[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Higher rates of suicide
Lower grades
Higher rates of medication
Lower post secondary enrolement

All items previously identified by other posters.

I still fail to see how any of these issues, with the exception of medication, are anything but an example of individual choice or by actions of the individual? Isn't that what people like Peterson want?

It's odd that you think failure to enroll is on the MALE student only. Why do you believe that we are handing both the Male and Felamle student with the same level of encouragement and preparedness. You are making a false equality of opportunity argument without accounting for underlying factors that limit or enhance the opportunity. It is just as foolish to believe that the differing post secondary enrolement between men and women is a choice as it is to believe that the lost employment opportunities driven by child rearing bring disproportionately born by women is a choice.

It is not just a male thing. Females fail to enroll as well. But when it comes to enrolling and following through to go to classes, women tend to do it more, or at least that's what enrollment statistics say.


Are you seriously suggesting that people failing to apply to school is the same as a woman getting pregnant?

Structural factors in our society which create these differences in opportunity need to be reviewed and addressed.

What structural factors? Isn't this exactly what Peterson is arguing against?

As for the nurse add it's the exception that proves the rule and the reaction to it is entertaining. Compare it to the encouraging enrolement in engineering programs that have done on for about 40 years at least in Canada. These programs being led by the professional associations and universities.

So trying to attract individuals from one group to one faculty is wrong, but to another is okay? Nursing has been trying to attract men into the faculty for years, and has had some degrees of success, but there has been a stigma associated with it being a "woman's job," kind of like IT and engineering jobs being a "guy's job." That is why schools attempt to recruit in different populations, to diversify the representation in particular jobs, and develop a more heterogeneous workforce. It happens in most faculties, but it is more noticeable in certain programs because of the dominance of one sex over another. Some of you weren't alive to see it, but it wasn't that long ago that women didn't go to college, and if they did, they were accused of being their only to get their MRS degree.

Originally Posted by Azure

But this only applies to males, right? Because the lack of women in STEM industries is clearly because the system is structured in such a way that we discourage women from actually TRYING to enroll into STEM classes, and therefore the system needs to be changed. But when it comes to males, the system is fine.

Tell me just how many male students have lost their positions or opportunity to go to college or university as a result of a position in a STEM class being held for women only? Putting together recruiting programs to try and appeal to specific populations of customers happens all the time. This is not new, or news. And it happens to both sexes.

Do you even read your own hypocritical comments?

They aren't hypocritical. You guys are getting all worked up over recruiting programs, instead of looking at the enrollment statistics versus the population of individuals who could go to school. If boys do not want to go to school, that's on them! If a girl is more motivated to enroll in college and try to better herself, that is on her. Just like if a boy decides to enroll, that's on him. But when the statistics show that boys are not enrolling to the same degree as girls, how is that anything but on the male students?

Some of the comments you have posted in the last few pages, especially those talking about forcing Peterson to 'shut up' are pretty much fascist. You are trying to use his being part of a faculty to limit his freedom of speech.

Yeah, I reviewed those and saw the error in my comments and stated as such. Get over it. People make mistakes, and I admitted my mistake in the position I had taken. Peterson has the right to say what he wants, no matter the outcome to his institution.



BTW, he can thank tenure for that (where are all the RWers now complaining about the protections afforded by tenure?). A delicious bit of irony there.

Scary world you live in.

Yes, it is. When the majority and purveyors of power can sit and whine and cry about being oppressed by the minority, or those without power, and there is a large segment of the population that buys that, it is a scary world.