He's entitled to his opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

when is this happening? I am a conservative lawyer and engineer and the only pushback I've ever gotten is from liberals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the opinion that, barring disability, if you get a tertiary degree in a competitive field with limited admission - you should be required to work in that field for 5-7 years full-time. Otherwise you are taking the opportunity away from someone who WILL use the degree and for the better of society. (And no I don't care if you were scholarship or full pay)

Far too many 'Mrs' degrees and proud SAHM/Ds blogs who say 'Oh I have a law degree from Harvard teehee but all I do all day is knit and change diapers'.

What a sad view of education.

Education is a privilege and one that means a lot to some people and nothing some others who do nothing with it.

I do not agree with the MRS poster, but I do think it would be interesting to look at the number of women attorneys vs women engineers that leave the full time workforce within 5-10 years. Although the comparison is not really the same because a very high number of engineering jobs are available with only a bachelors, which is not the case for attorneys.

DP.. and why do you suppose so many women leave those fields?

Gender roles in society and the family play a *HUGE* role in why women leave high pressure careers. Conservatives want to perpetuate the "traditional" family values, ie, sahm or non-high powered jobs. They don't want to upset the apple cart and have men take on the sahp role. That's women's work, per conservatives.

Anonymous wrote:He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

He also said that they should recruit more men.

Women don't go into those fields because they are not encouraged to like men are. They are "encouraged" by conservatives to be sahm and go into education and nursing -- ie, gender roles.

If they don't want to go into STEM fields, they don't. Women do have minds of their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the opinion that, barring disability, if you get a tertiary degree in a competitive field with limited admission - you should be required to work in that field for 5-7 years full-time. Otherwise you are taking the opportunity away from someone who WILL use the degree and for the better of society. (And no I don't care if you were scholarship or full pay)

Far too many 'Mrs' degrees and proud SAHM/Ds blogs who say 'Oh I have a law degree from Harvard teehee but all I do all day is knit and change diapers'.

What a sad view of education.

Education is a privilege and one that means a lot to some people and nothing some others who do nothing with it.

I do not agree with the MRS poster, but I do think it would be interesting to look at the number of women attorneys vs women engineers that leave the full time workforce within 5-10 years. Although the comparison is not really the same because a very high number of engineering jobs are available with only a bachelors, which is not the case for attorneys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the opinion that, barring disability, if you get a tertiary degree in a competitive field with limited admission - you should be required to work in that field for 5-7 years full-time. Otherwise you are taking the opportunity away from someone who WILL use the degree and for the better of society. (And no I don't care if you were scholarship or full pay)

Far too many 'Mrs' degrees and proud SAHM/Ds blogs who say 'Oh I have a law degree from Harvard teehee but all I do all day is knit and change diapers'.

What a sad view of education.

Education is a privilege and one that means a lot to some people and nothing some others who do nothing with it.

I strongly, strongly, disagree with you. Education is a right that should be subsidized by the government, at all levels, like all other wealthy nations do. Anyone who is intellectually prepared for rigorous courses should be able to access them. The selection should only be academic.

If you want to force people into jobs, then HAVE THE GOVERNMENT ALSO SUBSIDIZE CHILD CARE, backward moron.

He actually said women should not be encouraged into careers they do not want. Basically stop trying to pressure women into STEM just for "women in STEM" credit.

He didnt say they didn't belong there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You left out this part: Yenor said on Twitter that "making special efforts to recruit women into fields where they don't seem to want to be" should be stopped, and he denied wanting to prevent women from obtaining those professions.

I wonder about this also. If women don't want to go into engineering why make such an effort to recruit them?

Medicine and law are different of course, women don't need to be recruited since plenty apply plenty on their own.

Be smarter. He wants the traditional family. He wants to keep women home.

You need to see where he’s going; the exact words don’t matter as much as the fact he’s involved in this “Family” organization.

where did he say this?

Click the "made disparaging remarks" hyperlink. You can watch him literally say that feminism and teaching that women want the things men naturally want (jobs, education, independence) is a "genuine threat" to the nation because it will destroy families. Then there are a bunch of dogwhistles about androgynous sluts and urban careerism. This is not an assumption, it's his thesis.

But it is kind of funny to listen to. He sounds like a blithering idiot but he's saying the quiet part out loud. My favorite part is that feminism makes women "more medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome than women need to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the opinion that, barring disability, if you get a tertiary degree in a competitive field with limited admission - you should be required to work in that field for 5-7 years full-time. Otherwise you are taking the opportunity away from someone who WILL use the degree and for the better of society. (And no I don't care if you were scholarship or full pay)

Far too many 'Mrs' degrees and proud SAHM/Ds blogs who say 'Oh I have a law degree from Harvard teehee but all I do all day is knit and change diapers'.

What a sad view of education.

Education is a privilege and one that means a lot to some people and nothing some others who do nothing with it.

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the opinion that, barring disability, if you get a tertiary degree in a competitive field with limited admission - you should be required to work in that field for 5-7 years full-time. Otherwise you are taking the opportunity away from someone who WILL use the degree and for the better of society. (And no I don't care if you were scholarship or full pay)

Far too many 'Mrs' degrees and proud SAHM/Ds blogs who say 'Oh I have a law degree from Harvard teehee but all I do all day is knit and change diapers'.

What a sad view of education.

I'm of the opinion that, barring disability, if you get a tertiary degree in a competitive field with limited admission - you should be required to work in that field for 5-7 years full-time. Otherwise you are taking the opportunity away from someone who WILL use the degree and for the better of society. (And no I don't care if you were scholarship or full pay)

Far too many 'Mrs' degrees and proud SAHM/Ds blogs who say 'Oh I have a law degree from Harvard teehee but all I do all day is knit and change diapers'.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You left out this part: Yenor said on Twitter that "making special efforts to recruit women into fields where they don't seem to want to be" should be stopped, and he denied wanting to prevent women from obtaining those professions.

I wonder about this also. If women don't want to go into engineering why make such an effort to recruit them?

Medicine and law are different of course, women don't need to be recruited since plenty apply plenty on their own.

Be smarter. He wants the traditional family. He wants to keep women home.

You need to see where he’s going; the exact words don’t matter as much as the fact he’s involved in this “Family” organization.

where did he say this?

It's obviously implied, and I'm not pp.

ah, but of course.

Anonymous wrote:Idaho gonna Idaho.

Yep, it's Boise State.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the key word here is "recruited." I don't think the guy is saying he doesn't believe women should be working in those professions.

LOL nice try. But he literally says in the next sentence that efforts should be made to "recruit" men to those fields. So the issue is not recruiting, it's who is being recruited. Women = wrong, Men = right.

My mistake. He says it in the SAME sentence, not the next sentence.

I was reading the CNN article in the link, 5th paragraph. I don't see what you mention, but I believe you. No quarrel with you.

Scroll up. Paragraph 3.

Anonymous wrote:But this board assured me that if you wouldn't encourage your daughter to apply for college in retrograde states, you're a bigot.