Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Not enough men in college? Let's be worried....
Very worried. John Tierney, conservative columnist for The New York Times, and Melana Zyla Vickers of The Weekly Standard sure are.
What to do? Vickers actually suggests that the government should "take a serious look at whether continued enforcement of Title IX is keeping men away from college."
You've got to be kidding! Heaven forbid that women actually take the lead in some aspect of our civil life! The consequences will be certainly be dire, these pundits warn. To Tierney, the success of affirmative action for women in college enrollments will undoubtedly turn sour: "You could think of this as a victory for women's rights, but many of the victors will end up celebrating alone," he warns.
Oh yeah? Well maybe "many of the victors" will end up celebrating with each other! Maybe there's more on women's minds these days than finding a mate! The calculated reference to Jane Austen in Tierney's title takes us back to the days when "it was universally acknowledged that a single man of good fortune must be in want of a wife," and when women like the Bennett sisters were eager to oblige. But read Pride & Prejudice a little more carefully, and you'll notice that even in those days, women like Elizabeth and Mary Bennett, who would certainly rank among today's top undergrads, were more interested in intellectual stimulation than in securing a rich husband.
Of course I don't want to see men fail at college. But I resent the implication that women are succeeding at men's expense, and that if they leave men in the dust, they will come to regret it. Women have been left in the dust for so long that hey, we know it doesn't feel good. But the way around it is empowerment for everyone, not holding women back so men can catch up.
"The trends are grave," Vickers warns. "Women outstrip men in education despite that there are 15 million men and 14.2 million women aged 18--24 in the country. Kentucky colleges enroll at least 67 first--year women for every 50 men. Delaware has 74 first--year women for every 50 men."
Tierney puts a personal cast on these statistics in his coyly titled article "Male Pride and Female Prejudice," observing that with fewer college-educated men available, college-educated women may have difficulty finding adequate mates. "When there are three women for every two men graduating from college, whom will the third woman marry?" he asks plaintively.What to do? Vickers actually suggests that the government should "take a serious look at whether continued enforcement of Title IX is keeping men away from college."
You've got to be kidding! Heaven forbid that women actually take the lead in some aspect of our civil life! The consequences will be certainly be dire, these pundits warn. To Tierney, the success of affirmative action for women in college enrollments will undoubtedly turn sour: "You could think of this as a victory for women's rights, but many of the victors will end up celebrating alone," he warns.
Oh yeah? Well maybe "many of the victors" will end up celebrating with each other! Maybe there's more on women's minds these days than finding a mate! The calculated reference to Jane Austen in Tierney's title takes us back to the days when "it was universally acknowledged that a single man of good fortune must be in want of a wife," and when women like the Bennett sisters were eager to oblige. But read Pride & Prejudice a little more carefully, and you'll notice that even in those days, women like Elizabeth and Mary Bennett, who would certainly rank among today's top undergrads, were more interested in intellectual stimulation than in securing a rich husband.
Of course I don't want to see men fail at college. But I resent the implication that women are succeeding at men's expense, and that if they leave men in the dust, they will come to regret it. Women have been left in the dust for so long that hey, we know it doesn't feel good. But the way around it is empowerment for everyone, not holding women back so men can catch up.
