Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Paradox of the Perfect Girl

By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet. Posted March 29, 2006.


While overachieving girls are knocking on the front doors of America's best colleges, admission officers are letting their slacker brothers slip in the back door.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Courtney E. Martin

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It's college admission season, that time of year when high school seniors and their parents await the day's mail with all the hope and dread of one awaiting the results of a pregnancy test.

To further the anxiety, Kenyon College Dean of Admissions Jennifer Delauhunty Britz recently wrote a New York Times op-ed, glibly titled "To All the Girls I've Rejected." It is an apology-of-sorts for the recent trend of what might be called "reverse gender discrimination" in college admissions. While a surplus of supergirls armed with ambition, impressive CVs, and expressive personal essays are knocking on the ivy-covered front doors of America's best colleges, admission officers are letting their slacker boyfriends and sheepish brothers slip through the backdoor.

Though Britz dresses this very public statement up in personal reflection about her own college-bound daughter's disappointment upon receiving a thin envelope, don't be fooled. This is not a quaint maternal reflection on the end of her daughter's innocence. It's the beginning of a national conversation, or at least it should be, about the legal and cultural implications of the growing imbalance.

The 2003 Supreme Court decision concerning U. Michigan's law school admission upheld previous rulings supporting admissions processes that aim at creating diverse communities on campus but outlaw formal quotas or point system admissions policies that privilege certain races. They argued that there is inherent social value to having diverse classrooms, and that an informal effort to encourage that composition is sound.

The Title IX Education Act of 1972, however, may prove more challenging to institutions, especially public, that are incorporating gender preferences into their admissions policies. It states, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

Well-intentioned admissions counselors trying to create gender-balanced learning communities may find themselves in deep water if they can't prove that their policies don't violate Title IX. Unequal athletic programs that have been tried in courts and transformed are proof of that.

The cultural implications of gender-based college admissions is no less complicated. Britz writes, "We have told today's young women that the world is their oyster; the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today's most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men. How's that for an unintended consequence of the women's liberation movement?"

Some of us with feminist parents were told "You can be anything." Somehow we heard, "You have to be everything." The unintended consequences of the women's liberation movement aren't just informal and possibly illegal college admissions policies, but the oppressive paradigm of the perfect girl.

The perfect girl is everywhere. She is your niece, your daughter, your friend's genius kid. She is the girl who makes the valedictorian speech at your son's graduation and the type-A class president in the skimpy black dress that he brings to the prom. The perfect girl is thin and hungry, not for food, but for honors, awards, scholarships, recognition. The Princeton Review book is the perfect girl's bible. Her appointment book, even at 14, is filled morning to night with scheduled activities. She speaks three languages. She has five varsity letters. She never stops to breathe. She is voted most likely to succeed. She knows she will because she devotes every last iota of her energy, and then some, into achieving.

I know, because I was one. In 1998, when I applied to college, I struggled through the night to cut my list of accomplishments down to the tiny space provided on my college applications. How do you abbreviate captain, editor, president? Should I emphasize the child abuse prevention work or the magazine publications more? Though two years earlier my mother had typed every last comma onto my brother's college applications (what an anachronistic clacking that now seems), I refused to let her even look at my finished packages. I was unhealthily driven and fiercely independent.


Digg!

Courtney E. Martin is a writer living in Brooklyn. Her book, Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, will be published by Simon & Schuster's Free Press in March 2007.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not Very Paradoxical
Posted by: pixiequix on Mar 29, 2006 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those in admissions and various other places in the faculty are trained to look very closely for just these characteristics in all students, but in the last 10=15 years women have become an unhealthy majority. The chronic overachievers. Those who do not have a genuine perspective of the world around them, it is well documented that they will grow only more detatched from everyone and everything except for their GPA. Any counselor should tell you that a balanced application is key, and the girls who have "life experience" in their daily planner are in need of it more than any other graduates. They will typically be rejected, but a continued dedication to actual goals is nessecary to be well adjusted,happy, healthy. And for a majority of those girls, it might be the first time anyone has told them "no".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Very Paradoxical Posted by: Phenix
Life is hell for the high achiever
Posted by: rbohan on Mar 29, 2006 3:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you list "endless whining" as one of your talents on those college admission forms?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No kidding !
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 29, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife went through the trouble of getting an MS just to close the gender discrimination gap in terms of fair labor and pay while some of her co-workers who were male AND didn't do a college degree or even high school education were getting the same pay and benefits and less harassment !!! No doubt this is going to spill into honest and hardworking men vs the Bush/Cheney/Lay/Rice/Rumsfeld/Limbaugh elitists if we don't work on fixing this crisis for the upcoming generation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You bet your bottom dollar.
Posted by: bryce_crispies on Mar 29, 2006 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article points a trend that has penetrated even the rural educational institutions of the Midwestern and Southern states. I was a "good boy," the one headed for Scholarshipville, Awardtown and Praiseburg. That meant that I gained access to privilege and opportunity beyond the reach of my fellow cattle herders.

There is a world of conferences, meetings and educational experiences out there that most people have no idea exists. In that world, you get to rub elbows with powerful people and eat fancy dinners where you're required to wear a coat and tie. I have spent many a day and night living in that world.

And you know what? In almost every occasion the girls outnumber the boys by a 4:1 or 5:1 margin. That continued throughout my life in the trenches at a large public university. Honors College: girls rule. Honor Societies: ladies are the large majority.

I'm glad to know that folks are starting to take notice of this important fact. In my generation (the up-and-coming under 30 set), the girls run the show.

Even on the left.

It's about time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aw Jeez
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 29, 2006 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article reflects the current obsession among American women with claiming victim's status. They all seem to attend the same church: Our Lady of Endless Aggrievement.

Join the Peace Corps. Spend a year or two in a place where people eat bugs and weeds to survive. Maybe then you could remove the pea under your mattress that is causing you so much agony.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Aw Jeez Posted by: stormchilde1975
Get some perspective, puhlease!
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 29, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have lived in many developing countries, and find the hining of rich western women pathetic. The times have never been better for them, and I agree with the poster who mentions they seem to run the show everywhere. It is true. I am now in a serious minority wherever I work - a white man. It is the way of the world these days. On the plus side, I never go without sex. I mean never!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» happy to fill you in Posted by: Bobsays
» puhlease? Posted by: stormchilde1975
A Good Lesson For Everyone, Not Just Girls
Posted by: starfirejade on Mar 29, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it important to consider what is at stake in over achieving beyond a sex or gender perspective. Perhaps, girls right now are a good example of the cost of driving yourself into the ground and for what exactly? Is it to feel power in our capitalistic culture which encourages and thrives on competition and mechanized production?
From a feminist perspective, most boys already have a certain social power-so they don't have to try as hard for credibility or recognition in our current systems of power. I also think, throughout herstory, women have tirelessly worked to make life better for themselves and their communities. I really don't think this generation has it "worse off" in any stretch of the imagination. We are doing what anyone does that is not part of the white, hetero, male, western paradigm-we work hard for justice and a sense of peace. And that's the key: if you are working so hard just to find praise from "the master" then yes, you are in a state of unhealthy being-if you are working so hard for increased stability, peace, and balance for all people, then keep on moving forward and remember to include yourself in "all people."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone deserves justice
Posted by: stormchilde1975 on Mar 29, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect to those who are calling the above article 'whiny', don't you think the writer has a point? It doesn't seem right to me that pursuit of excellence should end up being a handicap, because certain other people didn't pursue it. I mean, it isn't easy to sort out, but it does seem wrong that Title IX ends up forcing girls to meet outrageous standards to get the same treatment that boys get just for showing up.
And the victims here aren't the overachiever girls, not really. I think some commentors are missing that. The victims are the girls who lived ordinary lives, only learned one foreign language, and maybe held a part time job or socialized with their friends instead of joining NHS and the Recycling Club. These are ordinary, healthy girls with perspective whose resumes can't help but look paltry compared to what colleges are being offered.
Maybe I'm wrong (I hope I am), and admissions people see through this. But do they? If not, there's a serious problem, and talking about it is not whining at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: veryone deserves justice Posted by: Melodys4
A real problem
Posted by: zedaker on Mar 29, 2006 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To start with, I say dismiss the comments about whining out of hand. This is a real problem of focus, not just for over achieving girls, but for our society as a whole.

The author's comment about these girls just needing to learn to say "no" is right on the money. It seems that these girls are driven early by an amorphous, unfocused need to succeed. I'm sure some of them have a clear goal (law, medicine, etc), but I'm just as sure that many don't have that kind of clear goal. For those girls, their lists of accomplishments must be structured to catch all and sundry experiences. Sure it's great to have diverse experience, but if the girl found she didn't care for the work involved in fighting abuse (the drudging legwork, not the results) then she should properly drop it from her list and move on to those things she finds satisfying and rewarding to her. A knife edge is sharp and precise because it is honed. Granted, generalist training is the right way to go for some. A liberal arts education prepares a person for things that a specialized education cannot, and vice versa.

That's where the focusing comes in, and i'm not talking about just the applications...people in general need to focus their talents and time where it will be most effective for them as individuals. Perhaps we need to begin earlier to teach these attitudes to our kids. The perspective on life that comes with maturity is a difficult thing to impart to a passionately driven teen of whatever gender, but just because it's difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i forgot
Posted by: zedaker on Mar 29, 2006 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Title IX demands for no gender bias should be met. If that results in a lop-sided demographic at the school for awhile then so be it. That is a self correcting problem in that boys will have to change their attitudes (and it is an attitude problem, not a gender problem) about education and accept that academically they must be competetive...with everyone, male or female.

I think the whole idea of academic competition for the "best" educational slots is problematic but we since we seem to be stuck with it we must deal with what is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i forgot Posted by: Phenix
a real problem, definitely not whining
Posted by: codingguy on Mar 29, 2006 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as someone with a daughter, i worry that she too will get caught up with this "perfect girl" nonsense and all the dysfunctions that go along with it, the most notable of which are eating disorders. To call this wake-up article "whining" is like calling a SOS from a sinking ship a false alarm. It raises real concerns about our connection to nature, gender differences and the price of success, and i'm actually quite surprised that some alternet readers, supposedly progressive, would think that pointing out that sacrificing one's true self for "success" or "career" is whining. I'd leave that to the "money-is-everything" crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overachieving girls - good lord!!
Posted by: petrovsky on Mar 29, 2006 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First let me preface what I'm about to say by stating that this whole article is hardly worth recognizing what with our bloodbath in the desert, Bu$hco's current plans on constructing regional "refugee camps" (I mention this in every post and the overwhelming response is "sigh" - we'll see how much longer you all remain ambivalent to that little fact . . .) in many parts of the US and the discovery that our very own government has been unconstitutionally eavesdropping on its citizenry. One would think we have much bigger issues on our plate than what is tantamount to whining by militant feminists who are motivated more out of a sense of historical injustice than a sense of contemporary egalitarianism. Let's just call it what it is!

But as this issue seems to have some traction STILL, let's examine it a little more closely. I just returned from a trip to Bolivia not long ago and was shocked at the conditions women toil under in that country. I am 110% behind addressing the issues of equality in countries where the problem is so pronounced so as to evoke a genuine sense of revulsion but where American, Canadian, Australian and Western European women are concerned this is absurd!!! I have an American sister and mother who are compensated very well for the work they do, and in the case of my sister who recently became a mother, I was happy to see that she was given 6 months maternal leave to care for my nephew. I have a vested interest in seeing American women excel just like the next guy but it just doesn't seem right somehow listening to a Barnard alum bitching about the deplorable circumstances American women endure when I have seen women in countries like Bolivia, Brazil, India, Mexico and China performing tasks that would break her delicate feminist back, and they do it without complaining yet they are the women with the most reason to do so . . .

My Brazilian wife can expect to earn 30-40% less than her male contemporaries IF she could even find a meaningful job (which is 10 times harder still) but unfortunately those really high paying, succulent jobs are reserved for men. I find it interesting how many feminists are quick to latch on to the issues affecting American women only. One poster had it right - why don't you just try and ignore the peas under your own mattresses for the time being and address the boulders that are firmly lodged under the mattresses of the other 80% of women around the world who think you're mostly spoiled, lazy vain and materialistic. What I am saying in effect is grow the f*ck up and quit seeing yourselves as victims in this day and age where American women, in many ways, wield as much if not more power than men. I could point out many instances where the pendulum has swung so far as to overcorrect the historical inequities regarding gender relations.

I love hearing about the mental problems and eating disorders American women endure on their meteoric rise to the helm of HP, Ebay and Xerox. Give us a break. I wish we could hear more reports about the 11 year old Brazilian sex worker’s catastrophic downward spiral into drug addiction and HIV infection so American women could stop and consider how incredibly selfish, insensitive and arrogant they are for whining about their bout with anorexia because they didn't resemble Angelina Jolie. These kind of mental and physical problems are of your own design. You buy into the overachieving, super-model image and then blame the "male dominated" society for your ills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continued from above
Posted by: petrovsky on Mar 29, 2006 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One final word. I can remember my own stint in college and I can assure you that women were doing much better than men, especially as it was increasingly obvious that the teaching styles were being adapted to suit women exclusively. It doesn't stop at the college level either. As women are now predominately occupying elementary and even secondary teaching positions, they are bringing with them their "please raise your hand Bobby meanwhile calling on Suzy" style of teaching that doesn't fit the male model of learning. This is not to imply that women do not deserve the opportunity to learn in an environment that is suited to their learning style as well but we have overcorrected and soon we are going to find ourselves with a dangerously disenfranchised, underachieving and apathetic generation of angry men walking around. I think we can all imagine how this will turn out . . . It is time to engage boys and men again without overcorrecting this time. Let's try and eliminate the double standard regarding female statutory rapist teachers who sleep with 14 year old students while we're at it shall we? And for the love of god women of America, just try and be thankful that your daughters have a better chance than your sons to attend college and that if and when they become teachers they can sleep with their 14 year old students and get away with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Continued from above Posted by: codingguy
» RE: Continued from above Posted by: petrovsky
» RE: Continued from above Posted by: codingguy
» oh puh-lease! Posted by: nedwylie
DONT BITE THE APPLE FELLAS!!!!!!!!
Posted by: gotmyeyeonyou on Mar 29, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just the classic fall of man storyline mankind is unable to learn from over and over and over again. Women have been seduced by the serpent of "equality", have devoured the apple and now you have realised your own nakedness. Nothing you do for the approval of the world will ever be enough. May God have mercy on us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not surprising
Posted by: bqtrain on Mar 29, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people are missing one of the main points of the article. The author isn't just complaining about the injustice being put on women because they are being rejected while being more qualified, but she is pointing out that the drive to be "more qualified" is negatively effecting women.

Most people agree that women have been more submissive and obedient than men throughout the history of civilization. It is expected that since this system has been in place for thousands of years, it would still hold true to some extent today because the world doesn't usually change that quickly. This is a very general statement with many instances that it doesn't hold true, but I am not going to argue this point and if you reject this premise, you probably reject my entire argument.

Given this premise, it is not surprising that if you create a system which requires you to become machine-like, women would be better at adapting to that system. They are less likely to question why a college admission's system should steal a large majority of their time that otherwise could be spent living and experiencing the few precious moments we are allowed to spend on this planet. This may correlate to greater success in college and the workplace because a large part of "success" is due to your ability to focus on a single goal like a machine, but this doesn't mean that their overall enjoyment of life is going to increase. As the author showed with the increase in mental health problems, it has likely decreased.

Freedom doesn't just mean the opportunity to engage in a system, but it also entails the ability to reject a system that is using you unfairly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good point Posted by: Blue Heron
» i agree Posted by: codingguy
» RE: This is not surprising Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: This is not surprising Posted by: Phenix
I'm not sure what the point of this was
Posted by: nikitasan on Mar 29, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article begins by talking about the gender imbalance in colleges and how, even if you are the perfect girl, boys still have an easier time getting into school. Then it ends up as a treatise on the effects of pushing girls too hard. I agree with both points, but I'm not sure how they both belong in the same article. However, I do know that while simply telling women to 'just say no' to over achieving may mean fewer of us are anorexic, we still won't be getting into the ivy leagues and we'll still be making less money than our male counterparts for the same work. I'd rather figure out how to topple the patriarchy instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overachievers Overall
Posted by: Uncategorizeable on Mar 29, 2006 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think most alarming is the fact that so many overachieving teenagers these days, both female and male, have this need to have a five-page resume by the time they exit high school, just to feel qualified enough to get accepted into an Ivy League school. More and more each day it seems to be an issue of quantity over quality: more extracurricular activities, more volunteer work, more leadership roles, more AP classes.

I think the author accomplishes to say with this article is that young women are too often taught that they have to do more than a man in order to prove themselves equivalent. She also accomplishes to point out that young women are taught to be givers, perfectionists and yeswomen, and that they seek constant attention and recognition. But yet again, those are all traits of overachievers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A decent resume leads to failure, that's why
Posted by: lamar on Mar 29, 2006 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can argue whether this is a major issue or a case of whining. Many posters are parents of daughters, and they don't want their daughter to be the perfect cyborg. Get used to this: without that perfect resume, she's screwed. Same with a he. Unless you know somebody or pay somebody off, your resume is all you have to show to strangers, and you can be damn sure that there are 10 people with a better one. Is it my fault that human resource people are truly incompetent? Why are girls so crazy about perfection? Because trust funds and rich uncles aside, success requires it. Start idealistic out-of-touch flaming now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Logical EndPoint of Affirmative Action
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Mar 29, 2006 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After years of admitting less qualified racial minorities over qualified whites, we're now seeing colleges give preferential treatment to lazy, stupid males. Why not end this whole social engineering experiment, and go back to admitting people based on their achievements instead of some irrelevant physical characteristic? At least the racial minorities can claim they did not get good grades in high school due to poverty and discrimination, but males face no such problems.

By the way, applicants admitted under affirmative action programs drop out of college at much higher rates than other students. It really doesn't matter why they don't know their stuff (discrimination or just personal sloth), the fact is they just can't keep up with the curriculum.

Affirmative action penalizes intelligent, hardworking people to benefit fools and slackers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Affirmative Action but economics Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
Pay issue . .
Posted by: petrovsky on Mar 29, 2006 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing keeps coming up here and I would like an explanation for this apparent abberation of our normally hyper-efficient capitalist system. The pay inequity argument (which is patently false).

If women really only made 74 cents on the dollar for the exact same work as a man, then every employer in America would fire their men, and replace them with women. After all, if hiring women was cheaper then hiring men, then that's what businesses would do.

Someone please help me understand this? Why isn't this happening especially in light of the excess of "overachieving, hyper-educated Barnard" graduates flooding the job market? It's nonsense and feminists know it . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pay issue . . Posted by: klaus_in_ohio
» RE: Pay issue . . Posted by: midge
» RE: Pay issue . . Posted by: lunag1rl
» RE: Pay issue . . Posted by: petrovsky
» RE: Pay issue . . Posted by: eringhorm
Blame the female again
Posted by: janvdb on Mar 29, 2006 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So your reaction to the fact that better-qualified girls are being rejected, and lesser-qualified males accepted, is to tell the girls to stop trying so hard?

How about telling the system to stop discriminating against girls?

If it is so that, if all applicants are based strictly on merit, schools would be 95% female, well, then, that's the way it should be.

Anything else is gender discrimination.

If the boys can't cut it, out with the lazy little bastards.

In the business schools and the engineering, computer science, and mathematics programs where the student body is 95% male -- the entirety of MIT is at least 90% male -- is anyone suggesting that underqualified girls be allowed in for gender balance?

No.

Yet, in the liberal arts undergrad programs, where there are more girls qualified, well, THERE we have to ensure "gender balance."

Yes to "gender balance" when it means discriminating against girls. No to "gender balance" when it would mean discriminating against boys.

SUE 'EM!!!!

I expect NOW or the ACLU to take these universities on in court and sue for simple justice.

This type of overt gender discrimination is totally unacceptable.

And then to skip over that simple glaring reality and indulge in convoluted arguments about how, somehow, we can contort this situation so it can be blamed on girls -- who are responding the the reality created by adults who keep moving the goalposts for "success" further and further away the more effort the girls put out, in this case by discriminating against them in favor of lazy, sloppy boys who need a good kick in the ass -- is the worst kind of "blame the victim."

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blame the female again Posted by: petrovsky
» RE: Blame the female again Posted by: codingguy
yeah, about the "progressive" thing people here claim to be...
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 29, 2006 6:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the weight loss article brought out the fat haters, and this article for sure brought out the misogynistic males.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I second Jan: Sue them!
Posted by: davelwhite on Mar 29, 2006 6:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What has happened to "progressivism" when Alternet can post an article that responds to this rather amazing Op-Ed-- openly stating that colleges let boys in with lesser qualifications-- with this psychobabble about girls trying too hard? Step 1: Investigate the allegation and find out which schools are letting "gender balance" result in them turning away girls in favor of less-qualified boys. Step 2: Sue the bastards. Step 3: Win. Is that so hard? In the year 2006, any progressive, of any gender, should be able to think of that right off the bat-- and the fact that people didn't, tells me that "progressives" are falling for the regression against equality just as bad as anybody else.

Why doesn't this article even take a moment to reflect on why boys might not be getting in as much as girls? I can tell you two reasons right off the bat: (1) There are more women than men-- I know the math is hard, but bear with me on this one. And (2) in high school, spending a lot of time studying is not considered to be masculine, hence, the "popular" boys do not do as well in school and apparently are now hoping for a little reverse affirmative action. I studied in high school and got into a good college, but was seen as a geek, and all my friends were women who could deal with that. And of course this distinction between girls and boys is not genetic-- after all, 50 years ago, it was reversed and people assumed that GIRLS were incapable of serious study.

The fact that everybody is up in arms about "boys in trouble" nowadays is prima facie evidence of the biological equality of the sexes, and the mutability of gender roles: in less than 50 years, we have gone from thinking girls are incapable of higher education, straight to fretting about how concentration on academic subjects is something boys (allegedly) find innately more difficult. The fact that people can discuss this subject without NOTICING this obvious contradiction, or even noticing when people in high places at college admission offices are VIOLATING THE LAW, just goes to show that both genders need to hit the books.

Dave White
Former Geek-Boy Who Has No Interest In Letting the Jocks In Easy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I second Jan: Sue them! Posted by: petrovsky
man haters??
Posted by: petrovsky on Mar 29, 2006 8:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting that anyone who disagrees with the dominant feminist ideology is a misogynist. Would be interesting to know what your true feelings are about men . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: man haters?? Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: man haters?? Posted by: petrovsky
» RE: man haters?? Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
Price paid by women in developing world
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 30, 2006 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am now watching a documentary about the large numbers of migrant women imported into the UK to do domesticchores. It is about how badly treated they are. And why are they being brought in? Because western women are pursuing careers and trying to keep all the balls in the air. There is also an even seemier side to this: not only are domestic chores being outsourced to these women, it is also sex that is being outsourced. The large and growing number of prostitutes brought in from eastern europe and asia is to meet this need. You could still just blame men on this one. But would that really be fair? Go and ask those women what they think about our society and women. A better contribution could be made to the sisters around the world by not offloading everything on to them to pursue a career would be wiser. As to the stats people bandy around: those stats are skewed. They often lump together Bill Gates, which pulls up salary expectations. The fact remains, and anybody in management can tell you this, is this: women are now the majority workforce in the white collar jobs and in jobs that require higher education. Just go walk around some offices to see for yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A hard fact Posted by: Bobsays
We can do better for our kids.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 30, 2006 1:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People have raise many good points on different sides of this discussion. I think the general attitudes of skepticism about one view or another is a healthy place for progressives, while it may feel highly charged and divisive, at least it allows us not to follow blindly simplistic solutions or ideas. I think there's potential for all of us to unite on creating measures that would make it easier for more Americans male & female to attend college & have better opportunities for decent jobs & careers. We have been conditioned by Republican tactics of the past 26 years to pit one special interest group against another while they tear our social fabric apart. There is no question boys are in crisis; I work with teens and see it. They are bright but at risk from drugs, gangs, boredom, negative forms of stimulation (violence on TV, video games, and in peer culture). It benefits no one that they are falling through the cracks. We need programs to address that. School performance is related to the other stresses and pressures these kids face. As for the pressure girls face to get into college, there is much to be considered on that end as well in terms of how do all of us want to help our boys and girls to succeed and feel healthy about their lives. This is where we have the potential to unite on solutions that benefit all and don't have to divide us. It benefits no one to leave any of our children behind, except for W. and his crooked, twisted cohorts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Boys being shafted Posted by: Bobsays
Hey what's the problem . . .
Posted by: petrovsky on Mar 30, 2006 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey whoa there fella - what's with the liberal crapola about men being left behind and more importantly who cares . . . ? Haven't you heard the news? Little boys just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and if their dumb little asses can't compete, no sorry that wasn't how Jan phrased it: "If the boys can't cut it, out with the lazy little bastards." There that's better now isn't it? And Bettsoff thought that this article: "brought out the misogynistic males." Furthermore Dave (future housewife and Betty Crocker) says this: "in high school, spending a lot of time studying is not considered to be masculine, hence, the "popular" boys do not do as well in school and apparently are now hoping for a little reverse affirmative action." Wow THIS is the face of progressive America?

Yes you lazy, little 8 year old bastard boys who are sitting in class cleverly biding your time waiting for affirmative action to spring you into Harvard . . . What the hell is wrong with you??

And the feminists think we are hateful and misogynistic. Those lazy little bastards are your sons and your future. Thank you for your caring, nurturing brand of feminizm! LOL

p.s. I hope none of you have sons . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chasing The Wind
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 30, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite what all of the recruiters, elitists, wannabes and Ivy League Alumni think, a quality education can be had at literally hundreds of fine institutions in this country alone. Despite the bias otherwise, sometimes the best and brightest do not earn the highest GPAs in High School & College. The fact is and history shows us that the people who change the world with innovation, revelation and discovery are more often bright kids who struggle in the groupthink environment that most educational institutions are organized and operate by.

The US is slowly (not that slowly) turning into a mini Japan, where everybody is like an academic stage mother and your entire life track is fated by what brand name is on your diploma. I guess it is a natural consequence of the accumulated conditioning of generations of brand marketing in the most consumer driven society in the history of humankind. That is stupid, contrary to American values, wasteful and counter-productive. The use of a particular brand-name Diploma as a sorting mechanism for employment or admittance to further academic programs is convenient, but unwise.

We need to really re-think the hiring process in our country and place people on their abilities and experience rather than on some vague promise of an elite school degree. More often than not, the kids coming out of 'Elite' Schools are kids who conformed to the paradigm that they were in and worked hard. That is not a formula for original thought, innovation, or paradigm busting thesis. What you end up with is a group of efficient bureaucrats. Not exactly a prescription for a bright future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're so white
Posted by: geming on Mar 30, 2006 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of you...so white.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You're so white Posted by: Uncategorizeable
» RE: You're so white Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: You're so white Posted by: Jeff Rohlk
» and 20 years ago... Posted by: nedwylie
Perfection?
Posted by: talkville on Apr 1, 2006 12:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i subscribe to the conviction that to be human is to be fallible. No amount of effort, technological prowess, biological- or social- engineering is going to produce the perfect person - regardless of gender. No amount of medication will cure the damage that's done banging one's head against the wall in search of such a goal. Not only in education but in all we try to seek in actualizing equality, what's needed is more effort towards rights for each and all of us - it's ultimately a political, not only a cultural or social effort. Excellence is pretty well distributed between genders, it's a matter of its availability that's the problem. For each of us, the search for perfection is no paradox - it's just a false dilemma.

[« Reply to this comment] [