04:28 PM)j r Wrote:  ps - You're talking to someone who has never cast a vote for a Democrat in his life. Until a dew years ago, I would have had no problem identifying as a Republican. Then, however, I realized that this whole two-party system is just about pitting one group against another, while the same shit happens.

At least we can agree that neither of us support the party system as it stands.

(07-12-2012 04:25 PM)j r Wrote:  Open a history book, dude. This country was founded on giving special rights for white people and legislation favoring men. And that's not political correctness; that's just plain historical fact.

So what are you saying? Instead of everyone being equal now we should do the opposite and give special rights to minorities and create legislation favoring women? That seems to be what you are defending.

Post: #47

If Obama's agenda is to encourage females to go for STEM majors this is a stupid way of doing it.

People generally choose their college majors out of their interests and their self-confidence not because the government allows more people to go in them.

Teaching mathematics at an elementary and high-school level, I found the following things that matter if you want to encourage a student (male or female) to get into STEM majors:
-engaging curriculum, lessons, and sound pedagogical approaches
-subject matter standards that are specific and carefully planned by experts or practitioners
-supportive school, classroom, and home environments
-supportive professional development of teachers
-less emphasis on standardized testing

but no...

Bush Jr's No Child Left Behind is still alive and kept alive by Obama's Race to the Top educational policies via the Dept. of Education which undermine the things I mentioned above.

Post: #48

(07-12-2012 04:05 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(07-12-2012 03:30 PM)dragnet Wrote:  Goddammit, how did this become another Obama bashing thread? WTF???

We are speaking about Obama because:

"The United States Secretary of Education is the head of the Department of Education. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet, and 16th in line of United States presidential line of succession. The United States Secretary of Education deals with Education policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat..._Education

Who else should we be talking about?

Here is a picture of the Secretary of Education that Obama appointed. His name is Arne Duncan. You tell me, alpha or beta?

Definitely alpha as they're on the top telling us what to do and doing whatever the fuck they want.

Post: #49

Guys, here's a different perspective:

Could we be alpha (or appear to be) if there weren't so many betas?

What if you were a guy on campus with a 30/70 M-F ratio?

Honestly, if I was granted any power on earth, it would be to be 19 again, going off to college with a ratio like that, knowing what I know now.

Post: #50

(07-12-2012 05:20 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  Guys, here's a different perspective:

Could we be alpha (or appear to be) if there weren't so many betas?

What if you were a guy on campus with a 30/70 M-F ratio?

Honestly, if I was granted any power on earth, it would be to be 19 again, going off to college with a ratio like that, knowing what I know now.

I've said it before, but if I were 18 again, I would SERIOUSLY consider majoring in nursing. The female/male ratio was like 9 to 1. There were a significant number of hotties in the program (higher percentage of hotties than in the College of Arts and Sciences). Also, the last 2 years, the nursing students are almost completely isolated from other students due to their clinical rotation schedule. It would have been a pussy festival.

After that, I would have gotten a tech related masters and started a healthcare informatics company.