[Phoenix]

I've been struggling with this question recently. Pondering the worth of school and the nature of the education system, I've mostly been focused on men, since its relatable to me.

The way I've been trying to re-evaluate what a good education would consist of, is mostly in terms of what maximizes long-term individual success. This is clearly what a parent would want, and what would legitimize schoolwork in the eyes of a student.

But for women I'm having a lot of difficulty trying to link maximum long-term success to school in any way whatsoever.

So I'm tacking on a poll to this thread, as to whether the forum thinks women should attend school at all. I've used high school specifically as the example case.

I can kind of see how early schooling would be fine. Making macaroni pictures and playing with toys all that is just basic early development stuff that helps all infants alike.

I also think a woman attending a university is almost completely unjustifiable, and frankly disgraceful on the part of her family, especially given what that's turned into.

Looking back to historical examples (e.g. Rome), it seems that women being educated in schools was rare, and they were at most educated at home (generally in wealthier families) about how to become good wives & run a household.

Thoughts?

[iknowexactly]

Maybe you should inform the woman who discovered carbon nano-tubes, and one of the people that discovered brain cells can regenerate, they've made a mistake and should have followed your philosophy.

   
Mildred S. Dresselhaus Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, MIT Before her fourth child hit kindergarten, Dresselhaus deciphered the electronic structure of graphite, the lowest-energy solid-state form of carbon. The daunting problem had long scared off other researchers, which is why she chose it: "I wanted to be able to move more slowly, without so much competition." Her other groundbreaking studies contributed to the discovery of buckyballs and carbon nano-tubes.

   

[LINUX]

Disagree 100% Phoenix.

[Space Cowboy]

Women shouldn't go to college? But college chicks are the easiest lays on the face of the earth...

[iknowexactly]

(12-06-2016 09:30 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

Women shouldn't go to college? But college chicks are the easiest lays on the face of the earth...

Excellent point. Now we should have super PRO-CHILD policy so they're not scared to have kids ( extended leave, tax bonuses for keeping the civilization going etc) and we don't have to import fake refugees to keep population level.

[The Man w/ the Golden Gun]

I disagree. I'm sure all of us look at the current state of academia and realize that it doesn't fulfill what it was originally intended to do.

Equally frustrating is that you see meaningless fluff being lauded and established as majors. Thanks for telling me about your degree in genderfluid unicorn tap dancing, I'll have my coffee black.

One of my sorority friends posted about how she needed guys to wear lipstick & take pictures for a project in her "masculinity class." Dear lord. (I've heard it said girls "are looking for the nice guys" so they know who not to fuck. Look no more when you can get a list + photographic evidence!)

Time to put up the "no gurlz allowed" treehouse sign? It's generally true that women go for these fluff majors. However, the one thing about sweeping generalizations is somewhere, someone is going to defy you. IKE already posted examples. Pick a random girl out of a crowd, you can play the odds. Come face to face with an outlier? What were the chances....there should be room available for outliers.

The real problem is that college is touted as "an experience" and "a time to find yourself," and that's a rabbit hole that leads to anywhere from the unkempt basement of a frathouse to signing the papers for your fluff major. So frivolity is okay. Especially when you're helping a chick do her first kegstand.

[MongolianAbroad]

delete

[MMX2010]

I disagree with both Phoenix and IKE, with Ike's posts being so ridiculous I dismiss them as trolling.

Any woman should be able to go to any college she wants, but colleges should be forced to print the truth about female sexual promiscuity, and the exploitive nature of feminism and "rape crisis" centers on their brochures. And, most importantly: no Marxist professors allowed AND no "mandatory humanities / sociology" courses.

Colleges should also not be funded with federal loans, but rather a "3% after tax income, for the rest of your life" rule. That way, if a college teaches shitty material on shitty subjects, it goes bankrupt for doing so.

If colleges weren't flooded with Marxist professors, college females wouldn't independently conclude Marxism is true. And with the true nature of female sexually in print, parents could influence (though not necessarily forbid) their daughters' choice to go to college.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

I refuse to believe that it can be wrong to want to learn, regardless of your gender. All people should be allowed to learn, if they want to.

Of course, a lot of academia no longer actually revolves around education, but that is a separate issue.

I don't think you can make a clear, moral argument at restricting education. Whenever education is restricted, it is because entrenched interests want to protect their power base, and that kind of power always leads to corruption.

I do seriously think that its time to have gender segregated educational systems though. Men ought to go to school to concentrate on their work, and women ought not to go to school to be flaunting themselves. Segregation is the simple answer to this problem.

[cascadecombo]

What next, a suggested application in applied eugenics for the modern age?

[kaotic]

Disagree - it's an idea, sure, it's applicable ? No, not in this day and age. There's no way you could restrict that.

Maybe suggesting daughters to marry a good man out of high school would be the best route maybe, flip side is I don't want my daughter to be intelligent.

Alot of this is catch 22.

[JWLZG]

(12-07-2016 12:44 AM)kaotic Wrote:  

Disagree - it's an idea, sure, it's applicable ? No, not in this day and age. There's no way you could restrict that.

Not even Trump would be able to enforce such a proscription.

(12-06-2016 09:52 PM)The Man w/ the Golden Gun Wrote:  

I disagree. I'm sure all of us look at the current state of academia and realize that it doesn't fulfill what it was originally intended to do.

Equally frustrating is that you see meaningless fluff being lauded and established as majors. Thanks for telling me about your degree in genderfluid unicorn tap dancing, I'll have my coffee black.

One of my sorority friends posted about how she needed guys to wear lipstick & take pictures for a project in her "masculinity class." Dear lord. (I've heard it said girls "are looking for the nice guys" so they know who not to fuck. Look no more when you can get a list + photographic evidence!)

Time to put up the "no gurlz allowed" treehouse sign? It's generally true that women go for these fluff majors. However, the one thing about sweeping generalizations is somewhere, someone is going to defy you. IKE already posted examples. Pick a random girl out of a crowd, you can play the odds. Come face to face with an outlier? What were the chances....there should be room available for outliers.

The real problem is that college is touted as "an experience" and "a time to find yourself," and that's a rabbit hole that leads to anywhere from the unkempt basement of a frathouse to signing the papers for your fluff major. So frivolity is okay. Especially when you're helping a chick do her first kegstand.

The whole issue of bullshit "Bachelor of Attendance" majors is really a phenomenon of the Anglophone countries, stemming from a society where there was never a revolution that overthrew traditional methods of learning. Cf. the dominance of non-metric units of measurements where everywhere else had switched to SI.
This emphasis on a grounding in the Humanities and Classics really lost its way when given too much free reign. It's no surprise that it would predominate among female undergrads in countries where a BA is the default first degree. In continental Europe, Asia, and Latin America, women actually study degrees that have a modicum of professional worth, in general. Not just because they are compelled to due to market forces — which they are — but because a more pragmatic and practical approach to education. Try taking your MA in genderfluid Mayan basket weaving to Germany and they'll have you summarily shot at Customs, let alone allow you to run a merchant bank with it like they would in the UK or USA.

And as much as the average RVFer might be all for full fee-paying tertiary education, it's no surprise that it's those countries where university is either free or heavily subsidised (read: almost everywhere besides the Anglosphere) that bullshit fluff majors are spurned. Whereby the taxpayer, and not the student — or daddy for that matter — is voting with his wallet, it's the degree that that proves to be of objective productivity to a society's workforce that is given the time of day.

I'm a bit surprised that the thread's poll is heavily in favour towards "Yes". It implies that we're mature enough to not immediately condemn women's right to education as irresponsible, white knight cuckery.

[Rob Banks]

I'm surprised at the results of the poll so far (the majority of people voting "yes"). "As OP said, girls traditionally didn't go to school throughout the vast majority of history. I'm ok with education while they're really young (although I am against the concept of making school mandatory for girls or boys), but there's no reason why a girl age 12-16 should be forced to spend 8 hours a day without her parents in a building with many teenage boys, no continuous adult supervision.

Additionally, there's no reason a girl needs to learn what they teach in school aside from basic reading, writing, and arithmetic. If a specific girl happens to be exceptionally smart and/or very interested in a certain subject or field, then I don't have a problem with her getting an education (that's why I voted "no, but with exceptions" in the poll). But for the majority of girls, the schooling is isn't really necessary.

Lastly, while I don't like the idea of all girls going to school, I recognize that in this day and age, it is probably best for them to go to school, along with extracurricular activities, in order for them to be around other kids and socialize. Society isn't organized the way it was in the past when school wasn't mandatory and girl's didn't attend. If your child were the only one who didn't go to school, they would be stuck at home alone every day between 8 and 4.

Here's a question: Given that it is mandatory to send your kids to school (unless you homeschool), what do you guys think about sending girls to an all-girls school?

[Only One Man]

The argument should be that the focus of education needs to shift to (or shift back to) things that are important and relevant to real life outside academia, not that women shouldn't be educated. Home economics and cooking need to be part of a high school curriculum along with financial literacy classes. And let's not forget shop class and the like. I also think high schools need to offer pre-trade school type programs. High schools should have a responsibility to do more than "prepare kids for college" since our fucking tax dollars are paying for it. They should be preparing kids for life.

As far as college goes, why would they change anything when they're raking in money from taxpayer subsidized loans from (majority women) students pursuing worthless degrees. If people are willing to pay tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for that shit then Universities are gonna continue to offer it. Nothing is gonna change until people stop sending their kids to "college" to pay out the nose for worthless pieces of paper. Any smart parent who knows what the fuck is up is not gonna pay for or cosign a loan for their kids to go to college for anything other than a profession where a degree is absolutely required (doctor, lawyer, engineer, ect.)

Both men and women should be able to do whatever they want with their lives, whether that's becoming a rocket scientist or starting a family right out of high school. Then, of course, they also must take responsibility and be held accountable for their decisions and actions. The problem isn't women being educated. The problem is society no longer holding women (and many men) accountable for their choices because of some perceived victim hood.

[JWLZG]

(12-07-2016 02:16 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

but there's no reason why a girl age 12-16 should be forced to spend 8 hours a day without her parents in a building with many teenage boys, no continuous adult supervision.
[...]
Here's a question: Given that it is mandatory to send your kids to school (unless you homeschool), what do you guys think about sending girls to an all-girls school?

That's assuming a norm whereby kids all go to co-ed schools.

Here in Australia, the opposite is slightly more prevalent. This is due to private education — the whole blazer-and-fancy-motto thing; what the British call public schools — being a bit more affordable down to the middle classes, and even a Catholic school is within the budget of most of the working classes. The majority of these schools are still single-sex, and so are most of the selective state schools.

My brother and I spent most of my education in one such of these all-boys' schools; in turn so did my sister in an all-girls' school, and my stepsister will have done so eventually. Notwithstanding claims of classism and élitism, the main criticism of single-sex schools is that of social disadvantage; namely an inability to relate to the opposite gender.
That was hardly so. Firstly, we were hardly programmed to relate to each other gender in archaic roles — feminine-oriented subjects such as home economics and finishing school have mostly disappeared from all-girls schools, and they are given the same range of subjects as us. On the other hand, despite traditional pursuits dominating — rugby, rowing, cadet corps — alumni of all-boys schools don't necessarily end up more alpha than their working class brethren.
Moreover, we were assumed to have a social life outside of school, and in any case, single-sex schools here generally have a brother-sister partnership with one other, mainly centred around co-ed activities such as concerts, plays, etc.

Possibly another downside to single-sex schools in terms of girls is the amplification of the uglier side of female relationships, the cattiness and peer politics.

But to answer the question: yes, I would.
And if I were to turn back the clock, given the choice, would I still go to an all-boys school? Absolutely.

[Phoenix]

Good to see more of the recent posts have taken the opportunity to think about this question rather than drop a quick virtue signaling quip.

The poll question was "should they" not "should they be allowed". I'm not sure where people are getting the idea of restrictions or enforcement from. I see education as a question between parent-offspring-teacher, and the state has nothing to do with it. And that goes both ways -- the state should have no right to enforce either way.

"Should they" means "is it in their best long-term interest, as chosen by their parent, for them to attend a high school".

My position is:
- for men: maybe, if he has yet to demonstrate aptitude and passion towards some specific field, otherwise he should perhaps be in a specific vocational school.
- for women: most likely not, they'd probably be better off in a new form of womens-only academy which teaches what women used to be taught, unless they'd demonstrated specific aptitude.

Either way there should be a lot more flexibility than "shove the kid in a one-size-fits-all generic education building for 12 years".

High schools are not the same now as they were 50 years ago. Older female relatives have told me that their education back then was much more gender-split, with women focusing more on home economics and men in the workshop etc. Not everybody uniformly and begrudgingly studying some abstract crap in a textbook that they'll never use.

(12-06-2016 09:27 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Maybe you should inform the woman who discovered carbon nano-tubes, and one of the people that discovered brain cells can regenerate, they've made a mistake and should have followed your philosophy.

Did you swoosh your pink cape behind you after that? I presented only a question, not a philosophy. Hate to criticize your eagerness to leftist virtue-signal, but "education for women is important because of women like Dresselhaus can be produced as a result" would've been enough, and the point would have been gratefully received as part of the discussion.

You don't seem to be able to see beyond logical fallacies. You're usually quite keen on the "correlation implies causation", so it's nice to see a bit more "exception is the norm" from you to keep it fresh. Just because some (much smaller percentage) of women have science/engineering aptitude, doesn't mean women as a whole should be learning physics and chemistry, instead of studying home economics or deportment or whatever. Hell, even most men probably shouldn't be wasting their time on physics/chemistry, given they'll never use it either.

(12-07-2016 12:41 AM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

What next, a suggested application in applied eugenics for the modern age?

(12-06-2016 09:28 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

Disagree 100% Phoenix.

Insight into the topic duly noted.

(12-06-2016 09:30 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

Women shouldn't go to college? But college chicks are the easiest lays on the face of the earth...

So would you send your daughter then?

[Ivanis]

(12-06-2016 09:36 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 09:30 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

Women shouldn't go to college? But college chicks are the easiest lays on the face of the earth...

Excellent point. Now we should have super PRO-CHILD policy so they're not scared to have kids ( extended leave, tax bonuses for keeping the civilization going etc) and we don't have to import fake refugees to keep population level.

In my opinion, I don't think that tax cuts would incentivize high IQ people to reproduce as much as low IQ people. If someone is not smart, has no aspirations in life, and wants a little extra scratch, what would stop them from having kids and raking in some benefits via tax cuts and extended leave? That would mean that the kids would most likely grow up in a dysfunctional household(due to the parents seeing their kid as nothing more than a money maker). I would argue that the child would only be as productive to society as their parents, and the same cycle would repeat in 30 years.

I don't know how to do it, but we need to motivate higher IQ individuals to mate and produce offspring in order to have civilization keep going. The corporate slaves will be meaningless if no one created the companies that employ them, or sets up network infrastructures inside the building, etc.

[Suits]

(12-07-2016 07:40 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 09:30 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

Women shouldn't go to college? But college chicks are the easiest lays on the face of the earth...

So would you send your daughter then?

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.

The interesting things is that both of my sisters went to college, didn't whore around at all and got married within two months of graduating to beta family focused men.

They are both better for the education they received and the experiences (both academic and skills development based) that they received at their institutions of choice, married good me and are not excellent and dedicated mothers and committed wives.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Personally I think that the majority of people shouldn't go to college. Unless you're studying for a STEM degree(though some reading up on the classics should be mandatory for every student regardless of degree) or going on to become a Lawyer. The whole liberal arts bullshit just has to go.

Drop that and affirmative action in STEM related fields so it's based on meritocracy then you're set. Most chicks won't even bother with a STEM degree. They'd much rather just follow around the Finance guys to become a secretary so they can marry rich after fucking their boss for a year or two.

[kaotic]

(12-07-2016 12:44 AM)kaotic Wrote:  

Disagree - it's an idea, sure, it's applicable ? No, not in this day and age. There's no way you could restrict that.

Maybe suggesting daughters to marry a good man out of high school would be the best route maybe, flip side is I don't want my daughter to be intelligent.

Alot of this is catch 22.

EDIT: This was a complete typo on my part.

I meant to say, I don't want my daughter being dumb as rocks, I WANT my daughter to be intelligent.

I would advise her to not pursue a full time professional job because it'll make her miserable (unless she TRULY finds a passion).

None of this bullshit underwater basket weaving degrees.

[Cadders]

This is a tricky issue - especially for redpill men, who like me, have daughters.

My wife is a childminder and over the years has minded for over 50 families - most living the equality, feminist dream with the mother on the career track along with the father. In that time one - just one - women has stayed the course career wise once children came along. All the others - EVERY ONE - went part time, took a big step down career wise or stopped working entirely once they had children (not always immediately but eventually). And not because the fathers demanded it, or weren't helping out at home. But because 1) they simply wanted to and 2) the fathers were happy to pick up the provisioning burden. It is clear that when left to sort out their own affairs, most men and women naturally sort themselves into traditional sex roles. But significantly, not one of those whose children no longer need their mum around full time, have since gone back to work full time.

The issue then, is one of Return On Investment, both for the women themselves, and, increasingly, for society at large. The women I describe have clearly made use of their education, but over the course of their lives will have only provided a fraction of a return on the investment made in them, in relation to their education, compared to their male peers. This was reflected in the recent study out of New Zealand which found (iirc) that the average woman contributed more to the state than she consumed from it, for just 5 years of her working life and ended her life with a net deficit of $155,000.

This presents a problem, because that missing return, that deficit, has to be made good somehow. Historically men were able to cover this, but now with universities often churning out 2 female graduates for every male one, along with so many jobs requiring a degree where none was required before (excluding men who are perfectly capable of performing the role, but not qualified to do so), fewer men are producing the wealth that used to subsidize the choices that women make. This contributes to the enormous sovereign debt that most Western nations are carrying. We can simply no longer afford for women (in general) to generate such a low return on the investment made in them, nor can we continue to exclude capable men simply because they don't have the 'required' credentials.

So we need to deter women from 'wasting' their education and we need to ensure men don't 'go to waste' because of lack of credentials. And I think this is exactly what is starting to happen - though perhaps not in the way that feminists and 'equalists' had hoped.

On the male side, at least here in the UK we see; the growth of apprenticeships, vocational training, the increasing number of companies that are dropping degree requirements (seeking college leavers - 18 year olds - rather than graduates) and also the inclusion of the economic plight of poor working class boys in Theresa May's acceptance speech. There is an implicit understanding that the disenfranchisement of men that we have seen on such a widespread scale is starting to hurt everyone (which was obvious from the start to most people - except feminists). What all this means is that the value of education is starting to be scrutinized much more closely by everyone. When there are more and more avenues to start your career that don't depend on a degree, the value of the degree declines. Obviously not useful degrees in STEM, but degrees in underwater basket weaving and suchlike (i.e. the types of degree favored by women) seem to be less popular than previously (and at the extreme end I have read of several 'Womyn's Studies' courses closing).

On the female side, the numbers of women who now have the option to 'downsize' their career when babies come along is plummeting as 1) the number of women able to marry declines, and 2) the increasing number of women who never have a child. And this last point is, I think, huge. In the UK right now 1 in 5 of all women are ending their fertile years childless, but among female graduates it is over double that - 42% iirc. And every year that figure climbs - by the end of 2018 it will be over 50% of graduates childless - and the vast vast majority of these women are involuntarily so. The reality of the 'career' women spiel is impossible for an increasing number of girls and young women to ignore - old, childless and either alone or with a low quality man, is where enough of these 'well educated' women are now ending up, and serve as a warning to the younger cohorts. Certainly among my daughter's peers (mid teens) there does not seem to be anything like the drive to go to Uni that was prevalent among young women just a few years ago. If anything it seems it's the parents driving the girls down this route more than the girls themselves - but now that Uni has become so expensive, more and more parents are pausing before automatically promoting this.

As ever, the women will go where the men lead. With men finding a path a better future that doesn't involve years in academia, the status of it will (is, in fact) decline and women never like to spend much time around low status anything, be it men or education. As these dynamics continue to play out the status of non-STEM tertiary education will go down whilst more men will be able to simultaneously raise their own status. Hypergamy will simply do it's thing - and it's clear, to red-pillers at least, the direction of travel that women will take in response.

[britchard]

(12-07-2016 01:14 PM)Cadders Wrote:  

Cut.

Completely agree with everything said. I'd like to add though, that the slightly more male-friendly changes made that you mentioned (apprenticeships, no degree requirement) are still being dwarfed that the 'uni dream' is still growing in popularity among female UK school leavers. They want their 3 years of spending the daddy state's money on partying whilst doing 5 hours study a week for their pointless degree.

Childlessness with graduate women is a huge issue that is going to be big news soon, I expect.

[LINUX]

(12-07-2016 07:40 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 12:41 AM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

What next, a suggested application in applied eugenics for the modern age?

(12-06-2016 09:28 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

Disagree 100% Phoenix.

Insight into the topic duly noted.

I didn't give any insight because I don't like to argue about stuff like this.

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.

[Saga]

(12-07-2016 02:05 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

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?"

The education of women in private or in single-gender schools is not the same as not being educated whatsoever. In fact, women educated in private (that is to say in the home) in previous eras were very likely far better educated than women or men educated today.

Quote:

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.

Any decent answer should have far more to do with the best interests of society as a whole than with the best interests of one man or one woman.

To this point, can anyone credibly argue that the level of western education has been improved by or since the mass entry of women into institutions of secondary and higher education? Can anyone at all establish that the educated of today are better-taught, better-mannered and better-prepared than the educated of the 19th or 18th centuries? Is anyone prepared to prove that western society's present public discourse is more elevated and learned than it was 100 years ago?

And finally...is the family unit (and by extension society) stronger or weaker than it was before coeducation became widespread?

[MMX2010]

Phoenix Wrote:

Older female relatives have told me that their education back then was much more gender-split, with women focusing more on home economics and men in the workshop etc. Not everybody uniformly and begrudgingly studying some abstract crap in a textbook that they'll never use.

Home economics is implicitly and explicitly a way of training high school girls to become wives. But marriage rates are so low among all Americans that the "crap they'll never use argument" aptly applies to home economics.