Quote:
Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Sep 11 2005, 12:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Sep 11 2005, 12:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Cain@Sep 10 2005, 05:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates
|
Quote:
@Sep 11 2005, 12:00 AM
Funny that your prof skipped that part. As a Soci major at the UofC I've heard countless times about that skipped part, and even gone into much more details as to why it might be.
We looked at it as a counter-arguement against sexism as you have brought up, but it was easily ruled out due to other explanations of the enrollment ratio.
Who was your prof?
|
I hate to disappoint, but I cannot remember the prof's name...Its been a few years now. She was a woman of foreign descent though. She had an accent...maybe an arabic accent? I have no idea anymore.
What were the other explanations of the enrollment ratio?
|
Simple. Better grades. [/b][/quote]
Granted. I said that was probably the reason. But doesn't that indicate something? Or are you satisfied that females are just naturally smarter than us guys? If the reverse were true, you can be damn sure it wouldn't just be passed off as "guys are smarter".
Maybe the education system caters to females. Maybe males aren't encouraged enough to do well, or continue. Maybe things are slightly sexist. I'm not claiming to argue fully any one of these...but the way it gets passed over and brushed off by yourself and others is somewhat alarming. Sort of a, "who cares, it isn't females getting screwed over " attitude.