Comments on: In defence of white male students

By: Haoyiping

Haoyiping — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:43:24 +0000

For all of us, male students have more advantage than the female students to get high mark. However, nobody admit women will not achieve the same goal with the men. Thus, the number of male in the university is not a big deal. The most important is that the university can provide so many talented people to the world. What we need to care is how far the humanbeing can get. Therefore, we perfer to pay more attention on the result of the study, not the gender of the students.

By: Daniel kang

Daniel kang — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:40:00 +0000

Women are not attacting the Campus but helping .

By: Raging_Ranter

Raging_Ranter — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:31:56 +0000

Precisely. Against whom will the future sexual harassment charges be laid, if not white males?

By: Raging_Ranter

Raging_Ranter — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:19:07 +0000

AKA the SNAG – Sensitive New Age Guy. The SNAG has numerous female "buddies" who often come to him for comfort when they have man troubles. The SNAG misinterprets this attention as expressions of potential sexual interest. But the SNAG rarely, if ever, gets laid. Thinking that if only he tries harder to "understand and relate to women" he will finally get the intimacy he craves, he redoubles his efforts to emasculate himself. He winds up with yet more female buddies, and his prospects for sex are worse than ever. The vicious cycle continues.

By: Raging_Ranter

Raging_Ranter — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:08:01 +0000

Couldn't agree with you more. The whole affimative action – pay equity – diversity industry needs to be wrapped up and sent out to pasture. And it is an industry. What HR department doesn't have "diversity experts" pushing some insane brand of "sensitivity training" on the workforce? Take a look at how many "diversity consultants" offer their independent services to companies who need to hire them to remain onside human rights laws. It's an industry, and a burgeoning one at that.

By: Fred - Brandon MB

Fred - Brandon MB — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:29:05 +0000

We're raising a generation of "girlie-men"!

By: chop

chop — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:20:57 +0000

men should just do the lifting and pushing, less on important stuff. :)

By: nuttyprofessor

nuttyprofessor — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:05:04 +0000

for a lot of jobs you get a degree then when you work they ignore the degree .. it's not like the degree directly trained you for the job it's really just an entrance to the job …that goes for many many kinds of degrees including pretty much all the social science ones

By: Matt J

Matt J — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:22:32 +0000

The reason behind this is because a couple of years ago, everyone was concerned about the skilled trades shortage. So then every guidance counsellor and teacher in high schools would immediately recommend students to go out and get a job in construction. Forget university, these jobs are paying 20 dollars an hour right now! Do an apprenticeship! Then within one or two years the recession hit, and these same 20/hour jobs got sent back to what they're actually worth, of 10-12/hour. And now a lot of people who could have gone to university, are at the point where they've been working for a year, and don't feel like going back to school. As soon as you start pushing one thing, it's going to make the other have a bigger need. So, soon they're going to start recommending everyone to take university because of shortages of graduates. Then they'll go back to recommending trades. And so on and so forth.

By: delford t louis

delford t louis — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:11:45 +0000

beyond moi what skin color has to do with smarts, or savvy, or whatever…anyone… almost every human is hard wired to succeed but most devote energy to 'other stuff'….i like the idea of women being leaders in many forums why the hell not, ego difference exists, like it or not..

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:15:09 +0000

Men are just defective women, to be modified or destroyed. Let the situation evolve – eventually 100% female enrollment will help women cure climate change, heal the earth, and end war. Men need to step aside and bow to their new leaders, women are intrinsically superior to them.

By: Denis Pakkala

Denis Pakkala — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:00:11 +0000

On one recent encounter with a feminist man (a Brock University male nurse) at an event for women’s shelters. I was there talking to men about violence against men.

The Brock male nurse was quite clear that:

1. When a man hits a woman, it’s his fault. When a woman hits a man, it’s his fault.
2. 99% of statistics are made up.
3. He didn’t want to hear anything I had to say.

So if you’re a man in the hospital, you can be sure that you won’t get help from the nurse’s, especially if that’s how they are trained.

I have a lot of experience with these people, I have no respect for them because they deny the truth and harrass and slander the messenger.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf

Statistics Canada reports that “ALMOST EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN (7% and 8% respectively) had been the victims of intimate partner physical and psychological abuse (18% and 19% respectively). These findings were consistent with several earlier studies which reported equal rates of abuse by women and men in intimate relationships”

By: Flintman

Flintman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:03:15 +0000

If it's "still good to be a man" then why are men 80% of the homeless (gotta love those superior job opportunities!), 80% of all suicides, 96% of incarcerations, 95% of all on-the-job fatalities (wage gap explained? no pain, no gain), and fathers win sole custody 6% of the time vs mothers 94% (which is telling because it says male dominated spheres must fall, but female dominated spheres must remain).

So much for your argument. Thank you come again!

By: Denis Pakkala

Denis Pakkala — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:40:52 +0000

The problem is that men's rights and social issues are deemed unimportant and are commonly belitted by ignorant feminist bigots.

This is a serious issue that men and boys are falling so far behind as a result of feminist marginalization. Anyone who dares speak up about such things is automatically attacked.

I've debated many feminists, they don't have any intelligent discourse.

It's pathetic that these eunichs are signing up for women's studies courses in feminist ideology, meanwhile there is no government funding for men's rights or men's studies courses!

By: Jack Dumas

Jack Dumas — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:40:14 +0000

Its amzing to me that educated people do not understand the power of demographic. The old argument that men makes up most of the CEOS, lawer, only has another 15 to 20 yeas at the most. are poeple really this stupid. Good for you Indira Samarasekera.

By: Flintman

Flintman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:08:35 +0000

I'd rather have a lame-brain (of any gender) make a mistake on my check, than a lame-brain engineer (as you mentioned many feminists organizations are trying to submit quotas and lower standards to get more women into engineering) eff up designing an aircraft or skyscraper that falls on me while trying to cash that check.

It's funny that 40 years of **precisely** that point of sub-par professionals being unleashed into society was run rough-shod over by feminists and black support groups. lol

By: Flintman

Flintman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:47 +0000

Oh yeah, men also live 7-10 years shorter and research $$$ for female-specific diseases is about 5 to 1 for research $$$ of male-specific diseases.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:30:18 +0000

P.S. … At the same time I also stand in defense (defence) of free speech on college campuses. As obnoxious at Ms. Warwick's papering of "humorous" signs on campus was, the admins should not have threatened her with penalties for doing so. If she can be threatened (or an attempt made) by sanction into silence, then so can MRAs. And don't we know it.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:27:09 +0000

Of course they want more white male students, in fact more male students in general. This is because everyone else needs someone to blame when you don't get your way all the time.

I mean, how can you be oppressed if there are now evil white downpressormen to actually point to?

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:01:16 +0000

Good shot there Denis. I really couldn't give a rip what the politically correct viewpoint is, after reading the article (yep, some of us men folks can still read) I gave another look at the photo. Is one of them a man? Must be one of those new 'Metrosexuals'. A man in a Women's Studies Major? From what I have read about the majority of the 'Women's Studies' classes, they are a good part of the reason Men are forgoing University.

By: Someone with Sense

Someone with Sense — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:33:14 +0000

Wow, Denis. Maybe after you're done reading Iron John and freeing your inner hairy man-self, you'd like to get over whatever childhood trauma has made you the blathering idiot that you are, and join us here in the real world.

Everyone else: sorry to bring down the level of the comments. Some things just need to be said.

By: G. M. E.

G. M. E. — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:18:56 +0000

It's no longer okay in my opinion to afford special attention to any particular demographic simply for being different from the other demographics.
Race, gender, sexual preference, height, weight, mobility, age… We need to stop classifying everyone, period. This isn't the world of 100 years ago. If you qualify for a job, you have every chance to get it. If you qualify for a sport, you have the chance to compete for a spot on the team.

A clear message needs to be sent that you're no longer special just because you've been born with or without certain body parts, or because your gender or skin color "is not well represented" in your area. These are not key elements of determining who can be capable of what.

Exploiting each others' differences for the sake of championing a so-called cause is ironically inappropriate.

By: robert quinn

robert quinn — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:44:36 +0000

Is this the same Derek Warwick who assaulted those bikers a few months ago?

By: Justin Simonelis

Justin Simonelis — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:54:59 +0000

Who cares? What a waste of time, let's look into some real issues.

By: hosertohoosier

hosertohoosier — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:02:33 +0000

Oh and what is the impact of encouraging more men to go to university (lets say with quotas or something like that)? Some relatively non booksmart men will struggle through university, instead of working towards a more applied profession. They will probably end up making less money, since the dregs of university students don't actually fare that well in the job market. Women who otherwise would have been admitted, won't be. Instead they will be stuck in the trap of working woman poverty. Consumers and co-workers are worse off too – we get some smart waitresses and bedpan-clearers, and some lame-brained males in HR.

By: hosertohoosier

hosertohoosier — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:55:06 +0000

Yes, but where do you see men? Men outnumber women in post-graduate classes, in engineering classes, and in business schools. In other words, there are more women, but not where a university degree pays. Why is this?

Men have generally better job opportunities than women upon leaving high school. The trades offer fairly good wages, as do some manufacturing sectors (in part thanks to unionization). They can also find lots of good public sector jobs, as firemen, policemen, etc. While there aren't explicit restrictions on women working in such fields, there are a lot of invisible ones. A lot of people would do a double-take if they saw a female plumber. I posit that men stay out of university in part because it pays to do so (the failure of high schools to teach boys effectively may also play a part). For less booksmart men, taking 6 years to barely get a degree in philosophy is probably an unwise investment, particularly when the opportunity cost is higher (since men have generally better job prospects).

Women have much worse "low-end" job prospects. Apart from some of the worse-paying nursing positions (the better ones require a university degree), clerical and service sector jobs await women that don't go to university. Some jobs, like retail or waitressing may even see wages decrease over time (because, particularly for a saleswoman/waitress, their looks impact their ability to get commission/tips). The better-paying fields that women tend to go into – teachers, higher-end nurses, HR professionals, and so on generally require university education, particularly if one wants to move up in the ranks. Of course, women have one option that men don't usually use – marry rich. Having a degree is pretty helpful in marrying a future-rich man, and university is a good place to meet such men.

In other words, its still good to be a man.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:51:39 +0000

So what you're saying ejd, is that logic and reasoning that was good enough for one gender isn't used when the situation is reversed?

Affirmative action and all the various gender rules should be applied equally. If we got freaked out when women were underrepresented, we'd better do it when men are. Or we're discriminating on basis of gender, and should call out the human rights commission.

By: ejd

ejd — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:09:49 +0000

"who worries about a loss of gender diversity in the future ranks of CEOs and judges"

Is this supposed to be satire? Is anyone really concerned that in the future, there might be a few more women doing the jobs which historically have been overwhelmingly male-dominated? Just another sign that university is a place far, far removed from the real world.