Elisabeth Hasselbeck Accuses Feminists Of Waging War On Men?

Focus less on getting degrees and more on finding husbands? She is as are all, entitled to their opinion. But I can't say I support the idea of women seeking to marry instead of getting an education that'll facilitate them supporting themselves. After all, under-educated women married to educated men are much more likely to be stay-at-home moms. Then should they decide to divorce their hubby, they get the kids, alimony, and C/S, of course.

What I'm not down with is the 3:7 M:F college graduation rate. But you help that not by discouraging women from going to college and encouraging them to find husbands. You help it by getting more men to go to college (and for marketable degrees, I'd advise).

The more I think, the more I wonder if this 3/7 ratio is not bad at all. Let the feminists dominate the Campus.

Consider the upper end: men dominate math, computer science, information technology, physics, engineering, surgery (as opposed to general practice).

Consider that Corinthian is now about to close 100 campuses: online for-profit schools are closing, and community colleges are in great trouble. And that is, in part, why the ratio of college attendance is so skewed: women dominate all those second tier schools. In the upper tier, they dominate the junk programs.

Now turn to the bottom: men dominate oil rig workers, truck drivers, dock workers, shipping, forest workers, fire fighters. And consider the hugely male dominated military and all those men getting pensions and health care (once we fix the V.A.: odd how feminists only care about women's health and not about our military -- but at least it is now getting attention).

So in reality, men dominate the top and the bottom: the only historical issue has been the mistrust between these two economic states of men. But now, due to strident feminism, these two camps finally see the need for each other, just as, straight and gay men are recognizing we are both in the same boat.

And what about these women who dominate the campus? What work are they doing? They dominate law. But there is a HUGE oversupply of lawyers (Law school deans should be jailed for how they doctored the potential employment outlook to encourage enrollment). Women dominate publishing (an industry poised on collapse). Real estate (not much future: over supply of agents and computer sales will eventually lower that 6% commission). Medical school? Once nurses can prescribe medicine (coming), the general practice M.D. is useless (and actually dominated by H.M.O.s. Paper pushers for corporations? Computers will take out those jobs.

Consider this. Men slaved for the corporation and grew depressed and alcoholic. And now if you look at the offices of Facebook, you see posters encouraged by Sandburg to "lean in": work hard, work fast, get it right later. Women are not "leaning in" as urged by the current hype -- they are growing USED and ABUSED by corporate America while men are dominating the top and bottom while men are leaning back, finally. Men are taking jobs using their bodies and their brains. Women are pushing paper.

So let them have their 70% of the campus. Most degrees are useless anyway. I am actually sorry to see the vast armies of women workers growing depressed and angry and bitter and lonely. But that is their fault for trusting feminism.

THE ONLY issue to be concerned with is the following: as these women's studies majors realize they made a mistake, they will move into public policy and blame men for their state, the war on women and, heck, the lowered status of the planet Pluto -- anything but take responsibility for their decisions. But now the MRA is rapidly growing to counter this.

So I am not as worried anymore. The only critical issue for men, is to recognize how men need each other in the same way that the first feminists needed each other: gay and straight men must overcome their mutual suspicion. Gay men must stop aligning with feminists: once this hurdle is surmounted, it will be easier.

In the 1970's feminists said some fairly toxic things. I can now overlook that as long as feminists overlook some of the toxicity of what the MRA guys ONCE said. But now I see the MRA movement is not as toxic as it was when it first "stepped out." It is organizing and growing due to sites like this.

I do think a primary focus of MRA should be the lowering standards of math and science education to ensure more participation of girls: lower standards hurts boys more than it hurts girls. I am not concerned about the reading levels of boys. Most of the stuff being read today is crap, and, besides: boys read technical stuff and graphic novels (which only aids visualization). I am concerned that public money will be spent on only girls (and that will put off the boys). But boys will find a way: they will dominate the upper theoretical aspects or join the military and get that pension and health benefits.