It’s so adorable how hard you guys try to blow my mind.
There has been much discussion over the last few decades of including women in the draft, and now that women are no longer excluded from ground combat roles (which was the primary justification for their exclusion from the draft), you may get your wish. In 1980, the year the draft was reactivated, the National Organization for Women (NOW) announced “opposition to the draft, but states that if there is a draft, NOW supports the inclusion of women on the same basis as men.” Not only that, President Carter himself "recommended that Congress amend the Act to permit the registration and conscription of women as well as men," but it was Congress that “declined to amend the Act to permit the registration of women.” Congress in 1980, by the way, was all of 3.6% female, so you have your fellow men to thank for your complaint. Oh, and an organization specifically for women in the military also supports inclusion of women in Selective Service. (Personally, I think the whole thing should be abolished for everyone, but I know you’re not really interested in my thoughts.)
Are you seriously complaining about all-female colleges when the reason they exist is that women weren’t allowed to go to college in the first fucking place? ”Education for women in the 1800s was minimal during that period. Schooling was for the male gender, and if a woman wanted to go to school, she was looked down upon.” Oh, and there are about 48 active colleges in the US that admit only women, which is about 1% of all colleges. The historical exclusion of women from higher education, as well as the current gender imbalance in the STEM fields, are a couple of reasons why women-only scholarships exist; often, “scholarships for women have a specific goal in mind, whether it is to get women into leadership positions, doctoral programs, or currently male-dominated industries or companies.” Also, there are scholarships just for men. And, you are flat-out wrong in your assertion that women are more likely to be hired. I mean, like, very wrong.
What were you saying?
And boom goes the dynamite.
And actually I’m completely right that women are more likely to get hired. An example of this: Apple, the company, recently released its diversity report. A diversity report shows how ethnically and genderly diverse a company is, why, I don’t know seems pointless to hire people basses on anything other than skill. Anyway, females make up 20% of apples tech employees, yet females only acquire an average of 12% of tech scholarships, and they don’t score near the top generally. So yea, you’re wrong. Like bad, bad wrong.
This such a sad attempt that I was tempted to leave it alone out of pity, but I want you to take note that you’re trying to prove me wrong about the “sexist” treatment of men by:
- providing an example of one, individual company’s hiring stats, which show that the company employs 80% men, in order to somehow demonstrate that women are universally more likely to be hired (because math means whatever you want it to mean?), and
- providing the statistic that men receive 88% of tech scholarships, which, though completely unsourced and therefore assumed spurious, does absolutely nothing to help your argument, if you can call it that.
This is getting really embarrassing for you, dude. You should probably lie down.