"Classical Christian Education" and girls

[asingh]

Sorry for the late reply:

The basic principles are sound for your country. For example, female seclusion creates social stability. If women are not out in society, men cannot harass them, and costs for policing and social disturbances will go down.

Of course, if women are not out, they would not get harassed in public. Those principles are way way too basic and historical to be applicable to any part of this world. But policing is anyways happening, so keeping women inside the 4 walls, will hardly save money.

For example. If you have two children, 1 boy and 1 girl, and $1000 to invest in them. Which ratio of investment will produce the best outcome?

Honestly, I would split it evenly amongst both children. What would you do with your kids..?

1) Have you asked women if they want to be educated? Maybe if you leave them be, they will choose to stay home, have you thought of that?

2) The West does not have social freedom for women. They are under the authority of the workplace or the state instead.

3) What is it that you don't understand about the climate theory?

1. Yes, I have asked young girls what they want to become when they grow up. To be honest some of them have answered: House Wife. Will not lie to you. But a lot also said stuff like: want to do an MBA and work in an organization, some said a doctorate, scientist, government service. Most of them did what they wanted.
2. Is not that same for men. They are either answering to people at the work place, else in the bindings of the state (government). I think all nations are like that. One cannot just do want they want to do, and have to be in societal / governmental normals. What would be an example of Social Freedom, which is curbed in the West. Will help me understand better.
3. It just sounds so dumb. Sorry. Not applicable. Probably in the paleolithic age, yes, but not now. Anywhere.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/...men-find-them/

Read the article. It was good and data driven, which is good. Thanks. My comments on this would be: More men lost jobs vs. women, and now men are being hired more. There is a stigma around hiring, no matter what mechanisms gender bias have been put in. Could it be that, women are going out less to find jobs, and being the home makers. Sacrifice. . Ya, kill me.

I call this the "bullshit economy". We have women journalists, writers, fashion designers, graphic designers, etc. These fields don't produce anything. Now when people are becoming unemployed they're not going to buy newspaper articles, movie tickets and fashion.

These are production fields. Be it a service or a non-direct usage product still output is given. It does take brains/time/effort to produce a literally work of writing be it design or type. Clothes, I can understand, will collapse, if the economy collapses. But that is also hypothetical. Women do work on shop floors also. See semi-conductor and motherboard manufacturing units. Women are doing QC/PCB soldering/packaging. So they are out their in the sweat shops, physically doing work.

Formatting the below, so it is easier to read:

I will give you some examples:

Here's a woman who spent $50,000 on a Masters in "Humanities and Social Thought".
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ng-lament.html

That was just a bad choice. But the women's case was taken as an "example"; not generic to a group. But that is what you are showing too. So I would agree. But at the bottom of the article a man also goes through the same predicament. Would you not think, this is a institution and loan shark nexus which is hounding higher secondary education in the west..? I would put it at that.

Here's a woman who loaned $100,000 for a degree in "religious and women’s studies".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/yo...s/29money.html

Agree with the article, but not the issue you are using it to support. This is again a clear case of bad lending and incorrect decisions. I would say a "mini-me" version of Lehman Brothers.

Here's a woman who spent $160,000 on a degree in "Gender Studies".
http://www.thefrisky.com/2010-09-07/...udies-student/

A bad decision, which never paid off. But Mary, tell me honestly -- would not be men making these errors too. I will agree to what ever answer you give here, and not argue back...! It is just a comment on my comment, which I seek. Thanks.

Here we have:

* A Master's in public health for $72,000
* Master's in Health Science for $82,000
* A Master's in Social Work and a Bachelor's in sociology for $240,000
* Bachelor's in political science and international development for $140,000
* Bachelor's in journalism for $80,000
* Bachelor's in graphic design for $87,000

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/...ebt/index.html

I agree to those prices, and they make sense. Regarding the link, is not Shane a man. What were you trying to say..?

It's just an example. As I said, if you look at the academic performance over time, you will see that men are failing in record numbers, compared to just a generation ago. This is because they adapted the educational system to women.

Again, how is it adapted to women, that men can not cope up. I am really confused here, cause you have mentioned this over and over again. The concept interests me, but I cannot grasp it. A further corollary would help me here.

Go look up which races and ethnicities are getting the Ph.D's. It's East Asians and Indians even in White Western countries. The natives cannot compete academically.

This data is difficult to pull up. But I found a nice tool on the web. I cannot give the snapshot, cause it runs dynamically. But would suggest you to try it out.
1. Remove all the filter from the left, but keep all options for diversity enabled.
2. Keep everything for Degrees enabled.
3. Select 4 universities, and click on DEMOGRAPHICS on the output, when you get it.

I ran it for: Cornell, Harvard, UCLA, and Yale. US citizenship was 92%+ for all 4.

Link:
http://graduate-school.phds.org/find...es?field_id=23

This is not a course. This is the entire educational system, all the way from preschool. As you can see, boys fail from the age of 5. By the time they have to graduate at 25 they cannot compete.

How could it not be correct? Instead of money, the woman pays with having an education. However education is now worth much less because of the high debt that the woman will carry with her. For this reason we are now seeing a shift to dowry payment with the woman's body and sexual skills instead.

I will not argue here further Mary. It digresses from the topic. Really do not want to discuss sex and its sale. It is not pertinent to this topic. But dowry is not there as a concept in the West. Or you saying, theoretically, men now marry -- and check the education grade of the female before marriage. But that always happened.

That's probably because you have caste, so you don't perceive education as a dowry. I would imagine that family background matters more. So a woman from a good background and with education will probably have an intellectual dowry. While a woman from a lesser background and with education will not, and will have to pay the full dowry in cash.

As I said, even high castes give dowry. In fact the most.

This is not consumerism. This is an investment in sexual capital. For example: a man can choose between two women. Woman A has a degree in English literature. Woman B can do pole dancing. Which one do you think he will choose? And remember: woman B has no debt for a degree.

Therefore it is more logical for a Western woman to invest in pole dancing classes, than in a college degree.

Any sane man will choose woman A. In his fantasy at night, he would probably choose woman B.

Yes, but men can get out of welfare much easier. They only have to get a job. But many women end up as single mothers, which makes it much harder for them to get jobs, so they live on welfare their whole lives.

Even a woman can get a job just as fast. Yes, in between if she becomes a single mother and cannot support and take care of the child, that is her fault. How would not having had an education been helpful here. She would not have been married anyways. She would still have borne a child without marriage and the problem remains the same.

[Dorothea]

Honestly, I would split it evenly amongst both children. What would you do with your kids..?

3. It just sounds so dumb. Sorry. Not applicable. Probably in the paleolithic age, yes, but not now. Anywhere.

Even a woman can get a job just as fast. Yes, in between if she becomes a single mother and cannot support and take care of the child, that is her fault. How would not having had an education been helpful here. She would not have been married anyways. She would still have borne a child without marriage and the problem remains the same.

I think any sane person would do that.

Agreed.

And she would have less money to support her child. Getting an education does bring money.

[juan1193]

Marriage is meaningless!! Simple as that. I also disagree with this quote that you posted as I believe in everybody being able to reach their full potential, which this practice clearly denies women.

[Carolemily]

Men are in poverty too, do not forget.


What's the point of women if they don't have children?

This is so very wrong in so very many ways

Are you really stating that the entire purpose for a woman's life is reproduction?
I am very sorry that you would see another human being from such a limited perspective.